"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Chapter One Matthew begins his gospel with the genealogy of Jesus from Abraham to Joseph. Thus he shows the royal lineage of Jesus from David, one of the first things required to convince a Jewish audience that Jesus qualified to be the Messiah (Matthew 1:1-17; cf. Matthew 22:41-42). The birth of Jesus is then described, with the announcement of the angel to Joseph, and the protection of her virginity until His birth (Matthew 1:18-25). POINTS TO PONDER * The genealogy, comparing it with the one in Luke’ s gospel * The prophecies of Isaiah and the angel regarding the virgin birth * The significance of the names given to the child born of Mary REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter?- The genealogy of Jesus Christ - Matthew 1:1-17- The birth of Jesus Christ - Matthew 1:18-25 2) Whose genealogy is given by Matthew? (Matthew 1:1) - Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham 3) What four women are included in this genealogy? (Matthew 1:3 Matthew 1:5-6) - Tamar - Rahab - Ruth - The wife (Bathsheba) of Uriah 4) What was the initial relationship between Joseph and Mary? (Matthew 1:18) - Betrothed (engaged) 5) When and how did Mary become pregnant? (Matthew 1:18) - Before she and Joseph came together - From the Holy Spirit (cf. Luke 1:26-35) 6) What two names would be given the child, and what do they mean?(Matthew 1:21-23) - Jesus (savior); Immanuel (God with us) 7) What scripture in the OT was fulfilled by the virgin birth of Christ?(Matthew 1:22-23) - That written by Isaiah in Isaiah 7:14 8) How long did Joseph wait until he knew Mary as his wife? (Matthew 1:25) - Until she had given birth to her son (Jesus) Matthew 1:1-25 Matthew 1 THE AND BIRTH OF CHRIST; THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD Matthew 1:1-17 This genealogy is quite unlike that in Luke 3:1-38. Labored efforts to reconcile the two generally lead to suppositions concerning Levirate marriages in which the issue had two fathers (the legal and the actual), and also to various renditions of the same name, and other devices pressed into service for the purpose of achieving a "harmony"! Perhaps the best, and certainly the simplest, reconciliation of these two lists is to view Matthew's account as the ancestry of Joseph, and Luke's genealogy as the record of Mary's ancestry. Two separate genealogies of Jesus Christ are absolutely necessary in the establishment of the Christ, first as the blood descendant of David, and secondly, as the legal heir to the royal throne of the Hebrews. Matthew shows Christ as the legal heir to the throne by tracing his ancestry down through the royal line of the kings of Israel. Luke's genealogy is utterly different, because it is not concerned with title to a throne but with the blood ancestry of Jesus. The only real difficulty in this view is the statement in Luke 3:23 that Joseph is the "son of Heli." R. A. Torrey stated that "Joseph's name is introduced into this place instead of Mary's, he being Mary's husband. Heli was Joseph's father-in-law; and so Joseph was called "the son of Heli." While Joseph was son-in-law of Heli, he was, according to the flesh, actually the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16).[11] This type of double entry was not confusing to the Jews, for a woman's name did not usually stand in the tables of genealogy. The term "son" as used in such tables actually had three different meanings: (1) son by actual birth; (2) son-in-law; and (3) son by creation, as in the case of Adam (Luke 3:38). There is no evidence that the names Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in the two lists refer to the same individuals. It would be just as reasonable to suppose that the two Eliakims refer to the same man. The Jews, as do all peoples, used the same names over and over. There are two each of the following names in the Luke account of the 76 generations from Christ to Adam: Cainan, Matthat, Melchi, Levi, Joseph, Mattathias, and Jesus! The two genealogies of Jesus also clear up another point. The prophecy in Jeremiah 22:30 forbade any descendant of Jechoniah ever to sit upon the throne of David. Therefore, if Jesus had actually been the literal fleshly descendant of "Coniah," as he was called, it would have countermanded his claim upon the throne due to the prophecy, Joseph, Jesus' foster father, however, could lawfully transfer his right to the throne to his legal son, Jesus Christ! Thus, Jesus was the legal son with right to the throne of David through Jechoniah, and he was the literal blood-son of David through Nathan, the ancestor of Mary, Jesus' mother. How marvelous are the ways of the Lord. Again, from Torrey, "As we study these two genealogies, we find that so far from constituting a reason for doubting the accuracy of the Bible, they are rather a confirmation of the minutest accuracy of that Book ... We need no longer stumble over the fact of there being two genealogies, but discover and rejoice in the deep meaning of the fact that there are two."[12] [11] R. A. Torrey, Difficulties in the Bible (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1907), p. 102. [12] Ibid., p. 103. The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. (Matthew 1:1) The book of the generation. The true meaning of this appears in a glance at various renditions in some of the versions and translations: "The book of the origin of Jesus Christ"[13] (Catholic); "The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ" (RSV);[14] "Register of the lineage of Jesus Christ" (Emphatic Diaglott);[15] "The ancestry of Jesus Christ" (Goodspeed);[16] "The family tree of Jesus Christ" (Williams);[17] "The birth roll of Christ" (Moffatt).[18] The son of David. Jesus was the literal son of David through Mary, a descendant of Nathan, one of David's sons, as in Luke's genealogy. Jesus was the legal son and heir of David through King Solomon as in Matthew's genealogy. He was also the antitypical son of David in that many parallels exist between the life of our Lord and that of King David. Both were born in Bethlehem. David's struggle with Goliath answers to Christ's struggle with Satan. In both cases, it was the enemy's own weapon which was used to destroy him (Hebrews 2:14). Both David and Christ were sent by their father with a message to the brethren. Both were rejected. David was, in a sense, a mediator between the of Israel and the Philistines; Christ is the one Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5). Matthew considered it of great importance to identify Jesus Christ as the Son of David, a popular designation for the Messiah; and he does so in the very first verse of his gospel. The son of Abraham. Jesus was the "son of Abraham" in the following senses: (1) He was the "seed" of promise (Galatians 3:16). (2) He was the legal son and heir through Isaac, son of the free woman, as distinguished from Ishmael, son of the slave woman. (3) He was literally descended from Abraham through Mary and her ancestors. (4) He was the antitype of Isaac. As in the case of David, there are also sharp contrasts between the life of Abraham and that of Christ. Abraham gave up his wife to Abimelech in order to procure his own safety, or so he thought; but Jesus gave himself up to die for his bride, the church (Genesis 20:2 and Ephesians 5:25). [13] Roman Catholic Testament. [14] Revised Standard Version. [15] Emphatic Diaglott. [16] Goodspeed, New Testament in Modern Speech. [17] Williams, The New Testament. [18] Moffatt, The New Testament. Verse 3 Of Tamar. Tamar's name in the Old Testament (Genesis 38:1-30) is remembered for her having been twice the daughter-in-law of Judah, and later, by means of a deception, his wife also. It was with reference to her that Onan refused to raise up seed to his brother; and the Roman Catholic superstition concerning birth control is founded on this incident in the life of Onan and Tamar. Paul Blanchard's comment on this is: Onan, not wishing to give his brother credit for paternity under the system of Jewish law, "spilled" his seed on the ground, whereupon "God slew him also." If this story has any moral, it is that all men who refuse to marry their brothers' widows should be killed. Indeed, that was the moral of the original story, since the Levirate law laid down the rule for the Jews that a man inheriting his brother's cattle and lands should also cohabit with his deceased brother's wife or wives and raise a direct heir for his brother's property. Onan's primary sin was the defiance of a property law of ancient Jews, a law that was abandoned at least 2,000 years ago! ... Catholic theologians, lacking any Scriptural authority for their extreme position on birth control, have taken this ancient story of Onan, distorted its meaning by declaring that Jehovah slew Onan for his "coitus interruptus," and inflated this "interpretation" into a whole system of social hygiene for the 20th Century.[19] ENDNOTE: [19] Paul Blanchard, American Freedom and Catholic Power (Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press), pp. 138-139. Verse 4 Ram. This is the same as "Arni" (Luke 3:33). Also, it should be noted that several names are possibly omitted from this list of generations from Abraham to David. McGarvey pointed out that from the appearance of Rahab in the line, "There are 366 years for the time between this event and the birth of David?[20] Obviously, therefore, only the most noted of intervening ancestors are given in the tables. This was, of course, a procedure well known to the Jews and fully acceptable to them in every way. Even the enemies of Christianity never disputed these genealogies during the times when they were available as public records of the Jews. ENDNOTE: [20] J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on Matthew and Mark (Nashville, Tennessee: The Gospel Advocate Company), p. 16. Verse 5 Rahab ... Ruth. Rahab is identified with the woman of that name who was a harlot on the walls of Jericho (Joshua 2:1). Ruth appears in Scripture as one of the sweetest and truest of womankind ever to live upon the earth. She, like Rahab, was a Gentile. The Book of Ruth recounts her remarkable story. Verse 6 ... wife of Uriah. It is a marvel, in the providence of God, that this guilty and unfortunate wife of Uriah the Hittite should have found a place in the Lord's ancestry; however, her first child was not permitted to live. David's sin with her constitutes one of the saddest events in the Old Testament. Like the two women in Matthew 1:5, she was presumably a Gentile. Verse 7 And Joram begat Uzziah. Here are skipped some names in the ancestry, as will be seen by a glance at 2 Kings 8:26 ff. This was a common practice of the keepers of genealogical records in those days. Verse 17 Fourteen generations. This is an artificial grouping of the names to make possible their easier retention by the memory. It will be noted that Jechoniah is counted twice, being the end of the second grouping and also the beginning of the third and final grouping. McGarvey's view is typical of many. He said, "Matthew, seeing there were just 14 names in the preceding division, desired for the sake of aiding the memory, to have the same number in the next one."[21] Matthew had Scriptural precedent for this, to say nothing of his inspiration. Ezra, in giving his own genealogy, omits six names in a single group. This will appear in a comparison of Ezr 7:1-2 with 1 Chronicles 6:6-11. ENDNOTE: [21] Ibid., p. 16. Verse 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. The Virgin Birth: Christ was born of Mary without the aid of the natural processes of generation. This is a prominent and essential teaching of the Christian religion. To give up the doctrine of the virgin birth is to sacrifice the integrity of the gospel authors, the convictions of the apostolic church, and the entire premise of supernatural religion as revealed in the Holy Bible. Apart from Jesus Christ, the virgin birth seems difficult to believe; however, considered with reference to his own blessed Person, the miracle of his birth appears less as a marvel and more as a necessity. The great miracle of the New Testament is not the virgin birth, or walking on the water, or the resurrection of Christ, but JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF! The phenomenon of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, not only admits but demands just such an entry into this world of human life as that revealed in the virgin birth. "The Word" (John 1:1) has existed from all eternity, but the marvel is that he should consent to become a man at all, not that he should pass through the processes of conception and birth as well. Furthermore, in normal procreation, the union of a man and a woman always produces a NEW LIFE. Christ's life was not new but had existed from before the beginning of the creation. In truth, it can hardly be imagined just HOW God could enter the world of human life in any other way than that depicted in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. Jesus' conception in the womb of the virgin Mary is not more wonderful, really, than any other conception; it is merely different. In fact, it is unique; but it was not more difficult on the part of God for this to happen than for any other baby to he born. Wonderful benefits accrue to mankind as a result of the virgin birth. His birth accomplished the following: (1) It honored and elevated womanhood to a place of dignity, honor, and respect, hitherto unknown on earth. (2) It virtually destroyed infanticide by revealing the sanctity of embryonic life. (3) It has emphasized absolute chastity as one of the highest virtues in both men and women. (4) It has glorified motherhood as a state of purity and honor every whit as righteous and desirable as virginity. Concerning the infancy of Jesus Christ, Spurgeon said: Is he not rightly called Wonderful? Infinite and an infant! Eternal, yet born of a woman! Almighty, and yet hanging on a woman's breast! Supporting the universe, yet needing to be carried on a mother's arm! King of Angels, and yet the reputed son of Joseph! Heir of all things, and yet the carpenter's despised son! Wonderful art thou, O Jesus! And that shall be thy name forever?[22] Betrothed ... before they came together. In those times, betrothal was legally equivalent to marriage, and adultery during the period of waiting was punishable by death by stoning (Deuteronomy 22:23-24). That this law was still practiced in the day of Christ is shown by John 8:5. By the Holy Spirit. Matthew leaves no room for misunderstanding of this important point. Mary's conception was the work of the Holy Spirit of God and must therefore be understood as the most holy and sacred occurrence that can possibly be imagined! ENDNOTE: [22] Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Sermons, Volume 5 (New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company), p. 20. Verse 19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. As Joseph thought on these things, his desire was to show mercy to one who appeared, in his eyes, to be guilty of sin. The noble character of Joseph who desired to shield Mary under those circumstances is most commendable. He was of a different kind from those in the present day who delight to expose what they fancy to be the sins of others. In Joseph was fulfilled the word of the Lord which declares that "He that is of a faithful spirit concealeth the matter" (Proverbs 11:13). Verse 20 But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. An angel of the Lord This is perhaps the same angel whose name is given in Luke 1:19; Luke 1:26; if so, he is Gabriel. The existence of angels affords no difficulty for Christians. The Scriptures abound with the deeds of angels. Angels announced the birth of Christ, ministered to Jesus in the wilderness of temptations, strengthened him in the garden of Gethsemane, and escorted him to glory. Angels appeared and spoke at his resurrection (Matthew 28:5), at his ascension (Acts 1:11), to Cornelius (Acts 10:3), to Philip (Acts 8:26), and to Peter (Acts 12:7). The scholarly Robert Milligan summarizes the functions of angels as follows: (1) to frustrate the wiles of Satan (Jude 1:1-16); (2) to punish wicked men (Genesis 19:1-26; 2 Kings 19:35; Acts 12:23); (3) to preside over the councils of princes and governments (Daniel 10:20-21; Daniel 11:1; Daniel 12:1); (4) to aid providentially in bringing men to repentance (Acts 10:1-8); (5) to take care of living saints (Hebrews 1:14; 2 Kings 6:15-23; Psalms 34:7; Psalms 91:11; Daniel 3:25-28; Daniel 6:22; Matthew 18:10; Acts 5:19; Acts 12:7); (6) to comfort dying saints and to bear their souls home to glory (Luke 16:22).[23] To Milligan's six works assigned to angels, we may add a seventh if we include the work of angels in keeping God's "little book," the New Testament, available or "open" to humanity (Revelation 10:1-11). ENDNOTE: [23] Robert Milligan, Commentary on Hebrews (Nashville: World Vision Publishing Company), pp. 73-74. Verse 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins. This was not an unusual name among the Jews, the name appearing both as Jesus and as Joshua. The word "Christ" means Messiah; hence, in the confession of faith, the believer affirms that he believes that "Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God," as did Peter in Matthew 16:16. In all ordinary cases, parents do not name their children before they are born, seeing that the question of their sex is not determined until after birth; however, an angel of the Lord announced Jesus' name along with the news of his conception! Verse 22 Now all this came to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Behold the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us. The question of whether Isaiah (Isaiah 7:14) fully understood this as applying to the virgin birth of Christ is irrelevant. God's great prophets did not always know the true meaning of the words God gave them. Peter did not know the full meaning of what he prophesied on Pentecost (Acts 2:38-39); and a miracle was required later (Acts 10:1-48) to convince Peter that the Gentiles should be permitted entry into the church. See 1 Peter 1:11-12. In this verse, Matthew uses for the first time an expression found ten times in his gospel and nowhere else in the New Testament, "that it might be fulfilled, etc." That the virgin birth is clearly included in Isaiah's prophecy is certain. Matthew declares it IN. The fact that the rabbis and Pharisees had overlooked it is only an indication of spiritual blindness on their part. This beautiful prophecy not only reveals the virgin birth but also sets forth the dual nature of Christ. His name means "God with us!" but his diet is that of a man, "butter and honey"; Here, then, is the GOD-MAN in prophecy! Verse 24 And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife and knew her not till she had brought forth a son; and he called his name JESUS. This verse has a bearing on the so-called doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. Mary's virginity BEFORE the birth of Christ is a valid Christian doctrine, bearing the seal of the Holy Spirit, the testimony of the apostles, and Christ, and commending itself to the redeemed of all ages; but her so-called virginity AFTER the birth of Christ is a monstrous superstition, without Scriptural sanction, indeed opposed to the New Testament, and refuted by several urgent considerations both practical and theological. It is here stated that Joseph knew her not "till" she had brought forth a son. This implies that the relationship of Joseph to his wife Mary, after the birth of Christ, was altogether that of any normal husband and wife. Indeed, how else should the other sons of Mary have been born? Matthew 13:55 gives the names of four of Jesus' brothers and even mentions his sisters. It is no refutation of these facts to quibble about other possible uses of the word "till" or the word "brothers"! The mere fact that a word CAN have other meanings does not prove that it DOES have any other meaning than the obvious and ordinary meaning implicit in the terse language of Matthew's gospel. Catholic commentaries, and even the footnotes in their New Testament, cast eager reflections against the ordinary meaning of these passages; but, concerning all such insinuations against the truth, men need only to remember that God's word is not vitiated by such quibbles. As reflecting further light on the question of Mary's virginity, whether perpetual or not, the statement in Luke 2:7 is also pertinent. "She brought forth her son, etc." This terminology also suggests that Mary bore other sons, otherwise Christ should have been called her "only" son. The sacred Scriptures make the truth quite plain. Christ is called the "only begotten Son of God" (John 3:18) and the "firstborn son" of Mary! (Luke 2:7). It takes a very unskilled and naive student of the Bible to suppose that the Holy Spirit actually meant that Christ was the "only begotten son of Mary" as well as the "only begotten of the Father"; and that the Holy Spirit merely used the wrong word in referring to him as the "firstborn" of Mary! The entire superstition regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary is actually founded on a misunderstanding, a groundless assumption, namely, that the perpetual virginity of Mary, even if it could be proved, would add the slightest luster to the crown of Mary's glory. It would do no such thing. The Bible does not elevate virginity as a state above Christian motherhood. To suppose Mary's virginity throughout her life would be to suppose that she defrauded Joseph her husband, contrary to the conjugal duty owed to him (1 Corinthians 7:2-3). We cannot believe that Mary did this. A Christian mother is every whit as holy as any virgin, perpetual or not. For hos, no celibate, male or female, can compare with Christian parents. As Paul expressed it, "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled" (Hebrews 13:4 KJV). Then why pretend that the marriage bed IS defiled and strive to "protect" the virgin Mary from such man-imputed defilement? Commentary By J.W. McGarvey On Matthew One Genealogy of Jesus, Matthew 1:1-17 Title of the List, 11. The book.—The expression with which this narrative opens—"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ"—is not the title of the entire narrative, for as such it would be inadequate; but it is the title of the genealogical list which follows. (See a similar use of the word book, Genesis 5:1.) The title shows both the nature of the list and its object. It is the genealogy of Jesus, and its object is to show that He is "son of David, son of Abraham." God had promised to each of these patriarchs that the Christ should be of his offspring, and Matthew shows by this list that Jesus is the offspring of both. The term book is without the article in the original, and should have the indefinite article in English. It is not called the book, as if there were no other, but a book. Another, differing materially from this, is preserved in the third chapter of Luke. the generation.—The Greek term rendered generation (γένεσις) has here the unusual sense of genealogy. It designates the line of ancestry through which the fleshly nature of Jesus was generated. (Comp. Romans 1:3, in the original.) First Division, Matthew 1:2-6. (Luke 3:31-34) 2. Abraham begat.—In pursuance of the object indicated in the title, Matthew proceeds first to reproduce from the Old Testament records the line of descent from Abraham to David. This he may have taken either from the list given in 1 Chronicles 1:34 to 1 Chronicles 2:15, or from the original history of the persons found in Genesis and Ruth. (See Genesis 21:1-3; Genesis 25:21-26; Genesis 19:35; Genesis 38:29; Rth 4:18-21.) 3. of Thamar.—Contrary to the usual custom of omitting names of females from genealogical tables, Matthew here mentions Tamar as the mother of Pharez, and, in verse 5, Ruth, as the mother of Obed. He also states the fact, nowhere else mentioned in the Scriptures, that Salmon begat Booz of Rachab— that is, as understood by the commentators in general, of Rahab the harlot. (Comp. Joshua 2:1-21; Joshua 6:22-25.) These three females, together with Bathsheba (verse 6), are mentioned because of remarkable peculiarities in their history. The Gentile origin of Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth; the singular incest of the first (Genesis 38:12-26); the depraved life but subsequent remarkable faith of the second (Joshua 2:8-11; Hebrews 11:31); and the virtues of the third, so remarkable for one of heathen education, combined to render them objects of especial interest to the Jews when remembered as maternal ancestors of David and his royal offspring. It was equally worthy of note that Bathsheba, the guilty and unfortunate wife of Uriah (2 Samuel 11, 12.), became, in the mysterious workings of God's providence, the mother of the heirs of David's throne. That all of these women were among the maternal ancestors of Jesus, was equally worthy of notice, and is in keeping with his mission as the Savior of both Jews and Gentiles, and of the most sinful in both classes who can be brought to repentance. 5, 6. Salmon... David.—Commentators have long noted the singular circumstance that David is named as the fourth in descent from Salmon the husband of Rahab, although the time between the mention of Rahab and the birth of David Isaiah 366 years. The time is ascertained by the following calculation: From the departure out of Egypt to the founding of Solomon's temple was 480 years. (1 Kings. 6:1.) Counting back from this event to the birth of David, we have four years of Solomon's reign (1 Kings. 6:1.), the forty years of David's reign (1 Kings. 2:11), and the thirty years of David's life before he came to the throne (2 Samuel 5:4)— making an aggregate of seventy-four years to be deducted from the 480, and leaving 406. From this number we again subtract the forty years between the exode and Rahab's appearance in the history, which leaves 366 years for the time between this event and the birth of David. Now if we suppose that Salmon took Rahab to wife during the same year in which she was delivered from the destruction of Jericho, and that Boaz was born the following year, we have 365 years to divide between three generations. This would require, on the supposition of a division about equal, that Boaz should have been 122 years old at the birth of Obed, Obed 122 at the birth of Jesse, and Jesse 121 at the birth of David. These figures are altogether improbable, unions we suppose a providence even more remarkable than that connected with the birth of Isaac when his father was 100 years old— a supposition not to be adopted in the absence of indubitable proof. Some writers, to avoid the difficulty involved in these figures, have suggested that the Rahab here mentioned may have been some other than the harlot of Jericho; but this affects not the case materially, for Salmon, being son of Nahshon, captain of the tribe of Judah at the beginning of the forty years of wandering (Numbers 1:7), must have been cotemporary with Rahab of Jericho; and if the Rahab of our text is a different woman, still the birth of her son Boaz must have occurred not much later than the time above mentioned. We think there is no reason to doubt the opinion of the best recent commentators, that some names are omitted in this place, the more noted ones alone being retained. This opinion becomes a necessity if, as is not unlikely, it be found that the true chronology of this period is that given by Paul in Acts 13:18-20. He makes it 450 years from the entrance into Canaan to the reign of Saul, and Saul's reign commenced ten years before the birth of David. (Acts 13:21. Compare 2 Samuel 5:4.) This gives 460 years, instead of 366, between Rahab and David, all of which must be divided as above— making Boaz, Obed, and Jesse each 153½ years old at the birth of his son, unless we suppose some of the generations to have been omitted. If such omissions have occurred, they were made by the author of the book of Ruth. The bearing of omissions on the correctness of genealogies is considered below under verses 8 and 11. Second Division, Matthew 1:6-11. (Luke 3:27-31)The names in this division of the list are derived from the history of the persons as given in the two books of Kings and Second Chronicles, or from the list in 1 Chronicles 3:10-19. We know not that the Jews had any other records which could have furnished the information; and if they had, the Scriptures would still be naturally preferred by Matthew as being more accessible and more authoritative. 8. Joram begat Ozias.—Between Joram and Ozias, called in the Old Testament Uzziah and Azariah, Matthew omits three names which are in the text from which he copied. These are: Ahaziah, son and successor of Joram (2 Chronicles 22:1); Joash, son and successor of Ahaziah (22:11; 24:1); and Amaziah, son and successor of Joash (24:27). Thus Uzziah, here said to have been begotten by Joram, was actual son of Amaziah, and was in the fourth generation of descent from Joram. This omission gives rise to three important inquiries: First. Does it vitiate the list? Second. How can it be true that Joram begat Uzziah? Third. Why was the omission made? We will discuss these questions in their order. First. If it had been Matthew's object to give a full list of the ancestry of Jesus, or if his object had required a full list, the omission would certainly impair the value of the list given, and would tend to shake our confidence in his accuracy. But neither of these suppositions is true. Matthew's object was logical rather than historical Desiring to prove Jesus to be a son of David, he uses the history of David's posterity exclusively with reference to this purpose. Now, in order to prove a man a descendant of a certain other, it is not always necessary to name all of the intervening persons in the line. If I could show, for example, by authentic records, that my grandfather was a grandson of Christopher Columbus, I would thereby prove my own lineal descent from the great discoverer, even though I should not be able to furnish the other two names in the list. Or if the entire line of descent were published in the history of my country, I would be at liberty, in stating my proof, to mention my connection with any one or more of the names, leaving my reader to test my accuracy, if he chose to do so, by means of the published records. This is Matthew's case. In proving that Jesus descended from David, it is immaterial how many names he omits, provided those which he gives are correct: for the list from which he copied is three times repeated in the Jewish Scriptures, and the means of testing his accuracy were in the possession of every synagogue throughout the world. Any Jew who desired to see whether the names in this division of the list actually belonged to it, had only to open his own Bible, whether written in Hebrew or in Greek, and read for himself. Second. As to the statement that Joram begat Uzziah, if we judge according to our own use of the term begat, we must pronounce it untrue. But the language of every nation and of every period must be understood in the light of its own peculiar usages. Now, it so happens that genealogical terms were used by the Jews in a much wider sense than by ourselves. For example, in describing Jacob's family at the time of going into Egypt, Moses names the sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons of Leah, and then says: "These be the sons of Leah which she bore to Jacob in Padan-Aram." (Genesis 46:8-15.) Here the term sons is used to include persons of the second and third generations of descendants, and Leah is said to have borne persons who were actually borne by her daughters-in-law and the wives of her grandsons. These terms are used again in the same sense concerning the offspring of Zilpah, of Rachel, and of Bilhah (18, 22, 25). Again, in the twenty-sixth verse of the same chapter, it is said of the same offspring, "All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which come out of his loins, all the souls were three-score and six." Here all are said to have come out of Jacob's loins, another mode of saying that he begat them, although grandsons and great grandsons are included. These are the most striking examples of the kind which I have been able to find in the Scriptures, but there are many others which show that all the terms expressive of kindred were used by the Hebrews in a wider sense than by us. For example, Laban calls Jacob his brother, whereas we would call him his nephew (Genesis 29:15); Jacob calls Abraham his father, whereas we would call him his grandfather (32:9); Mephibosheth, the grandson of Saul, is called his son (2 Samuel 19:24; comp. 9:6); and Athaliah, daughter of Ahab, and granddaughter of Omri, is called the daughter of Omri (2 Chronicles 21:6; comp. 22:2). Such examples abound in the Old Testament, and are familiar to every careful student of the Scriptures. They originated from the sparsity of words in the Hebrew language, requiring that one word should serve a variety of purposes. The language had no such compound terms as grandson, granddaughter, etc., but used the simple terms son and daughter, leaving the reader to gather from the context the exact relationship. In like manner, as we have seen above, a woman was said to bear all who descended from her, and a man to beget all who descended from him. It is a singular circumstance, that although we have discarded this extended use of the word beget, we have never found a single word to substitute for it, but have to employ a periphrasis, and say a certain one was the progenitor or the ancestor of another. Matthew speaks strictly in accordance with the usage of his own nation, then, when he says, "Joram begat Uzziah;" and the statement is strictly true in the sense which he attaches to the term begat. Third. Having thus far considered those objections to the omission which arise from a peculiar use of terms, and from a failure to notice the author's exact purpose in giving the genealogy, we proceed next to inquire as to his object in making the omission. It certainly must have been made intentionally; for it is scarcely possible, leaving his inspiration out of view, that Matthew could have accidentally omitted three names in one group; and if he had done so, it is equally unlikely that the mistake would have remained uncorrected. Both friend and foe, so far as the Jewish Scriptures were known, would have detected the error, and have demanded a correction. It is equally certain that Matthew was not prompted to the omission by a desire to deceive, or by any other evil motive. He had no motive for deception, seeing that his object as regards the claims of Christ could have been secured as well, to say the least, by retaining the names as by omitting them; and even if he had had this, or any other evil motive, the omission was too easily detected to be ventured upon for an improper purpose. It is also a fact that he had a precedent for such omissions in his own Bible: for Ezra, in giving his own genealogy as proof of his descent from Aaron, omits six names in a single group. (Ezekiel 7:1-3; comp. 1 Chronicles 6:6-11.) The candid reader will now acquit Matthew of the slightest suspicion of having omitted these names in order to gain any improper advantage, or because he was not aware of their existence. Why, then, did he omit them? The only answer we can give to this question is one which must appear somewhat inadequate to the modern mind, because we have been so differently educated, or rather because we have not been at all educated on the subject of genealogies. It is this: Seeing there were just fourteen names in the preceding division, that from Abraham to David, he desired, for the sake of aiding the memory, to have the same number in this division. By leaving out the three which we have been considering, and one yet to be mentioned (verse 11), he secured the requisite number. The importance of adopting all innocent devices to aid the memory is realized when we remember that the only means of learning the Scriptures which the masses enjoyed in that age was hearing them read in public. Moreover, the disciples had constant use in their disputations with the Jews for the genealogy of Jesus, and this furnished a special call for some aid to the memory in this case. If it be objected to this, that such a purpose could not justify a mode of writing which would puzzle Bible readers of subsequent ages, we reply that none are puzzled who approach the subject aright, and that God has seen fit to so construct the Bible as to call forth the best efforts of its readers in seeking to understand some of its parts. That he is wise in doing so is seen in the fact that such efforts are highly beneficial to those who make them, securing a blessing to every diligent student of the Bible which well repays him for all his toil. 11. Josias begat Jechonias.—Between Josiah and Jechoniah Matthew omits another name, that of Jehoiakim. When Josiah was slain in battle at Megiddo, the people elected his son Jehoahaz to be his successor, but Pharaoh-necho, who had then overrun Judea, removed him and put his brother Eliakim on the throne, changing his name to Jehoiakim. Jechoniah was the son and successor of Jehoiakim, and consequently was grandson to Josiah. (See 2 Kings 23:29-31; 2 Kings 24:6.) All that we have said above in reference to the omissions in verse 8 is applicable to this omission. and his brethren.—These were probably not brethren of Jechonias, in our sense of the term, but the kindred of the young king, called in the text of 2 Kings his "princes," and here called his brethren in that broad sense of the term peculiar to Hebrew usage. (See 2 Kings 24:12.) Third Division, Matthew 1:12-16. (Luke 3:23-27)Only three of the names in this division of the list are found in the Old Testament, viz: Jechoniah, Salathiel, and Zerubbabel. This is because the Old Testament history terminated in the days of Zerubbabel, who was a cotemporary of Nehemiah, the latest historical writer of that Testament. True, there are a few items of history in Nehemiah's book reaching down to a later period, but they were appended by a later hand, e. g., Nehemiah 12:22. It is also true that five sons of Zerubbabel are mentioned in 1 Chin. 19, 20, but Abiud, the son mentioned in this list, is not among them, unless he appears there under a different name. He was more likely a younger son, born after the latest additions to the list in Chronicles. All of Matthew's list, therefore, from Abiud to the immediate ancestors of Joseph, who were known to Matthew without the aid of written records, was derived from records made subsequent to the close of Old Testament history. If we suppose that Jacob, the father of Joseph, was known to Matthew, the number which he derived from such records was eight, including Abiud and the seven between him and Jacob. That such records were kept is attested by Josephus, himself an enemy of Christ and therefore not to be suspected of manufacturing history to support the Christian Scriptures. In the first section of his autobiography, after tracing his ancestry back to his grandfather's father, he says: "Thus have I set down the genealogy of my family as I found it described in the public records." He further asserts in his book against Appian (B. i. 8, 7), "We have the names of our high priests from father to son, set down in our records for the interval of two thousand years;" and still further, he says that when a priest proposed to marry, in order to be sure that his intended wife is of pure Jewish blood, "he is to make a scrutiny, and take his wife's genealogy from the ancient tables, and procure many witnesses to it." This shows that not only the priestly family, but other families kept their genealogies; for if not, how could the priest trace the ancestry of any woman whom he might wish to marry? The necessity for keeping such tables grew out of the Mosaic law of inheritance, which transmitted landed estates from father to son throughout all generations, and which, even when lands were sold, restored them to the original owner every fiftieth year. (See Numbers 27:1-11; Numbers 36:1-12; Leviticus 25:23-28.) Joseph, indeed, was in the very act of continuing his family record when Jesus was born; for the journey from Nazareth was for the purpose of enrolment, not of taxation. (See Luke 2:4-5.) The public record in our own country of all marriages, and in Great Britain of both marriages and births, as also the private records kept in family Bibles, are modern substitutes for the ancient Jewish custom. 12. Jechonias begat Salathiel.—Jechoniah was on the throne at the time of the captivity, and in predicting his captivity the prophet Jeremiah used these words: "Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, or ruling any more in Judah." (Jeremiah 22:30.) Some have supposed from this that there is a contradiction between Jeremiah and Matthew. An attempt has been made to reconcile them by supposing that Neri, mentioned in Luke's list as father of Salathiel, was his actual father, and that Matthew calls him the son of Jechoniah because Neri took Jechoniah's widow, according to a provision of the law. and raised up seed i to his brother. But this is a labored attempt to remove a difficulty which has no real existence. Jeremiah does not say that Jechoniah should be literally childless, but he says, "Write this man childless," and then explains by the statement, "for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David or ruling any more in Judah." He was to be childless only in the sense of having no son to succeed him on the throne. It should also be observed that Matthew is not alone responsible for the statement that Jechoniah begat Salathiel, for the same statement is made by the author of Chronicles, who was, doubtless, Ezra, a cotemporary of both Salathiel and Zerubbabel. (1 Chronicles 3:17.) Salathiel begat Zorobabel.—In 1 Chronicles 3:19, Zerubbabel is represented as the son of Pedaiah, and not of Salathiel, as Matthew here has it; but Ezra and Nehemiah both agree with Matthew; and their statements occur in historical passages which are not so liable to corruption through mistakes of transcribers, as are genealogical tables like that in Chronicles. (See Ezekiel 3:2; Nehemiah 12:1.) Luke also follows these two writers instead of Chronicles. (Luke 3:27.) This uniform agreement of all the parallel passages renders it almost certain that the passage in Chronicles has undergone an accidental change by the hands of transcribers, Pedaiah having been written in the place of Salathiel. The present reading of Chronicles is also that of the Septuagint version, made two hundred and eighty years before Christ which shows that the reading is quite an ancient one. 13. Zorobabel begat Abiud —As above stated, the name of Abiud is not given in the Old Testament, although five other sons of Zerubbabel are mentioned. Some writers have conjectured that Abiud is another name for some one of these, but the greater probability is that he was a younger son. At any rate, Matthew must have had a sufficient reason for giving us Abiud, seeing that either of the names mentioned in Chronicles would have suited him as well if it had been the true name. The Divisions Stated, Matthew 1:1717. fourteen generations.—We have already considered the list in three divisions, because Matthew himself so divides it in this verse. The divisions are not arbitrary, but altogether natural. The persons in the first, from Abraham to David, were Patriarchs, David being the first in the entire line who was both a patriarch and a king. (See Acts 2:29.) Those of the second were all kings, successors of David, Jechoniah being the last king of Judah in the direct line of descent from David, although his brother Zedekiah reigned eleven years after he and the chief part of the royal family had been carried into captivity. (2 Kings 24:15-18.) Those of the third division were all heirs of David's throne, but none of them reigned except Jesus, who now sits on David's throne according to the promise. (See Acts 15:15-17; Acts 2:29-35.) The manner in which Matthew counts fourteen in each division is somewhat singular. The first actually contains fourteen names. The second is made to contain fourteen, as we have seen above, by omitting four names. The third contains only thirteen new names, but is made to count fourteen by repeating, as the first of this division, the name of Jechoniah, which was the last of the second division. This is apparent to any one who will take the trouble to count. It deceives no one, because it lies on the very surface of the text; but it shows once more how careful Matthew was to have an even count in the divisions of his list. This circumstance also shows that there are no omissions in the last division; for if the actual number of generations had been fourteen or more, there would have been no occasion to repeat the name of Jechoniah. Before closing our remarks on the genealogy it is proper to say something of the great difference between the forms of proper names in the Old Testament and in the New. This difference forces itself on the attention of the reader here more than anywhere else in the New Testament. The difference arises from three distinct causes: First, from the loss of certain letters by Hebrew names in passing through the Greek, the language in which the New Testament was written. The Greek has no h nor j, and it usually terminates masculine proper names with an s; so that Hebrew names with the former letters in them must be spelt in Greek without them, and those terminating in h, which is a very common Hebrew termination, must have h changed to s. Thus, Rehoboam becomes Roboam, Hezekiah becomes Ezekias; Elijah, Elias etc. Second, the Hebrews were much given to contraction of proper names: thus, Jehoshaphat is contracted into Josaphat, Jehoram into Joram, Azariah into Uzziah. This last name furnishes an example of the co-working of both these causes. Originally Azariah, it became by contraction Uzziah, and then, by the peculiar mode of spelling in Greek, it became Ozias, as in verses 8 and 9 above. Third, all living languages undergo some changes of pronunciation, and subsequent changes of spelling to suit the new pronunciation. Some of these differences are doubtless to be accounted for in this way, e. g., Salathiel, of Chronicles and Matthew, is Shealtiel in Ezra and Nehemiah; while Zerubbabel, of all these Old Testament writers, is Zorobabel in Matthew and Luke. Matthew's chief object is to prove the Messiahship and the divinity of Jesus, and every section of the narrative has some bearing on this question. His object in the genealogy, as the superscription sufficiently indicates (verse 1), is to show that Jesus is of the right lineage to be the Messiah. God had promised with an oath to David that he would raise up from his offspring the Messiah to sit on his throne. (Psalms 89:3-4.) This was well understood by both the friends and the foes of Jesus. (See Matthew 22:42.) The section shows that Jesus possessed this characteristic of the promised Messiah. It does not prove him to be of the blood of David; for the blood line, according to Matthew's own showing in the latter part of this chapter, did not pass from Joseph to Jesus; but Jesus was born to Mary after her marriage with Joseph, and consequently, he was Joseph's lawful heir, and inherited the throne through him. The argument does not prove that Jesus is the Messiah, but only that he is of the right lineage. It establishes one of the facts necessary to the proof of the Messiahship. Luke's genealogy supplements Matthew's by showing that Jesus, on his mother's side, inherited the blood of David; but Luke does not follow the line of kings, and consequently he proves nothing as regards the inheritance of the throne, Thus we see that by a line of ancestry which brought Jesus no inheritance he received the blood of David, and by a line which established no blood connection he inherited the throne of David. We can but admire the providence which first brought about this striking coincidence and then caused it to be recorded in so singular a manner by two independent historians. Birth of Jesus, Matthew 1:18-25 Joseph's Trouble, Matthew 1:18-2318. found with child.— Matthew's narrative is here elliptical. He omits the account of the angel's visit to Mary, and of her immediate departure out of Galilee into Judea, where she remained three months with Elisabeth. (Luke 1:26-56.) It was doubtless very soon after her return into Galilee that her pregnancy was discovered by her relatives and by Joseph. Matthew does not mean by the statement, "she was found with child by the Holy Spirit," that her friends knew it to be from the Holy Spirit, for the next verse shows that Joseph knew it not. 19. to put her away.—Supposing that Mary had committed adultery, Joseph at once resolved to put her away; but he hesitated whether to expose her publicly or to put her away privately. According to the law a public exposure would have subjected her to the penalty of death by stoning (Deuteronomy 22:23-24); but although, "being a just man," one who favored the execution of justice, he thought, of this course, he was unwilling to make a public example of her, so he resolved to take advantage of another statute which allowed an unconditional and unexplained separation at the will of the husband. (Deuteronomy 24:1.) Birth of Jesus, Matthew 1:18-25 Joseph's Trouble, Matthew 1:18-23 Matthew 1:18. found with child.—Matthew's narrative is here elliptical. He omits the account of the angel's visit to Mary, and of her immediate departure out of Galilee into Judea, where she remained three months with Elisabeth. (Luke 1:26-56.) It was doubtless very soon after her return into Galilee that her pregnancy was discovered by her relatives and by Joseph. Matthew does not mean by the statement, "she was found with child by the Holy Spirit," that her friends knew it to be from the Holy Spirit, for the next verse shows that Joseph knew it not. Matthew 1:19. to put her away.—Supposing that Mary had committed adultery, Joseph at once resolved to put her away; but he hesitated whether to expose her publicly or to put her away privately. According to the law a public exposure would have subjected her to the penalty of death by stoning (Deuteronomy 22:23-24); but although, "being a just man," one who favored the execution of justice, he thought, of this course, he was unwilling to make a public example of her, so he resolved to take advantage of another statute which allowed an unconditional and unexplained separation at the will of the husband. (Deuteronomy 24:1.) Matthew 1:20-21. appeared to him in a dream.—How those dreams in which God or angels communicated with the dreamers were distinguishable from those in which there was only an appearance of such visitations, is nowhere declared in the Scriptures. Certain it is, however, that God, who causes such visitations, can make the dreamer know their reality. The statement of the angel confirmed the story which Mary, no doubt, had already related, but which Joseph had regarded as incredible. thy wife.—Mary is called the wife of Joseph, although the marriage had not been consummated, because she virtually sustained this relation to him, and was regarded as his wife in the eyes of the law. Jesus.—The word means savior, and points to the chief purpose of the incarnation. Little did Joseph then realize what was meant by the statement, "he shall save his people from their sins." Matthew 1:22-23. that it might be fulfilled.—The words here quoted from Isaiah are part of a prediction addressed to King Ahaz, concerning a threatened invasion of his territory by the kings of Israel and Syria. (Isaiah 7:10-16; Isaiah 8:11-14.) All of it was fulfilled within a few years except what is here quoted— that a virgin should conceive and bring forth a son, and that his name should be called Emmanuel. When the people of Isaiah's time saw the fulfillment of part of the prediction they should have looked forward with confidence to the fulfillment of the remainder; and so should the succeeding generations of the Jews down to the time of Jesus. Had they done so they would have been more ready to believe the story here recited by Matthew. The Marriage Consummated and the Child Born, Matthew 1:24-25. (Luke 2:1-7) Matthew 1:24. took unto him his wife.—Joseph seems to have made no delay in obeying the voice of the angel; consequently the marriage occurred some months previous to the birth of the child. To marry a woman in Mary's condition must have subjected Joseph to much obloquy. Mary's explanation of her conception had already been discredited; and when Joseph excused himself for marrying her by telling of the visit and command of the angel, he had the appearance of inventing the story as an excuse for marrying a fallen woman. Under this cloud of ill fame the holy couple must have lived until the miracles attendant on the birth of the child confirmed their story, and the works of his life demonstrated that he was, as Mary had affirmed from the beginning, the actual Son of God. Matthew 1:25. knew her not.—The statement that Joseph knew not Mary (sexually) until she brought forth a son, implies that he did know her after this. The Romish assumption that Mary always remained a virgin, is inconsistent with what is here implied, and is unsupported by any other passage of Scripture. The reader should observe, however, that the term firstborn before son, which has been used to prove that Mary had other sons after Jesus, has been thrown out by the critics. It was probably interpolated to emphasize the fact of Mary's previous virginity. Argument of Section 2In this section Matthew exhibits the fact that Jesus was actually born the Son of God, and that this was in fulfillment of a prediction long previously made by Isaiah. That the prediction had been in existence ever since the reign of Ahaz, was a fact well known to the Jews, both believers and unbelievers. It was equally well known that although Emmanuel was not the personal name of Jesus, he had claimed to be Emmanuel (God with us), and had demonstrated the claim both by the acts of his life and his resurrection from the dead. This part of the prediction, then, was certainly fulfilled in him, and the proof of this contains the proof that the other part was likewise fulfilled; for if we inquire how a being could come into this world at once unquestionably the Son of God and the Son of man, we find no other way in which the event could occur than by his being born of a virgin through the miraculous power of God, as declared by Matthew. Thus our historian, with his mind directed to the compound proposition first affirmed by Peter, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, proves in his first section that he is of the right lineage to be the Christ, and in the second that he is the actual Son of God. Questions byE.M. Zerr For Matthew 11. Name the two principal subjects of chapter one.2. What book is mentioned?3. Whose son is Jesus Christ?4. How the son of these two ?5. Who are the “ brethren” of verse two?6. Whose wife had Thamor been?7. Give the Old Testament form of Booz.8. And of Eaehab.9. Where may we read of Euth prior to this?10. Who was the son of Jesse?11. What was his official position?12. State the son of David.13. Who was his mother?14. Tell who was Solomon’ s son.15. Give the 0. T. form.16. Who was Ezekias?17. Also Josias?18. At what time was his son bom?19. Who was the son of Jacob?20. He was husband of whom?21. Of her was born whom?22. How many generation from Abraham to Christ?23. Which are counted twice?24. How many were kings of Judah?25. In what sense was Joseph husband of Mary?26. Of whom was Mary with child?27. What kind of man was Joseph?28. He was not willing to do what?29. What did he propose to do?30. To what law was he aiming to conform?31. Tell what he thought of the situation.32. While thinking, who spoke to him?33. In what manner did he appear?34. Whose 6on did he call Joseph?35. Harmonize this with 16th verse. .36. What was Joseph told to do?37. State the explanation he was given.38. Tell what prediction was given him.39. And what orders he was given.40. Why was such name to be given ?41. All this was done for what end?42. What prophet is quoted?43. State the unusual thing predicted.44. Give the meaning of Emmanuel.45. Tell what Joseph then did.46. 46 Did they at this time live as husband and wife?47. For how long did this attitude continue ?48. When the child was born who named him ?49. Why him instead of Mary?50. What indicates she would have other children ? 1:1 Verse 1. The word book is from the Greek word BIBLOS and Is defined by Thayer, "A written book, a roll or scroll." Generation is from GENESIS which Thayer defines, "used of bIrth, nativity," Book of the generation. This phrase is commented on by the same author as follows: "A book of one's lineage. in which his ancestry or his progeny [ancestors from whom he is a descendant] are enumerated." David; Abraham, etc. Matthew wrote his book for the special benefit of the Jews and this is the reason he did not go any farther back than to Abraham. He was the first patriarch to whom the promise ,of the Messiah was made and their interest in Him would hence not include any earlier ancestors. After Abraham the most important man in the ancestry of Christ was David, so tbe record makes mention of him. Tbe word for book means generally any written document. but in this place it applies only as a title tor tbe family history or the ancestors or Christ which will include verses 1 through 17 (See Matthew 1:1-17). 1:2 Verse 2. Abraham had more than one son but the promised seed was to come through his son Isaac (Genesis 21:12; Romans 9:7), hence Matthew goes from Abraham to Isaac in the record. Isaac also had more than one son and it was stipulated that Jacob was the one through whom the line was to go (Genesis 25:23; Romans 9:12-13) thus the author goes from Isaac to Jacob in his tracing of the blood line. Jacob also had many sons who figure in an important manner in the history, but only one of them (Judah, here called Judas) could be used in the blood line, so the significant wording is Judas and his brethren. This idea of singling out the particular one in each family was observed all down the line. I have gone into de­tail in this verse to set forth the sub­ject, and such details will not need to be repeated in all of the following verses. 1:3 Verse 3. Thamar is called Tamar in Genesis and she was the daughter-in-law of Judah. The account of how she became the mother of his sons is in Genesis 38. 1:4 Verse 4. Aram is in the form of Ram in the^Old Testament account. 1:5 Verse 5. Booz is Boaz in the account found in the Old Testament. His mother Kachab is called Rahab in Joshua 6:25; she was the woman in Jericho. This verse names two women who were connected with the blood line of Christ (Rachab and Ruth) who were not direct descendants of Abra­ham. However, this should not con­fuse us because it was customary in ancient times to ignore the daughters in the family registers. But these women were so outstanding in their parts of the great drama that the in­spired writer gives them special men­tion. 1:6 Verse 6. Here the record takes on an additional phase of Importance. In the days of Samuel the prophet the people of Israel clamored for a king in order to he like the nations around them. The Lord was displeased with their request but suffered them to have a king. The first one was Sjiul of the tribe of Benjamin, but he was so un­righteous that God took the throne from him and his family and even shut out that tribe from the royal line. The throne was then given to the tribe of Judah which had possession of the kingdom in Jerusalem until the Baby­lonian captivity. David was the first man to occupy the throne from that tribe, hence the words David the king. All of the rest to be named in the blood line were kings also but the fact will not be mentioned. This special notice was given to David because be was the first man to be in both the royal and blood lines. And in having such a place in the history of Israel he became the most important type of Christ as king, hence the various refer­ences to Him as sitting on the throne of his father David. The term “ father" refers to the blood line and the term "throne” refers to the royal line. The mother of Solomon is referred to but not named as were Rachab and Ruth. No reason is given in the Scriptures for this variation in the mention of persons. It is worth considering, how­ever, that of the many wives that David had, this one was the mother of both Solomon and Nathan (1 Chron­icles 3:5). The significance of this is in the fact that both of these sons of David were direct ancestors of Christ; Solomon’ s line coming down to Joseph, the (foster) father, and Nathan’ s coming down to tell the father of Mary. Hence, the two blood streams from David coming through the two sons who were full brothers, were brought together by the marriage of Joseph and Mary. 1:7 Verse 7. Roboam Is Rehoboam In the Old Testament and Abia is Abijam. 1:8 Verse 8. Joshaphat is Jehoshaphat, Joram is Jehoram, and Ozias is Uzziah in the O.T. 1:9 Verse 9. Joatham is Jotham, Achaz is Ahaz and Ezelcias is Hezekiah for­merly. 1:10 Verse 10. Mamasses is spelled Manasseh and Josias is the same as Josiah. 1:11 Verse 11. Jechonias has three dif­ferent forms in the Old Testament but the one generally used is Jeholachia. He was not the last temporal king that the people of Israel ever bad; there was one more (Zedekiah). But while he was a son of Josiah, he had been placed on the throne in Jeru­salem by the king of Babylon . having deposed Jeholachia and taken him to Babylon as a cap­tive. But the blood line remained with him, hence the present verse words: Jechonias and his brethren. Also, the words about the time they were carried away to Babylon are explained by the facts just mentioned in this para­graph. 1:12 Verse 12. After they were brought to Babylon. Family life was not dis­continued even though the Jews were in captivity. The inspired writer is able to give us the names of lineal descendants that he wished to use in connecting the blood line from Abra­ham to Christ. Not all of the succeed­ing names are given nor was that necessary. The present verse virtually covers the 70 years of the captivity, for it was in the days of Zorobabel (Zerubbabel) that they came out of it (Ezra 3:2). 3-15 Verses 13-15. This paragraph covers the space of over four centuries, from the return after the captivity to the time of Jacob, father of Joseph. It is evident that not all of the men in the blood line are named, but only enough of them to show the connection of the list as that would affect the ancestry of Jesus. 1:16 Verse 16. The use of the term "be­gat” Is not used here because Joseph was only the foster father of Jesus. But the verse states that he was the husband of Mary in order to show how the two blood streams from David were Joined. Husband is from aseb which Is the only word for “ husband” in the New Testament. It is so ren­dered 50 times and by "man” 156 times. The word cannot hence be known to designate a married man except by the connection in which it is found. Jesus who is called Christ. The specific meaning of the first word is “ saviour” and the last is defined “ anointed.” The force of the combined title Is "Saviour and King.” 1:17 Verse 17. Generations is from genea and Thayer’ s definition at this place is, “ The several ranks In the natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy." The three sets of 14 gen­erations are so arranged for the sake of uniformity as an aid to the memory. There are several names omitted and a man may be said to have begotten a person when it really means a genera­tion or more later. This manner of speaking was done before this; for in­stance. in Daniel 5:18 Belshazzar is spoken of as the son of Nebuchad­nezzar whereas he was his grandson. The count of the generations is based on the ones named in the chapter. By strict count there are 40 instead of 42 as the three sets of 14 would require; this is because David and Jechonias are each counted twice. 1:18 Verse 18. The meaning of espousal as compared with marriage will be considered at verse 20. Before they came together means before they be­gan living together as husband and wife. Found with child should be con­sidered separately from the words of the Holy Ghost. Joseph did not know that her condition was produced by a miracle but thought she had been im­pure. The Inspired writer adds the italicized words for the information of the reader. The meaning of the clause is as if It said “ she was found with child (which later proved to be by the Holy Ghost).” 1:19 Verse 19. Being a just man denotes that Joseph was kind and considerate, yet was conscientious and unwilling to ignore the moral law. Because of this he planned to put her away which means to break the engagement. He had such a personal regard for her that he did not want to expose her to public disgrace, yet he did not think it would be right to live with her. 1:20 Verse 20. While Joseph was ponder­ing, the subject the angel of the Lord appeared and explained the situation. He further advised him to proceed with their plans because Mary was pure from all wrong. She is here called his wife and In Luke 2:5 she is called'his "espoused wife." All this is because In Biblical times an espousal was regarded as binding, as to the obligation, as the actual marriage. 1:21 Verse 21. The angel not only told Joseph the cause of Mary’ s condition, but even told him what to call the child when born. Proper names in ancient times usually had some spe­cific meaning, hence the name Jesus, meaning “ Saviour,'' was to be given to this son to be born of Mary, be­cause he was designed to save his people from sin. 1:22 Verse 22. The Information was also given Joseph that what was happen­ing was in fulfillment of prophecy, all of which would meet his approval be­cause he was a believer of the inspired word. 1:23 Verse 23. The angel then quoted the prophecy to which he had referred which is in Isaiah 7:14, The thing of special Importance is that the child was to be born of a virgin, an event that could not occur by the laws of natural reproduction alone. God with us. This signifies that since the body of this child was both divine and hu­man, it meant that It would be virtually the presence of God with man, hence he was to be called by the name of Emmanuel which has that meaning. 1:24 Verse 24. Did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him denotes that what follows in this verse and the next will be in obedience to the command of the angel. Raised from sleep Is explained by the fact that In ancient times God used various means in communicating His will to the people (Hebrews 1:1) and one of them was by dreams. After the dream bad delivered the desired information to Joseph, it was time for him to arise out of sleep and proceed with the program pointed out by the angel. 1:25 Verse 25, Joseph took Mary into his home in fulfillment of his espousal and on the Instructions of the angel. Knew her not is a Biblical expression for the intimate relation of the sexes. The reason Joseph did not have this relation with Mary now was because the angel had told him that her son was to be born of a virgin, which re­quired that at the time of the birth his mother must never have had inti­mate relations with a man. Till she had brought forth has to mean that after the birth of Jesus, Joseph lived with Mary In the intimate relation of husband and wife, else the language Is meaningless and deceptive. It there­fore proves that Mary did not continue to be a virgin, but lived with her hus­band in the relationship of a wife, and her children by that marriage will be met with in later chapters of this book. Matthew 2 "THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Chapter Two Unlike Luke, Matthew does not record events related to the day of Jesus’ birth. But he does describe the visit of the wise men who followed the star to find the infant child and to worship Him (Matthew 2:1-12). Warned by an angel in a dream, Joseph takes Mary and Jesus to Egypt, escaping the massacre of infants by an enraged Herod (Matthew 2:13-18). After the death of Herod, Joseph and his family return to settle in the village of Nazareth (Matthew 2:19-23). POINTS TO PONDER * The details of the visit of the wise men from the East * Fact versus fiction related to the birth of Jesus * Old Testament prophecies fulfilled by the events in this chapter REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter?- The visit of the wise men - Matthew 2:1-12- The flight to Egypt and massacre of infants - Matthew 2:13-18- The return from Egypt and residence at Nazareth - Matthew 2:19-23 2) Why had the wise men from the East come to Jerusalem? (Matthew 2:1-2)- They had seen the star of the King of the Jews and had come to worship Him 3) How did the priests and scribes determine the location of Christ’ s birth? (Matthew 2:4-6)- From Micah 5:2 4) How did the wise men find the young Child? Where did they find Him? (Matthew 2:9-11)- Heading to Bethlehem, they followed the star; in a house with Mary His mother 5) Why did Joseph and his family flee? What prophecy would be fulfilled? (Matthew 2:13-15)- Warned by an angel to go to Egypt, in order to escape Herod’ s effort to destroy Jesus - "Out of Egypt I called My Son" (Hosea 11:1) 6) What prophecy did the slaughter of the innocents fulfill? (Matthew 2:16-18)- That spoken by Jeremiah the prophet (Jeremiah 31:15) 7) What prompted Joseph and his family to return? Why to Galilee? (Matthew 2:19-22)- An angel told Joseph of Herod’ s death, and told him to return to Israel - Hearing that Herod’ s son ruled over Judea, they turned aside to Galilee 8) Where did the family settle? What prophecy did that fulfill? (Matthew 2:23) - In a city called Nazareth- "He shall be called a Nazarene" (no one prophecy in particular) Matthew 2:1-23 Verse 1Matthew 2 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the King, behold, Wisemen came from the east to Jerusalem, saying, (Matthew 2:1) Bethlehem of Judaea distinguishes between the two Bethlehems in Israel. One of them was in Zebulun (Joshua 19:15-16) and the other in Judaea. Micah had firmly foretold the birth of the Messiah in the Judean Bethlehem (Micah 5:2). The word means "place of bread"; and it seems quite appropriate that "The Bread of Life" should have been born in a place with such a name. Located six miles south of Jerusalem on the road to Hebron, it has existed since 1,500 years before Christ and has boasted many great names among its citizens, including that of David the king. In the days of Herod the king is as near as Matthew comes to giving the date of Jesus' birth, a point on which there is much difference of opinion among scholars and commentators. H. Leo Boles makes the date 4 B.C. Dummelow makes it not later than 6 B.C. Encyclopedias usually date the reign of Herod the Great as 37 B.C. to 4 B.C. Now, if it could be ascertained with accuracy that Herod died the year our Lord was born, then the date would lie approximately 4 B.C. However, some scholars like Dummelow, understand Matthew 2:16 as a reference to a period of waiting and searching while Herod tried to find the wise men and get a report from them. The two years thus lost would move the birth of Christ back to 6 B.C. H. Leo Boles and others refer the "two years" to the time the wise men lost finding Christ. This would suppose the star to have appeared two years before Christ was born. Slight difficulty is encountered by either position. No one can say certainly exactly when the birth of Christ occurred. Fortunately, this is not an important difficulty. Herod the king was Herod I, called the Great, no less than nine members of whose family are mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures. He was, in short, a monster. Josephus details his pride, cruelty, and blood-lust, as they supported his merciless and implacable ambition. It was indeed "night" when our Lord was born with such a man upon the throne. Others of Herod's dynasty mentioned in the Bible are: his four sons, (1) Herod Philip I, the first husband of Herodias (Matthew 14:3; Mark 6:17); (2) Herod Antipas, the second husband of Herodias, who was rebuked for his incestuous marriage by John the Baptist (Mark 6:17); (3) Herod Archelaus (Matthew 2:22); (4) Herod Philip II (Luke 3:1); (5) a grandson, Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:1); (6) a great-grandson, Herod Agrippa II, before whom Paul made his defense in Acts 25:1-27 and Acts 26:1-32; (7) a great-granddaughter, Bernice, common law wife of her own brother, Agrippa II, and a mistress of both Vespasian and Titus (Acts 25:1-27; Acts 26:1-32); (8) Drusilla, another great-granddaughter, the wife of Felix (Acts 24:24); and (9) Herodias, wife of Herod Philip I, by whom she had Salome, and later, wife of Herod Antipas who was rebuked by John the Baptist. The numerous mentions of Herod's name in this wondrous second chapter of Matthew which details the birth of the Saviour is like an oft-repeated sour note in what is otherwise a perfect orchestral rendition. There came wisemen ... These were MAGI, that is, astrologers. Boles pointed out that Daniel "was made president of this order in Babylon (Daniel 2:48), and that Jeremiah spoke of this class among Babylonians."[1] The number of the wise men who came to visit Jesus is not known. The conjecture that there were "three" probably rose from the fact that three kinds of gifts are mentioned - gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Dummelow, among many, noted the spiritual implications of the worship from the wise men and called it: "A prophecy of the succeeding centuries, in which the chosen people have persistently rejected the Messiah, and the Gentiles have accepted him."[2] The translation "wise men" is a fortunate rendition of the Greek term "magi," since the truly wise of all ages are indeed those who bow down and worship the Lord Jesus Christ. The coming of those wise men to Christ has been compared to the experience of certain ones who come to Christ now: (1) They followed a little light, the star. (2) They arrived at the wrong place. (3) They asked for more light. (4) They did not received it from men but from God's word, the Bible. (5) They followed the additional light which they obtained from Micah 5:2. (6) They found the Lord in Bethlehem, (7) Lo, the star came; and it appeared that they had not lost any light but kept all they previously had. (8) They worshipped him. (9) They returned another way! Many, in groping their way out of denominational strife and error, have retraced the steps of those original wise men. Martin Luther loved the spiritual lesson derived from this incident. He said, "When the wise men relied upon their judgment and went straight to Jerusalem without consulting the star, God lifted it out of heaven and left them bewildered to make inquiry of Herod who then called his wise men, and they searched the Scriptures. And that is what we must do when we are bereft of the star."[3] [1] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Matthew (Nashville, Tennessee: Gospel Advocate Company, 1961), p. 37. [2] J. R. Dummelow, One Volume Commentary (New York: Macmillan Co., 1937), p. 627. [3] R. H. Bainton, Here I Stand (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1950), p. 368. Verse 2 Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we saw his star in the east, and are come to worship him.The Old Testament opens with a question, God seeking man, and asking, "Adam, where art thou?" (Genesis 3:9). The New Testament opens with a question, man seeking God, and asking, "Where is he ...?" Born King of the Jews. That the Messianic hope of the Hebrews was well known throughout the ancient world is evident from the following considerations: (1) The Old Testament had been translated into the Greek language in the Septuagint translation "about 280 B.C." The Old Testament was thus given a worldwide circulation at least a quarter of a millennium before Christ was born. Dummelow noted that "Synagogues existed through the east; ... at Damascus, nearly all the women were proselytes."[4] The Messianic hope is mentioned by the Roman historians, Suetonius and Tacitus, the latter actually stating that the prophecies were fulfilled in the birth of Titus![5" translation="">Matthew 2:2.">[5] We saw his star in the east ... Many conjectures with reference to this star still leave the question unanswered with regard to what it actually was. Kepler stated that there was a conjunction of the planets Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars within the constellation Pisces (the fish), beginning in 7 B.C. and culminating in 6 B.C. This particular constellation, Pisces, was held by ancient astrologers to represent Israel; therefore, this remarkable conjunction is at least worthy of notice. It is not hard to see in this a possible fulfillment of Num 24:17 concerning the star that should rise out of Jacob! Surely this must have been a real star, else the astrologers from the east would not have been impressed by it.[6] That the wise men were guided by a "real star" appears very unreasonable to Boles.[7] He affirmed that such a manifestation would have attracted multitudes; but it will be remembered that these "multitudes" could not even see the Sun of Righteousness himself after John the Baptist pointed him out to them! As to the genuine nature of that "star," we may not be dogmatic; but there can be no doubt whatever of the nature of that blessed Child over whom it stood. He was God of very God! [4] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 626. [5" translation="">Matthew 2:2.">[5] Adam Clarke, Commentary, article on Matthew (London: Mason and Lane, 1837), on Matthew 2:2. [6] J. R. Dummelow, op cit., p. 627. [7] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 39. Verse 3 And when Herod the king heard it, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.Herod's trouble was jealousy and rage, a rage that would finally vent itself in the slaughter of the innocents. Well, also, might the city of Jerusalem have been troubled with such a man upon the throne. Josephus related the circumstances attending the death of Herod, who, when he saw death was near, caused a large number of prominent persons to be put in prison with instructions that they should be put to death just as soon as Herod expired in order that (Herod said) "there should be real mourning" at his death![8] ENDNOTE:[8] Josephus' Antiquities. Book 17, Chapter 6. Verse 4 And gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ should be born.There is a terribly grim humor about this inquiry of Herod. He was doubtless most thoroughly hated; and there must have been countless speculations concerning the coming of the Messiah; but when he convened the most learned people of the day and demanded to know where Christ would be born, the bravest among them must have trembled. Under the circumstances, they wisely took refuge in the Word of God. In effect, they said, "O King, we don't really know anything about it, but there is, it so happens, a verse in one of the prophecies that speaks of the birth of the Messiah, and that says it is to take place in Bethlehem." The ignorance of Herod concerning the Messianic hope of the Jews is in keeping with secular monarchial character in all ages. Alas, how few men in public life have any real knowledge of spiritual things! Verse 5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written through the prophet. Verse 6 And thou, Bethlehem land of Judah, Art in no wise least among the princes of Judah: For out of thee shall come forth a governor, Who shall be shepherd of my people, Israel.For once, the Pharisees did not embellish the plain word of God with all the trivia usually so dear to the Pharisaical mind. Under the awesome inquiry of merciless and ambitious Herod, they let the Word of God stand alone and unadorned. Verse 7 Then Herod privily called the wise men, and learned of them exactly what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search out exactly concerning the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word, that I also may come and worship him.Herod's duplicity was in keeping with his evil character. He did not wish to worship the Christ child but to destroy him! He knew the birthplace; he thought he knew the child's age; and it remained only to find the exact location of the Christ child in order to slay him. That there was real danger in this plot appears from the fact that God himself intervened both in the behavior of the wise men and in the departure of Joseph to Egypt. Verse 9 And they, having heard the king, went their way; and lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. And when they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.Following additional light which they received from the Bible, the wise men soon found that in following that additional light they did not forfeit light previously enjoyed. The star came and stood over the place. Being wise men, they respectfully heard the instructions of Herod, manifesting, no doubt, an attitude of respect and deference that led Herod to suppose they would be the ready instruments of his evil purpose. It was not Herod's way, however, that they went; they "went THEIR way"! Though we may not know the exact nature of that star, the rejoicing which attended the finding of the Christ is something which every man may experience for himself when he turns to the Lord and knows the Redeemer in the forgiveness of his sins! Verse 11 And they came into the house and saw the young child with Mary his mother; and they fell down and worshipped him; and opening their treasures, they offered unto him gifts, gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.Came into the house ... indicates the passage of some little time after the birth of Christ which took place in a stable (Luke 2:7). Since the departure of the holy family was so soon to follow, it may also be that the presentation in the temple had already taken place. If so, Jesus was about six weeks old at that time. Fell down and worshipped him ... indicates that Christ alone was the object of their adoration. B. W. Johnson pointed out that "No adoration was offered to his mother."[9] Gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh certainly suggest three phases of our Lord's life. His kingship, his divinity, and his sufferings are in the most solemn manner suggested by these wonderful gifts; and, although we must agree with the commentators who reject any special symbolism in these gifts on the basis that nothing in the text supports such symbolism, nevertheless, it must be admitted, they DO SUGGEST those things with reference to Christ. A practical need for the gifts existed in the forthcoming journey to Egypt. Another outstanding teaching connected with this incident is the fact that giving is a vital and necessary part of worship. Those who worship Christ GIVE. Those who do not or will not GIVE do not worship either! True worship simply does not exist apart from sacrifice. It will be remembered that no ancient monarch was ever approached without a gift; and this ancient procedure is frequently noted in the sacred Scriptures (Genesis 43:11; 1 Samuel 10:27; 1 Kings 10:2). ENDNOTE:[9] B. W. Johnson, People's New Testament (St. Louis, Missouri: Christian Board of Publication) on this passage. Verse 12 And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.Being warned of God in a dream ... the wise men refused to cooperate with Herod. His caution in calling the wise men privily (Matthew 2:7) was of no avail. He that "slumbers not nor sleeps" was watching over the Saviour's cradle. Dreams were often a vehicle of revelation among the Hebrews. They were considered inferior to visions but often played a vital role in protecting the chosen people. Interpretation of dreams always belonged to God alone. See Genesis 40:8; Genesis 41:16; Daniel 1:17. They returned ... another way. The old ways are forsaken forever by those who truly worship Christ. The return of the wise men by ANOTHER WAY suggests the new and better passage that God gives His worshipers in delivering them from sin and leading them into eternal life. Verse 13 Now when they were departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, ... through the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt did I call my son.Out of Egypt did I call my son. This prophecy (Hosea 11:1) is referred by Matthew to the flight of Joseph and the holy family into Egypt from which, of course, they later came back. Thus, there is scriptural authority for that method of interpreting prophecy which finds both an immediate and a remote fulfillment. Israel was first called "out of Egypt" when God delivered the chosen race under the leadership of Moses, but it was fulfilled even more gloriously when the Christ returned from his journey in Egypt. Another case of this double fulfillment will be noted in Matthew 2:18. Spoken by the Lord through the prophet ... In words like these and also those in Matthew 1:22, one sees the Scriptural affirmation that it was actually GOD who spoke THROUGH the prophets. The prophets were only instruments to convey God's message. The word belonged to God and came forth from Him! Verse 16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wisemen, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth and slew all the male children ... Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, ... Rachel weeping for her children; And she would not be comforted, because they are not.Exceeding wroth ... indicates the utmost fury of that inhuman king. Some have professed to marvel that Josephus omits any reference to Herod's slaughter of the innocents; but such is easily understood when it is recalled that Bethlehem was a small place and that the list of the slain was possibly not very large, especially when compared with the long lists of the slain so characteristic of Herod's reign. The slaughter of a few babies in Bethlehem would create little stir in a society like that. Yet there is historical reference to the event. A fourth century historian, Macrobius, referred to the slaughter of those children and affirmed that Herod's own son was among the slain, hence a proverb that arose, "It is better to be Herod's hog than his son."[10" translation="">Matthew 2:16.">[10] As a Jewish proselyte, Herod refrained from killing swine or having anything to do with them or their flesh. Two years old and under ... This period is hard to place. Do they refer to children two years older, or younger than Christ; or do they apply to those both younger and older, embracing a period of one year before to one year after our Lord's birth? The latter case would have indicated that Herod used a margin of allowance on both sides of our Lord's age. It is the difficulty of determining just what this period is that makes it almost impossible to locate with positive accuracy the exact year of the Saviour's birth. Rachel weeping for her children ... The tomb of Rachel was located at Ramah; and many of the captives led away to Babylon passed her tomb on the way to captivity. Jeremiah represented Rachel as weeping for the children of the captivity (Jeremiah 31:15). Here Matthew applies the words as a prophecy of the grief and tears arising upon the slaughter of the innocents at the birth of Christ. Thus, there is another example of prophecy having an immediate and a remote fulfillment (Matthew 2:15). ENDNOTE:[10" translation="">Matthew 2:16.">[10] Adam Clarke, op. cit., on Matthew 2:16. Verse 19 But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying ...But when Herod was dead, ... That is God's answer to men who oppose His will. Through all the universe, one mighty purpose runs; and no man or combination of men or nations can thwart that will. BUT ... God's will must be done. A similar example of this same principle may be noted in Acts 12:23-24 where it is said of another Herod who opposed God's will that "He was eaten of worms ... but the word of God grew and multiplied." Verse 20 Arise and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead that sought the young child's life.Note that the instructions were to return to Israel, not to Bethlehem or to Jerusalem. They are dead that sought ... See under Matthew 2:3 how, by a peculiar providence, most of the powerful members of Herod's establishment perished with him. How circumstantially accurate are God's words! Satan had doubtless raised up many enemies of Christ even in his infancy. How strange and significant that Herod caused such a large number of prominent persons to be murdered on the occasion of his own death. Josephus tells how they were shut up in the Hippodrome at Jericho and destroyed with darts when Herod knew his end was near. Marvelous are the ways of God. Unique is the procedure by which Herod took so many of his vicious nobles to the grave with him. It was God's answer to Satan's hatred of the Christ. Verse 21 And he arose and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel; but when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither; and being warned of God in a dream, he withdrew into the parts of Galilee.Archelaus ... was a son of Herod by one of his ten wives, namely, Malthake; and, like most of that family, he was of vicious life. Into the parts of Galilee ... This area was also ruled by a Herod, a son of Cleopatra of Jerusalem and Philip II. He was distinguished as one of the mildest and least vicious of the many rulers that stemmed from the evil dynasty of Herod the Great. Verse 23 And came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene.The connection between the term "Nazarene" and the Old Testament prophecies mentioned here by Matthew seems to be as follows: The Nazarites were, in a manner, typical of Christ. The town of Nazareth was named after this order of persons which counted among their number such illustrious Jewish names as those of Samuel, Samson, and John the Baptist. Nazarites were of two classes, Nazarites of days, meaning Nazarites for a short period, and Nazarites for life, of whom were the three mentioned above. The Nazarite did not allow a razor to come upon him and drank no wine or strong drink. The town of Nazareth was named after the Nazarites; and thus, Jesus' residence there resulted in his being called a "Nazarene." The marvel of the fulfillment is seen in that Christ was "called" a Nazarene, although he did not manifest the type of life ascribed to Nazarites such as John the Baptist. Christ placed a great deal of emphasis on the fact that he dwelt in Nazareth. From heaven itself, he said, "I am Jesus of Nazareth": (Acts 22:8). It appears that this wretched and despised village was made by the Lord to appear as a type of all humanity. Certainly his residence there suggested his rejection. Commentary by J.W. McGarvey On Matthew 2 Events in the Childhood of Jesus, Matthew 2 Visit of the Wise Men, Matthew 2:1-12 Matthew 2:1. Herod the king.—Matthew's nearest approach to giving the date of the birth of Jesus is the statement that it occurred "in the days of Herod the king." (See below on 19.) Herod is called "the king," to distinguish him from the other Herods who were his descendants, and especially from Herod the tetrarch, subsequently mentioned by Matthew. (14:1.) His history is given with great fullness of detail by Josephus, Ant., Books xiv to xvii. in Bethlehem of Judea.—We learn from Luke that Joseph and Mary had resided previous to the birth of Jesus in Nazareth of Galilee, and that it was the decree of Augustus Cæsar concerning the enrollment which had brought them to Bethlehem. (Luke 1:26-27; Luke 2:1-4.) Matthew omits this, and begins his narrative as if Bethlehem was the permanent home of Joseph. This is accounted for by the fact that Joseph intended to make Bethlehem his home for the future. (See 21, 22.) wise men from the east.—The Greek word here incorrectly rendered "wise men" (μγοι) designates an order of priests and philosophers called magi, which had existed in the countries east of the Euphrates from a remote period. Various kind of superstition prevailed among them at different periods, but they possessed all the real learning and philosophy of those countries. The men called magicians in the book of Daniel belonged to this order. (Daniel 1:20; Daniel 4:9.) For a further account of them see Smith's Dictionary. Matthew 2:2. his star in the east.—Much learned labor has been expended in efforts to determine what star it was that guided the magi, and how they knew its significance. Without detailing any of the theories in reference to the first of these questions, it is enough to remark that one fact, almost universally overlooked by the commentators, demonstrates the truth of the old supposition that the star was a miraculous meteor which hung but a short distance above the earth. This fact is, that when the magi left Jerusalem the star "went before them, and came and stood over where the young child was." This could not be true of a real star, because a real star can not move on before men, and stand over a particular house so as to distinguish it from other houses. A child, looking at a star near the horizon, may imagine that it hangs over a certain house; but when it walks up to that house, it finds that the star is as far off as before and is hanging over another house. The star of the magi stood over the house where the child was until they came up and entered the house, thus preventing them from entering the wrong house and finding the wrong child. As to their source of information concerning the significance of the star, it must have been such as not only revealed to them the birth of a king of the Jews, but also inspired them with the disposition to visit Judea for the purpose of doing him homage and presenting him with gifts. It is most in harmony with all of the known facts of the history to suppose that when the star appeared a direct revelation was made to the magi which led to all of their subsequent movements. The child was in this way revealed to the shepherds of Bethlehem, to Simeon and to Anna; and in this way the magi themselves were instructed not to return to Herod, but to go home by another route. (Matthew 2:12.) Matthew 2:3. he was troubled.—The trouble of Herod, when he heard the inquiry of the strangers, was natural. Being near the close of his own reign, and naturally anxious concerning the succession to the throne, he could not hear with equanimity that the founder of a rival dynasty had been born. All Jerusalem was troubled with him because they dreaded a conflict between two claimants for the throne. Matthew 2:4. chief priests and scribes.—Hearing that one was born to be king of the Jews and heralded by the appearance of a star in the heavens, Herod assembles the chief priests and scribes, and inquires where the Christ should be born. He inferred that the coming king was the Christ, because the Jews were looking for the Christ, and because no ordinary king would be heralded in this wonderful manner. The chief priests included both the high priest and the chiefs of the twenty-four courses or classes into which the priests were divided by David. (1 Chronicles 24:1-19.) The scribes were men trained to penmanship, and occupied with transcribing the Scriptures, keeping public records, and all similar work. They naturally acquired familiarity with the contents of the Scriptures and skill in their interpretation. (Comp. 2 Samuel 8:17; 2 Samuel 1 Ks. 4:3; Jeremiah 36:26; Ezra 7:6; Matthew 13:52; Mark 12:35.) Matthew 2:5-6.—The promptness with which the priests and scribes answered that the Christ was to be born in Bethlehem, shows that the matter was well understood by the Jews. The prediction cited from Micah (Micah 5:2) taken in connection with the fact that the Messiah was to be of the house of David whose landed patrimony was at Bethlehem, was conclusive. (1 Samuel 16:1.) Matthew 2:7-8. bring me word.—Herod's careful inquiry as to the time when the star appeared, and his order that the magi, when they found him, should bring him word again, show that he had already conceived the purpose which he afterward attempted to execute. Matthew 2:9-10. and lo, the star.—The star which they had seen in the east had evidently disappeared before they reached Jerusalem, but now it reappeared when its guidance was needed. Their exceeding joy at seeing it arose from the fact that without some guidance they might be unable to find the child they sought, and partly also from the fact that it was an assurance of God's presence and approbation. The star served another important purpose which was unperceived by the magi. It enabled them to find the child without making such inquiries in Bethlehem as would have directed public attention to him, and have interfered with his escape from a danger yet unforseen. The entrance of the magi into the city by night, which is clearly implied in the fact of the star being visible, contributed still further to the privacy which was so necessary to safety. Matthew 2:11. and worshiped him.—The homage which the magi paid to the child was something more than that which was due to royalty, for the miraculous manner in which they had been guided to the spot must have taught them that the child was more than mortal. These Gentiles, for such we suppose them to be, were the first to pay homage to Jesus, a token of the yet undeveloped purpose of God concerning the Gentile world. The gifts which they presented in compliance with an eastern custom constituted a timely provision for the unexpected sojourn in Egypt. Matthew 2:12. warned of God in a dream.—That the magi were warned in a dream not to return to Herod, shows that they retired to sleep after presenting their gifts; being thus aroused from slumber they departed at once, and thus again avoided giving publicity in Bethlehem to the startling facts connected with their visit. Flight into Egypt, 13-15 Matthew 2:13-14. when they were departed.—It appears from the text that immediately after the departure of the magi the angel appeared to Joseph in a dream, warned him of the danger, and commanded him to flee; and that he started while it was yet night. Neither the arrival of the magi, nor their departure, nor the flight of Joseph and Mary, was known to the people of Bethlehem. To Joseph and Mary that was a night of conflicting emotions. Equally surprised and delighted by the congratulations and presents of the Gentile strangers, they had gone to sleep only to be terrified by the announcement that Herod would seek to kill the child whom the magi had worshiped; and now they are oppressed by the excitement attending an instantaneous flight, and by the sadness with which they anticipate an indefinite sojourn in a foreign land. They find, as they had found from the beginning, that the high honor of being the earthly parents of the Lord of glory, like every other God-given honor, must be attended by sorrow and self-sacrifice. To protect and rear at all hazards that child was the work to which God had called them, and faithfully they fulfilled the heavenly trust. Mary and Joseph, however, are not the only parents who have been thus situated; often it is that parents perform their greatest work in life by bringing into being and properly rearing a single child. Matthew 2:15. Out of Egypt.—The words here quoted from Hosea and applied to Jesus were originally spoken concerning Israel: "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." (Hosea 11:1.) In applying these words to Jesus Matthew makes Israel's entrance into Egypt and departure therefrom typical of the same movements on the part of Jesus. Slaughter of the Infants, Matthew 2:16-1816. mocked of the wise men.— The departure of the magi without returning to Herod was taken by him as a mockery of his authority. It tended both to enrage him and to magnify his conception of the danger which threatened his dynasty. all the children.—The Greek word rendered children (τοςπαδας) is masculine, and means male children. As it was a male child that he was seeking to destroy, he could have no reason for destroying the female infants. At this point the reason why both the visit of the magi and the flight of Joseph and Mary had been kept so secret becomes apparent. If these events had been known in Bethlehem the people could have saved their own infants by sending swift messengers to bring back the real object of Herod's jealousy. The infants of Bethlehem died for the safety of him who was destined to die for the safety of all. two years old and under.—Herod's plan was to slay so many children, and of such an age, as to certainly include the young king. He had ascertained the time at which the star appeared, but he could not know from this the exact time of the child's birth; for the star might have appeared either before or after the birth. His plan, therefore, required him to give himself a margin on both sides— that is, to include children of such an age that if the star appeared either a few months after or a few months before the birth of Jesus, Jesus would be included. As he went back to two years, and came forward to the last male child born in Bethlehem, it is probable that the star had appeared within the previous year. Matthew 2:17-18. spoken by Jeremy the prophet.—The words here quoted wore originally written concerning the Babylonish captivity. (Jeremiah 31:15.) Kama was a town of Benjamin. (Joshua 18:25.) Jeremiah was carried thither in chains with the other captives, but was there released by order of Nebuchadnezzar. (Jeremiah 40:1; Jeremiah 39:11-12.) Here he saw the captives depart for Babylon, and heard the weeping of the poor who were left in the land (39:10); hence the mention of Rama as the place of the lamentations. He represents Rachel as weeping, because the Benjamites were descendants of Rachel, and, perhaps, because the tomb of Rachel was "in the border of Benjamin," and not far away. (1 Samuel 10:2.) The image of the ancient mother of the tribe rising from her tomb to weep, and refusing to be comforted because her children were not around her, is inimitably beautiful; and this image so strikingly portrayed the weeping in Bethlehem that Matthew adopts the words of the prophet, and says they were here fulfilled. It was the fulfillment, not of a prediction, properly speaking, but of certain words spoken by the prophet. The three quotations from the prophets contained in this chapter (6, 15, 18) belong to and illustrate three distinct classes of such quotations which are found in the New Testament, and which especially abound in Matthew. The first, concerning the birthplace of Jesus, is strictly a prediction, for it refers directly to the event. The second, concerning the call out of Egypt, is an example of words used with a double reference, having both a primary and secondary reference and fulfillment. Such predictions are sometimes called typical, because they are originally spoken concerning a type and find another fulfillment in the antitype. (See Lange, Matthew 2:15.) The third, concerning the weeping at Bethlehem, is an example in which the event fulfills the meaning of words used by a prophet, though the words had originally no reference at all to this event. It is a verbal fulfillment, and not a real fulfillment, as in the other two causes. Matthew's account of this slaughter has been objected to as highly improbable, if not incredible, for three reasons: First, Because of the absence of a sufficient motive to induce so great a crime; Second, Because of the silence of Josephus, who details very fully the crimes of Herod, but says nothing of this; Third, Because of the silence of Mark, Luke and John in reference to it. The last reason has no force whatever, for Mark and John omit all mention of the birth and childhood of Jesus; and Luke, though he writes more on this part of the history than Matthew does, chooses to repeat nothing which Matthew records. The second is without force, because Josephus was an unbeliever, and studiously avoided the recital of such facts as would furnish evidence in favor of Jesus. A faithful record of this event would have proved that Jesus was an object of special divine protection. The first reason is equally untenable, for the motive presented was abundantly sufficient to excite such a man as Herod to commit the crime in question. He had previously been moved by jealousy to murder two high priests, his uncle Joseph, his favorite wife Marianne, and three of his own sons, besides many other innocent persons. When about to die, knowing that his subjects would be inclined to rejoice at his death, he determined to make them mourn, and, to this end, he shut up a large number of prominent men in a hippodrome and ordered them to be massacred the moment he should breathe his last. (Josephus, Ant., books xiv-xvii.) It is in perfect keeping with this career of jealousy and bloodshed that when the birth of a new king not of his family was so mysteriously announced, he should adopt the most desperate measures for putting him out of the way. True, it was not very likely that the child just born would demand the throne during Herod's lifetime, but his jealousy had refence to the perpetuity of his dynasty, as well as to his own personal reign. There is strong confirmation both of this view of the subject and of the principal fact itself found in the writing of Macrobius, a heathen author who lived at the close of the fourth or the beginning of the fifth century, and who says: "Augustus, having been informed that Herod had ordered a son of his own to be killed among the male infants about two years old whom he had put to death in Syria, said, It is better to be Herod's hog than his son." (Horne's Int., Part 11., book ii, chap. vii, § 7.) The marked difference between this account and that of Matthew, and the introduction of the emperor's remark, show that Macrobius did not obtain his information from Matthew's narrative, but from some independent source. He makes the same mistake made by the magi— that of supposing that the newborn king was Herod's Bon. He further supposes, as Herod and his friends did, that the child whose destruction was sought actually perished am one the infants. The remark quoted from the emperor Augustus has reference to the fact that Herod, being a Jew, would not kill a hog; and it shows that the massacre was a well-known fact and a subject of public remark at the time, as far away from Bethlehem as the imperial palace in Rome. Return from Egypt and Residence in Nazareth, 19-23 Mat 2:19. when Herod was dead.—According to the received chronology Jesus was born in the last year of Herod, and he was, therefore, less than a year old when Herod died. His birth occurred four years previous to our common era, the era having been erroneously fixed by Dyonisius Exiguus in the sixth century. (For a statement of the facts and figures on this subject see Smith's Dictionary, Art. Jesus Christ.) By remaining in Egypt until the Lord brought him word. Joseph obeyed the command of God. (Comp. 13.) Matthew 2:22. afraid to go thither.—The statement that Joseph, when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea, was afraid to go thither, implies that he had intended to return to Judea, and doubtless to Bethlehem. This intention explains the fact that after the presentation of the child in the temple (Luke 2:22) he returned to Bethlehem and was found there by the magi. When he came from Nazareth to Bethlehem before the birth of the child he intended to make the latter place his permanent residence; and now, although he was afraid to return thither, he did not change his purpose until God warned him in another dream to go into Galilee. His prompt compliance with all these heavenly directions, and this in behalf of a child that was not his own, shows how fit a man he was for the momentous trust committed to his hands. Matthew 2:23. spoken by the prophets.—The words "He shall be called a Nazarene," here said to have been spoken by the prophets, are not found in any of the extant prophetic writings. It should be observed that Matthew's expression concerning them is peculiar. He does not say, as is usual with him, "spoken by the prophet," but "spoken by the prophets." This expression may mean either that the prophets generally had used this language, or that they had said what is equivalent to this. The latter is doubtless the real meaning. Many of the prophets had predicted the lowly life of the Savior, and this is proverbially expressed when he is called a Nazarene. Such was the reputation of Nazareth that even the guileless Nathaniel, when told that the Christ had been found, and that he was of Nazareth of Galilee, exclaimed, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" (John 1:45-46.) Matthew says not that he shall be a Nazarene, but that he shall be called a Nazarene. It was the circumstance of his residence in Nazareth that led to his being called a Nazarene when he was really a Bethlehemite. It afterward furnished his enemies with an opprobrious epithet, and all this is summed up in the words into which Matthew condenses the prophetic utterances. Argument of Section 3 The preceding section furnishes three more arguments in favor of the claims of Jesus; First, It proves that God acknowledged him as the predicted king of the Jews by miraculously guiding the magi; Second, It shows, that after having been thus acknowledged he was miraculously protected from the machinations of Herod, as we would expect the Christ to be; Third, It shows, that in the place of his birth, in the attempt to murder him, in his flight into Egypt, and in his residence at Nazareth, utterances of the prophets were fulfilled. Such a combination of miraculous events in the first year's history of the child goes far to prove him to be the Son of God; and when these events are considered in connection with the arguments of the first and second sections, the proof must appear conclusive. Questions by E.M. Zerr For Matthew 21.In what town was Jesus born? 2.What province was this in? 3.In whose days did this take place? 4.Of whom was Herod a king ? 5.Who came to the community about this time? 6.From where did they come? 7.To what city did they come? 8.State the inquiry they made. 9.What had they seen? - 10.Where had they seen it? 11.For what purpose had they come? 12.Who became concerned at this time? 13.What effect did the event have on him ? 14.Who joined him in this concern ? 15.State the cause of this. 16.What gathering did he make ? 17.Tell his inquiry. 18.Why these persons for this purpose ? 19.Could they answer his inquiry? 20.On what authority did they base their answer ? 21.What place was pointed out in the prophecy? 22.Out of this who was to come? 23.What would he do? 24.Whom did Herod next call ? 25.Was this done openly? 26.State the inquiry he made. 27.To what place did he send them ? 28.Why to this particular place? 29.Tell the business on which they were sent. 30.What did he propose doing? 31.How were the wise men further guided ? 32.Tell how definitely it directed them. 33.How were they affected ? 34.On entering, whom did they see ? 35.What kind of house were they in? 36.Were they alone in there? 37.Tell what the wise men first did. 38.And what next ? 39.What did this indicate ? 40.Why did they not return to Herod ? 41.After their departure who appeared to Joseph? 42.He was told to do what? 43.How long must he remain there? 44.State the reason given. 45.Relate Joseph’ s response to the command. 46.What event ended his stay in Egypt? 47.In leaving what would be fulfilled? 48.How did Herod feel about actions of the wise men? 49.Why the age limit of 2 years for the children? 50.What prophet saw all this? 51.In what manner did God appear to Joseph in Egypt 52.To what place did he tell him to go ? 53.Because of what fact? 54.Did this command necessarily mean Judea ? 55.What did he hear of that section of the country? 56.Who had instructed him? 57.To what place did he go ? 58.Had Joseph been here before? 59.Had Jesus been here? 60.What prophecy was now fulfilled ? 2:1 Verse 1. Bethlehem was a small town not far from Jerusalem, and Judea was one of the three divisions or territories into which Palestine was divided in the time of Christ. Judea was the most important part of the country in that it contained the important city of Jerusalem. which was the capital and place at the temple of the Jews. Herod the king. I shall quote from history regarding thIs man who occupied so prominent a place In the affairs of God's people: "This year was born Herod the Great, who was afterwards king of Judea (for he was twenty·five years old when be was first made governor of Galilee In the year before Christ, 47). His father was Antlpas, a noble Idumaean, and his mother Cyprus of an illustrious famtly among the Arabians . . . By country therefore he was an Idumaean. but by religion a Jew, as all other Idumaeans were trom the time that Hyrcanus brought them all to embrace the Jewish religion, of which I have above given an account." Prideaux's Connexion. year 72. "But Antigonus. by way of reply to what Herod had caused to be proclaimed, and this before the Romans, and before Silas also, said, that they would not do justly so they gave the kingdom to Herod. who was not more than a private man, and an Idumean, i.e., a half Jew." Josephus, ,Antiquities, Book 14. Chapter 15. Section 2. The Herodian family figures prominently in the New Testament history. and the various members of it will be ident!lIed by their Individual names as they appear in the passages. Wise men is from MAGOS which Thayer defines at this place as follows: "Oriental wise men (astrologers) who. having discovered by the rising of a remarkable star that the Messiah had just been born, came to Jerusalem to worship him." The origlnal word is used with reference to both good and evil men, but the whole context indicates that it was used in the former sense in the present instance. We are sure that the case of the shepherds as recorded In Luke 2 was not an accident, likewise the fact that the star led the wise men. Matthew 2:2-6 correctly would show their standing with the Lord . Furthermore. God spoke to them in a dream (verse 12) on the matter which again proves that tbe visit of the wise men to Jerusalem was under the direction ot God. Since the New Testament was not yet written, this event would be another to come under Hebrews 1:1. East is defined by Thayer, "eastern region, the east." The term therefore refers not merely to the direction from which the wise men came, but the country in general lying in that direction from Palestine. The guidance of the star was general only and directed them to Jerusalem. This was doubtless by the hand of God, to bring them in contact with those who were concerned in this grand occasion, particularly Herod who was destined to play sucb an important part in the drama. 2:2 Verse 2. When the wise men reached Jerusalem they made inquiry. seeking the exact location ot the newborn king of the J ews.. This specific statement is another proof that the whole movement of these men was under the instruction ot the Lord. Seen his star in the east denotes where they were when they first saw the star. not that it was merely in the east when they saw it. lt was over Jerusalem when they reached the city. for verse 9 describes it as moving immediately before them even to the extent of detailed guidance in the local territory. They gave as their mission only the desire to worship the newborn king. It might be wondered as to how an infant could be worshiped by wise men. seeing that the general idea seems to restrict that word to some specified schedule of religious performance. The word in its several English forms is used in various connections in the New Testament. and also comes trom many different Greek originals. These Greek words are also rendered by other words in the Authorized Version. I shall give a complete list of these words. showing where they occur as the original for 'worship. followed by other words (if any) by which they have been translated in the New Testament. The figure after the word de­notes the number of times the word is so rendered, DOXA, Luke 14:10. Worship 1, dignity 2, glory 144, honor 6, praise 4, glorious 6. EUSEBEQ, Acts 17:23. Shew piety 1, worship 1. thebafeuo, Acts 17:26, Cure 5. heal 38, worship 1. , Colossians 2:18. Religion 3, worshiping 1, LATEEUO, Acts 7:42; Acts 24:14; Philippians 3:3; Hebrews 10:2. Do ser­vice 1, serve 16, worship 3, worshiper 1. neokobos, Acts 19:36. Worshiper 1. pbosjcuntes, John 4:23, Worshiper 1. SEBAZO, Romans 1:25. Worship 1, SEBOMAI, Matthew 15:9; Mark 7:7; Acts 16:14; Acts 18:7; Acts 18:13; Acts 19:27. Worship 6, devout 2, devout person 1. religious 1. SEBASMA, 2 Thessalonians 2:4. Devotion 1, that is worshiped 1, , John 9:31. Worshiper of God 1. is rendered "wor­ship" 58 times in the New Testament and is never rendered by any other word. Not one of the Greek words in this group is used of the public services of the church when translated by the word "worship.” This list will not be copied again, bo the reader is advised to mark it for ready reference. 2:3 Verse 3. Herod was only half Jew and was appointed to the office of ruler by the Romans. who had acquired control of the country. He was fearful of losing the throne when he heard that a child of Jewish blood had been born and was spoken of as king of the Jews. He was therefore troubled or disturbed in mind. All Jerusalem with him was troubled also, because there were a great many men in the city who depended upon him for the place of dignity that they were permitted to enjoy" 2:4 Verse 4. Herod was an Idumaean by natton but a Jew in religion. He thus had learned something of the Old Testament Scriptures. and knew that it had been prophesied that a king was some day to be born· to the Jewish nation. However, he was not sufficiently informed to locate the town where it was to take place. He called upon the priests and scribes for the information because they were supposed to be able to give it. (See Leviticus 10:11; Deuteronomy 17:9; Malachi 2:7) 2:5 Verse 5. Concordances and other works of reference were not in use at the time of this history,. but the scribes were familiar with the scriptures from having to copy them so often. It is not much wonder then that they could give Herod the information. 2:6 Verse 6. As proof of their statement they quoted from Micah 5:2 which designates where the birth was to occur and also what the child predicted was to do. Rule is from and sometimes it means to feed or nourish. Thayer defines it in this place by. "To rule, govern," and he explains Matthew 2:7; Matthew 16:5 the word elsewhere as meaning, "of the overseers (pastors) of the church." It should be observed that the new-born king was to rule the people of israel, not the political world. 2:7 Verse 7. Herod evidently believed that the star appeared at the same time as the birth and that would give him a point from which to reckon the age of the child. He called the wise men privately because his entire behaviour was prompted by craftiness. 2:8 Verse 8. The wicked king doubtless believed the prophecy, for he sent the wise men to Bethlehem in search of the child. Diligently is from AKRIBOS which Thayer defines, "exactly, ac- curately, diligently." Hence they were not only to be diligent or earnest in their investigation, but were to be careful that the information that they obtained was rellable. It will be understood that Herod's claim of wanting to worship the child was made in hypocrisy. 2:9 Verse 9. The wise men were obedient to Herod tor the present in that they started on their journey to Bethlehem. That was a small town not far from Jerusalem and could have been easily found without any special aid. But it was necessary that they not only go to the right town but also that they find the particular house where the child was at that hour. The com- munity was full of people who had come in response to the decree of Caesar (Luke 2:1-3). It might not have been known that a child had been recently born among the throng, and an inquiry would not likely brlng any accurate information. Hence the star, which evidently had temporarily disappeared, came into view again and went as an escort for the wise men, going even to the very house where the infant was then being nursed. 2:10 Verse 10. Having been led from their home country by the star, the confidence of the wise men had already been pretty well established. now that it reappeared just at the time they were starting on the final lap of their journey, their confidence was made stronger and hence they had great rejoicing. 2:11 Verse 11. They worshiped him, not the mother. For the meaning of worshiped see the note at verse 2. Gifts isfrom DORON and Thayer says in this place that it means "gifts offered as an expression of honor." An infant this young could not have personal appreciation tor material articles, hence the performance was in token of their recognition at his dignified importance. It was customary in old times to show recognition of either social or official rank by making presents. (See Genesis 32:13; 1 Samuel 10:27 and the comments on those passages.) 2:12 Verse 12. To be warned. ordinarily conveys the idea of danger, but it mighl not concern the person receiving the warning but someone else to whom he was to deIIver the message. The word is from and Thayer defines it, "To be divinely commanded, admonished, instructed." The meaning is that God instructed the wise men not to return by way of Jerusalem. The word would include the idea of danger, but it would be concerning the child Jesus and not the wise men directly. Had they gone back through Jerusalem they would have been forced to meet up with Herod, and that would have given Ihem no way to keep the information from him that would have meant harm to Jesus. 2:13 Verse 13. When they were departed indicates that the angel gave these instructlons to Joseph at the same time that he started the wise men on their journey homeward.. 2:14 Verse 14. This verse indicates that Joseph arose while it was yet night, for it was under the darkness that he started for Egypt. This is another instance showing promptness in obey· ing the command of the Lord. Abraham manifested a similar attitude about the offering up at his son as re corded in Genesis 22:3. .. 2:15 Verse 15. The writer completes the part of his story that pertained to Egypt in order not to break into the line of thought, and he will resume it a little later on. In giving instructions for Joseph to come with his son out of Egypt, the prophecy in Hosea 11:1 was fulfilled the second time; first time was tn the days of Moses. 2:16 Verse 16. The original word for wicked has a somewhat varied meaning, but in the present instance it denotes that Herod regarded the actions or the wise men as intended tor a trifling with him. Whether they had such a motive or not, he was much enraged at the slight upon his dignity. But he was not to be frustrated (as he thought) in his wicked plot to make away with the child whom he regarded as his rival. He therefore formed the plan to draw a dragnet around the terrItory of Bethlehem in the hopes of entrapping the child Jesus, and he placed the maximum age at two years. It had. been that long since he made his inquiry of the wise men which he supposed was the use of the royal birth. This plot might have accompllshed his satanic purpose had it not been for the intervention of the Lord as recorded in verse 13. Many people have been confused between the slaughter of these infants and those in Egypt in the time of Moses. In that case the male children only were to be slain, while no distinction was made in the present instance. Pharaoh was concerned only about children who might become soldiers to make war against bim and hence be ordered just the males to be killed. Herod would not risk the excuse that could have been offered by some in sparing thei r infants had the girls been exempted. hence the passage says that all the children were ordered slain. That word is from PAIS which Thayer defines is this place by the following: "1. a child. boy or girl; . . . plural infants, children." 2:17 Verse 17. When one inspired writer makes an application of another inspired statement. it leaves us with no uncertainty as to its meaning. Thus we know that Jeremiah had the "slaughter of the innocents" in mind when he wrote Jeremiah 31:15. 2:18 Verse 18. The context of the statement in Jeremiah had to do with the sorrows of ancient Israel at the hands of the heathen nations. Many of them had been slain or otherwise mistreated by these foreign people. Rama (or Ramah) was near Jerusalem and Rachel was buried in that district. She was an important "mother in Israel" and her name Is used to represent the mothers in Israel generally. Following a practice of the Old Testament prophets in gotng from their time to that of the New Testament for a like occurrence, Jeremiah looked forward to another when the near kin of Rachel would be cruelly mistreated. This was done when Herod caused so many of the Jewish children to be slain, hence the reference of Matthew to that prophecy of Jeremiah. 2:19 Verse 19. Sometimes angels were sent in visible form to communicate with man on behalf of God, and at others they came only In an inspired dream which was the way it was done to Joseph in Egypt when It was necessary to give him information. 2:20 Verse 20. He was instructed to leave Egypt and return because the ones who sought to slay the child were dead. The first Instructions were general and designated only that he should return to the land of Israel which would Include Galilee as well as Judea.. 2:21 Verse 21. This verse Is still in the general form and merely states that Joseph brought the childd. and his mother into the land. of Israel and in so doing he carried out the first in· structions of the angel delivered to him In the land of Egypt. 2:22 Verse 22. It was after the Lord informed him of the reign of Archelaus that Joseph was afraid to enter Judea which was only one part ot the land of Israel. The word not withstanding is not in the original and serves no good purpose by being Injected Into the text and should be Ignored. The verse simply means that God warned (same word as in verse 12) Joseph about the son of Herod, and that caused him to change his course and enter another part of the land of Israel called Galilee. 2:23 Verse 23. The city to which Joseph went with his family was Nazareth. which was the former home of Mary (Luke 1:26-27). This seems to have been a mere coincidence for them to settle at this place, but we may "be sure that God had a hand In all of the affair. The writer says it was in fulfillment of a prophecy that He was to be called a Nazarene. The last word is not in any prophecy of the Old Testament. The term is derived from the formation of the name Nazareth which seems to signify "a sprout or branch," and under such like terms Jesus is referred to in Isaiah 11:1; Isaiah 63:2; Jeremiah 23:5; Jeremiah 33:15; Zechariah 3:8; Zechariah 6:12. Matthew 3 "THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Chapter Three Matthew skips ahead about thirty years to describe events that prepared Jesus for His public ministry. John the Baptist served as a forerunner with his own ministry of preaching in the wilderness of Judea and baptizing in the Jordan river (Matthew 3:1-12). From Galilee Jesus came to be baptized by John "to fulfill all righteousness". As Jesus came up out of the water, the heavens opened, the Spirit descended on Him like a dove, and a voice from heaven declared, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:13-17). POINTS TO PONDER * The message and ministry of John the Baptist * The purpose and meaning of Jesus’ baptism REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter? - The ministry of John the Baptist - Matthew 3:1-12- The baptism of Jesus Christ - Matthew 3:13-17 2) What was the theme of John’ s preaching? (Matthew 3:1-2) - "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!" 3) What was John’ s mission as foretold by Isaiah? (Matthew 3:3) - To prepare the way of the Lord (Isaiah 40:3) 4) What unique clothing and diet did John have? (Matthew 3:4) - Clothed in camel’ s hair and leather belt, food was locust and wild honey 5) What was John doing in the Jordan river? (Matthew 3:5-6) - Baptizing people as they were confessing their sins 6) What did John say to the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to be baptized? (Matthew 3:8) - "Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance" 7) What did John say One who followed him would do? (Matthew 3:11-12) - Baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire 8) Who came from Galilee to be baptized by John? Why? (Matthew 3:13-15) - Jesus; to fulfill all righteousness 9) As Jesus came up from the water, what three things happened? (Matthew 3:16-17) - The heavens were opened to Him - The Spirit descended like a dove upon Him - A voice from heaven said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Matthew 3:1-17 Verse 1 II FOR HIS WORK; THE HERALD; BAPTISM; ; AND HIS PUBLIC BY JOHN THE BAPTISTMat_3:1-17; Matthew 4:1-11 Matthew 3:1-17 And in those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, saying Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. (Matthew 3:1-2)In those days ... that is, some thirty years after the events recorded in the previous chapter. This is typical of Matthew's slight attention to chronology. Jesus was about 30 years of age when he was baptized (Luke 3:23). The date of John's ministry is also given by Luke as occurring in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar (Luke 3:1). John the Baptist ... John is called "the baptist" because he baptized people. McGarvey identified John as the originator, under God, of the ordinance of baptism.[1] Dummelow commented on the immense popularity of John the Baptist, "The public appearance of the Baptist marked a new era. He came forward in the two-fold capacity of a prophet and forerunner of the Messiah. Since prophecy had been silent for 400 years, and all patriotic Jews were longing for the coming of the Messiah to deliver them from the Roman yoke, it is not surprising that he was welcomed with enthusiasm; and that those who ventured to doubt his mission found it expedient to dissemble (Matthew 21:26)."[2] Jesus had the highest opinion of John (Luke 7:28). The Jewish priests said he was possessed by a demon (Matthew 11:18), but this poor opinion of John was a reflection upon themselves and sprang out of the evil in which they were engrossed. The wilderness of Judaea ... was a strip of waste land also called a desert (Luke 1:80), lying west of the Dead Sea near the mouth of the Jordan. This wilderness platform of John's preaching served to identify him as "the voice of one crying in the wilderness." That John the Baptist was most certainly the person spoken of by the prophet, Isaiah, "is evident from the fact that he alone, of all the great preachers known to history, chose a wilderness as his place of preaching."[3] Repent ye ... John's message was one of repentance. Benjamin Franklin, pioneer Restoration preacher, proclaimed that God appointed three changes in conversion and three actions designed to effect those three changes. These are FAITH to change the heart (mind); to change the will; and BAPTISM to change the status. Repentance involving a change of the will is far more than mere sorrow for sin (2 Corinthians 7:10). Repentance is an instantaneous change of the will, induced by godly sorrow, and issuing forth in a reformation of life, and marked by restitution wherever possible. See under Matthew 18:3. The kingdom of heaven ... This is the kingdom of Dan 2:44. John was the herald of this approaching king, Christ, in his kingdom. That this wonderful new kingdom was not to be a kingdom of this world in the ordinary and secular sense was a fact unknown to the Jews and only dimly appreciated by the Twelve themselves, especially at first. The kingdom of God and the church are one and the same institution, and this fact is more and more apparent. See under Matthew 16:13-19. Is at hand ... With the ministry of John the Baptist, the kingdom was near but not yet established. Moffatt's translation of this place is: "The reign of heaven is near." In Mark 9:1, Christ emphatically declared that the kingdom of God would be established with power within the lifetime of the apostles, saying, "Verily, I say unto you, There are some here of them who stand by, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power." Both Christ and Judas Iscariot were to taste of death before the kingdom began; and, therefore, the words "some of them" are most precisely accurate. [1] J. W. McGarvey, New Testament Commentary (Delight, Arkansas: Gospel Light Publishing Co.), p. 33. [2] J. R. Dummelow, One Volume Commentary (New York: Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 629. [3] J. W. McGarvey, op. cit., p. 34. Verse 3 For this is he that was spoken of through Isaiah the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make ye ready the way of the Lord, Make his paths straight.The passage here quoted is Isaiah 40:3, but Isaiah is not the only prophet who prophesied of the mission of the great herald of the gospel age. Another equally significant prophecy is Malachi 4:5-6 in which the office and work of the herald are explicitly foretold. It is from Christ himself that one learns this passage's application to John. Jesus had identified himself as the Messiah to his disciples, but the disciples had been troubled by the objection of the scribes that "Elijah must first come" (Matthew 17:9-13). Christ then identified John as the "Elijah" foretold by Malachi. The Pharisees should have known that truth already, because it was to one of the priestly group, Zacharias, that the angel announced the birth of John, using almost the identical words of Malachi's great prophecy. Compare Malachi 4:5-6 and Luke 1:15-17. Only willful blindness on the part of the Jewish leaders can account for their failure to recognize John as the "Elijah" who was to precede the Messiah. Verse 4 Now John himself had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his food was locusts and wild honey.John had evidently been schooled in the knowledge that he was to be another Elijah, and he promptly adopted the type of dress that would identify him as "Elijah." In 2 Kings 1:8, Elijah's garb is mentioned, especially the leather girdle. This type of clothing was worn by the prophet for another reason, and that was as a protest against the luxury of the ruling classes in Jerusalem. His austere manner of dress and the wilderness residence pointed the way to the self-denial and repentance which would be the burden of John's preaching. Locusts and wild honey ... comprised the diet of the herald. The locusts were probably insects somewhat similar to large grasshoppers in the United States. Locusts are still considered edible in many parts of the world. Some believe the "locusts" refer to the pods of the carob tree, called "St. John's bread" by the Jews, and still sold in New York City markets. The prodigal son is represented as eating the pods of the carob beans; and certainly John the Baptist could have eaten such carob pods; however, we are confronted with the simple statement that what he did eat was locusts and wild honey! Verse 5 Then went out unto him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan; And they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.All Judaea ...; Matthew 3:5 is hyperbole in which there is an intentional exaggeration for the sake of emphasis. There are many figures of speech in the Holy Scriptures, and a proper understanding of them is necessary to a true understanding of God's word. There are other figures which shall be noted in this chapter. Matthew 3:5 merely means that the great majority of the people of that time and place accepted the baptism of John the Baptist. It is specifically declared in the Scriptures that the Pharisees and lawyers did not accept it (Luke 7:30). In the river Jordan ... John selected this river as the scene of his many baptisms for a reason, and the reason is given in John 3:23, "because there was much water there." This makes it imperative that immersion be understood as the "form" of baptism practiced by John, since "much water" could not possibly have been required for any other "type" of baptism. Verse 7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said unto them, Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?Pharisees ... were a very wealthy, zealous, and powerful sect among the Jews. They were proud, conceited, worldly, and vigilant enemies of our Lord; and yet they were the leaders among the ancient Jews and doubtless had many fine and commendable qualities which tend to be obscured by the fact that they opposed the work of Christ. Ledlow lists seven distinct classes of Pharisees, as follows: (1) The Shoulder Pharisee who wore all his good deeds on his shoulder and did his alms to be seen of men (Matthew 6:5); (2) The Wait-a-Little Pharisee who always suggested something else to do first. Of this type was the man who when asked to follow Christ said, "Suffer me first to go and bury my father" (Luke 9:59-60); (3) The Bruised Pharisee who was too pious to look upon a woman and who shut his eyes when one approached, which caused him to stumble into a wall and be bruised or cut; (4) The Pestle and Mortar Pharisee who walked with his head down in mock humility, also called the Hump-Backed Pharisee; (5) The Ever-Reckoning Pharisee who kept a ledger of good deeds and bad deeds in an effort to balance accounts with himself; (6) The God-Loving Pharisee, the noblest of the group; and (7) The Timid Pharisee who was the schizophrene of his day. It was probably to this latter class that Jesus addressed his warning that no man can serve two masters (Matthew 6:24).[4] Sadducees ... constituted another powerful sect, though not as large as the Pharisees. They were the crass materialists of their day, denying the existence of angels or spirits and refusing to believe in the resurrection. They made fun of the idea of heaven as seen from the question propounded in Matthew 22:23 ff. Although they were mortal enemies of the Pharisees, they made common cause with them against Christ. Their difference with the Pharisees, however, was always close to the surface. See Acts 23:8. Ye offspring of vipers ... The total corruption of the Jewish leaders of that day is seen in this passage. John's vehement denunciation of these wicked men is exceeded only by the far greater condemnation heaped upon them by Christ. Their corruption was an open shame, known to all, denied by none, and justly deserving the words of condemnation uttered against them both by John and by the Christ. The wrath to come ... could mean either of two things, or perhaps both. It might refer to the overflowing of God's wrath against the Jewish nation because of their rejection of Christ and culminating in the overthrow of their temple and religious system in the year 70 A.D. by the conquering armies of Vespasian and Titus. It might also refer to the final overthrow of the wicked in hell. In this context, there is no reason why the passage should not refer to both, since both were "to come"! ENDNOTE:[4] W. F. Ledlow, Jesus and His Method (Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation Publishing House), pp. 200-202. Verse 8 Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of repentance: and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.Fruit worthy of repentance ... suggests the true relationship between repentance and reformation of life. Reformation of life is not repentance but issues forth from repentance and is a direct result or "fruit" of repentance. That repentance cannot be reformation of life is seen in the words of Christ who allowed that it is possible to repent many times in one day (Luke 17:4), a thing that cannot be understood of reformation. Think not to say ... Here Christ answered an alibi and destroyed a refuge of these ancient sinners. They supposed themselves safe because they were the seed of Abraham to whom the promises of old had been truly certified. However, in this place John blasts their complacency and opens the door for the "spiritual sons" of Abraham (Galatians 3:26-29). Here in the preaching of John the Baptist was the beginning of that truth so fully expounded by Paul in which it appears that "He is not a Jew who is one outwardly ...." (Romans 2:28-29). Verse 10 And even now the axe lieth at the root of the trees: every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.Axe ... root of the trees This is a bold metaphor, here directed against the Jewish nation, but applicable with equal force against all sinful and rebellious people who reject God's will. The "axe" is the army of destruction God would send against Jerusalem. "The root of the trees" refers to those great national institutions, the root and springs of Jewish culture, which would be destroyed when Titus razed the temple, prohibited the daily sacrifice, and destroyed the national polity of the Jewish people. "The fire" refers to the sorrows and tribulations through which the people would have to pass. The words "even now" suggest the near approach of the doom of Jerusalem, a theme which Christ himself more fully expounded later in his ministry. Verse 11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire.Seven baptisms are mentioned in the New Testament, three of which are mentioned in this verse. They are: 1. The baptism unto Moses (1 Corinthians 10:2). 2. The baptism of sufferings (Mark 10:38-39). 3. The baptism for the dead (1 Corinthians 15:29). 4. The baptism of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11, see above). 5. The baptism of fire (Matthew 3:11, see above). 6. The baptism of John the Baptist (Acts 19:3). 7. The baptism of the Great Commission (Mark 16:15-16; Matthew 28:18-20). In spite of the fact that all these baptisms find mention in the New Testament, there is, nevertheless, but ONE baptism in force. See Ephesians 4:4. To determine which baptism is in force, or which one is IT, one only needs to observe these facts: No. 1, above, applied only to Jews. No. 2 is altogether figurative, being in no sense a ceremony. No. 3 was a practice of non-Christians as witnessed by the third person pronouns and was never connected in any way with the Christian religion. Nos. 4,5 are both promises of what God will do and cannot be obeyed in any sense. No. 6, John's baptism, was clearly and categorically set aside by the baptism of him that is greater than John, even Christ. See Acts 19:3. Thus, the ONE baptism of Ephesians can be none other than the baptism of the Great Commission. In the Holy Spirit and in fire ... is seen as a reference to two baptisms, rather than merely one, because John emphatically divided his hearers into two classes, reinforcing the point with a double metaphor, first of the unfruitful tree, and again of the threshing floor. Both at Pentecost and at the household of Cornelius was the baptism of the Spirit received (Acts 1:5; Acts 2:4; Acts 11:15-16). It is significant that both Jews and Gentiles are represented in these two groups and that there are no other examples of this baptism in the New Testament. It is also possible to construe "baptism in the Spirit" as a reference to the overwhelming guidance and direction of God's people through the office of the Holy Comforter. In this sense, it applies to all believers. In fire ... likely refers to the overwhelming of the wicked at last in hell. This is based on the fact that the term "fire" is the same as that used for the unfruitful tree and for the chaff in John's great metaphors. McGarvey said, "It is clearly the wicked who are to be baptized in fire, and the fulfillment of the prediction will be realized when they are cast into the lake of fire" (Revelation 21:8).[5] ENDNOTE:[5] J. W .McGarvey, op. cit., p. 39. Verse 12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshingfloor; and he will gather his wheat into the garner, but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire. Whose fan is in his hand, etc. ... Note the following analogies in this remarkable metaphor: the fan is the judgment; the wheat refers to the just; the chaff stands for the wicked; the fire is the Gehenna in which the wicked shall perish; the threshingfloor is Palestine or the world; the one with the winnowing fan in his hand is the Lord, Judge of all the earth. Significantly, God classifies people in only two categories, good and bad, wheat and chaff, sheep and goats. Verse 13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan unto John to be baptized of him.Matthew Henry saw in the baptism of our Lord a mark of his wonderful humility. He said, "As soon as ever Christ began to preach, he preached humility, preached it by his example; designated for the highest honors; yet, in his first step, he thus abases himself."[6" translation="">Matthew 3:17.">[6] With reference to WHY Christ was baptized, it should be noted that he was not baptized for the remission of sins (Hebrews 4:15), nor to set an example for people as to how they should "follow Christ in baptism" (Jesus was about 30 years of age). The reason assigned by the Lord was that it became him to "fulfill all righteousness." , in the Scriptural view, refers to keeping God's commandments or ordinances (Psalms 119:172 and Luke 1:8). Although Christ was sinless and needed not to be baptized for the usual reasons, yet he submitted to John's baptism because God had commanded it. How worthy of emulation is that sublime attitude of Jesus; and how unlike that attitude is that of men who set aside even the baptism that is greater than John's, making it a non-essential, an elective privilege, rather than receiving it for what it is, namely, a divinely-imposed condition of eternal salvation, which if spurned cannot fail to bring everlasting remorse. The very fact that the ordinance of baptism was to be brought over into the New Covenant by the Lord Jesus and elevated to an even higher status than the ordinance enjoyed under the preaching of John would lead the student of the Bible to seek in Christ's baptism some traces or suggestions of that expanded significance that would accrue to baptism in the New Covenant. After Jesus was baptized, he began to pray publicly (Luke 3:21); the Holy Spirit descended upon him as he came forth up from the water (Matthew 3:16); and, immediately upon his baptism, God the Father publicly proclaimed Jesus as his Son. These facts certainly suggest that the Christian's baptism marks the beginning of a significant new prayer life, the reception of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 4:6), and immediate enrollment in the Lamb's book of life! ENDNOTE:[6" translation="">Matthew 3:17.">[6] Matthew Henry, Commentary (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell) on Matthew 3:17. Verse 14 But John would have hindered him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?This testimony of John the Baptist to the sinless nature of Christ is doubly effective because he was a cousin of our Lord. From the intimacy of the family circle, the testimony of Jesus' perfect life was attested, no less than from his public deeds. John preached the "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins"; and since Christ had no sins of which to repent, and as John did not know of our Lord's other reason for being baptized, he would have prevented it. Verse 15 But Jesus, answering, said unto him, Suffer it now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffered him.This was equivalent to saying, "Yes, I know I have no sins to be repented of and that I might claim an exemption from this duty proclaimed by the authority of God and binding upon all men; but, since this is God's ordinance, I wish to honor it anyway and am delighted to do so by obeying the commandment now." Verse 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him.Straightway from the water strongly suggests immersion as the action, that constitutes Scriptural baptism. Immersion is the only "kind" of baptism in which the person being baptized goes to the water before the act and leaves the water behind after the act! Who had the authority to change the action called baptism? It cannot be allowed that any man ever had such authority. The Holy Scriptures affirm that men are "buried" by baptism (Colossians 2:12; Romans 6:3-5). Spirit of God descending as a dove ... This referred to the sign by which John was inspired to recognize the Messiah (John 1:32-34). Thus, it is clear the Holy Spirit adopted the shape of a dove on that occasion, otherwise John could not have seen and borne witness. As in all Scriptural symbolism, the dove was a creature most admirably suited to serve in that situation as a vehicle for suggesting the Holy Spirit. Note: (1) The dove was a "clean" creature under the ceremonial laws of the Jews; (2) it was used in their religious sacrifices, two, in fact, being offered upon the presentation of our Lord in the temple (Luke 2:24); (3) it is a monogamous creature! (4) it is a symbol of peace; (5) it is a marvel of gentleness, love, and affection; (6) it is a messenger (the homing pigeon is a dove); and (7) the dove has no gall, suggesting that there is no bitterness in the service of God. Brownville wrote, "It has been suggested that one reason for the gentleness of the dove is that the bird has no gall, the gall having been considered by naturalists of old as the source and fount of contention."[7] ENDNOTE:[7] C. Gordon Brownville, Symbols of the Holy Spirit (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1945), p. 19. Verse 17 And lo, a voice out of the heavens, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.Three times, the Holy Scriptures represent God as speaking out of heaven in testimony for Jesus Christ: in this place, on the occasion of the transfiguration (Matthew 17:5), and in John 12:28-30. Voice out of heaven ... This passage is a stronghold of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Discernible by man's senses, all three persons of the Godhead appear in this passage. The Son is coming up from the waters of baptism, the Spirit of God in the form of a dove has alighted and remains upon Christ, and the Father himself speaks out of heaven! It should be remembered that the Trinity as a doctrine is not stated in the Bible, but Scriptures such as this verse and Matthew 28:18-20 strongly suggest it. It should not be considered strange that God is a Trinity, because man himself, in a certain sense, is a trinity also. For example, there are three institutions that minister to man's needs: (1) the asylum for the deranged, (2) the prison for the criminal, and (3) the hospital for the physically injured. Man, created in God's image, and manifesting at least some characteristics of a trinity in His own nature, should not stumble at accepting the higher truth that God Himself is a Trinity of three Persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. On this difficult question, Dr. Dummelow said, "Although the definition of the doctrine of the Trinity was the result of a long process of development which was not complete until the fifth century, the doctrine itself underlies the whole New Testament which everywhere attributes divinity to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, and assigns to them distinct functions in the economy of redemption."Matthew 28:18-20, in which passage baptism is commanded in the "name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. This declaration out of heaven in broad open daylight in the presence of a multitude was actually God's designation of Jesus Christ as the Messiah. The sonship of Christ is unique. He was the "only begotten" of the Father (John 3:18; 1 John 4:9). Many men may claim to be sons of God, and properly so; but only One could have been "the only begotten" Son of God. Surely, this was a true "sign from heaven," given long before the Pharisees asked for such a sign. (See under Matthew 16:1.) ENDNOTE: J.W. McGarvey's Commentary For Matthew Chapter ThreeJohn's Ministry and the Baptism of Jesus, Matthew 3:1-17 John in the Wilderness, 1-6. (Mark 1:1-6; Luke 3:1-6) 1. In those days.—These words connect the events about to be related with those of the preceding chapter. But those events occurred during the infancy of Jesus, and these when he was about thirty years of age. (See Luke 3:23.) Consequently a period of more than twenty-eight years had intervened, and we see that Matthew uses the expression "in those days" very indefinitely. This accords with Matthew's general inattention to chronology. the Baptist.—The title Baptist is given to John, because he was the originator under God of the ordinance of baptism. It is supposed by many that the ordinance did not originate with him, but that he copied it from the Jewish proselyte baptism. It is doubtful, however, whether proselyte baptism existed among the Jews previous to this time, as it is not mentioned in history until the third century of the Christian era. Moreover, it was a different rite in its form from John's baptism; for, while John immersed others, in proselyte baptism the candidate immersed himself by going into the water to a convenient depth and dipping himself under. (See Kitto's Cyclopedia and Smith's Dictionary.) Such a baptism was by the law required of all persons who were unclean. When the sprinkling of blood or of the ashes of the red heifer was required, this bathing always followed; and it constituted a part of the process of purification in all other cases. (See Leviticus 14:9; Numbers 19:19 Numbers 7:1-89 Numbers 8:1-26; Leviticus 15:1-33. passim; 16:24-28; 17:15.) Some twenty distinct cases are specified in which the law required this bathing, and it is to these that Paul refers when he states that the law consisted in part of "divers baptisms." (Hebrews 9:10.) But the law required nothing of this kind in the case of proselytes as a means of initiation; and when the practice of proselyte baptism was introduced it was a human appendage to the Jewish ritual, just as infant baptism was to the Christian ritual. 2. Repent ye—The theme of John's preaching was repentance, and the chief motive by which he enforced the duty of repenting was the near approach of the kingdom of heaven. The latter event served as a motive to induce repentance because only by repentance could the people be prepared for it. A people totally indifferent to their violations of the law already given, would be ill-prepared to receive an additional revelation. John's theme, therefore, was well adapted to his mission as the herald of the coming kingdom. 3. The voice.—That John was certainly the person spoken of by Isaiah as "the voice crying in the wilderness," is evident from the fact that he alone, among all the great preachers known to history, chose a wilderness as his place of preaching. All others, not excepting Jesus and his apostles, went into the cities and villages where the people could be found: John alone began and ended in the wilderness, the people going out to him instead of his going to the people. Prepare ye the way.—The object of John's mission was to prepare the people for Jesus and for the subsequent preaching of the apostles. (See Luke 1:17.) Here this preparation is figuratively represented by the physical preparation of a path by straightening it, and thus making the journey over it more rapid and less laborious. (Comp. Luke 3:4-5.) 4. his raiment.—John's dress, a coarse fabric woven from camel's hair, with a raw hide girdle attached to it; and his food, consisting of the Egyptian locust and wild honey, were so unusual that the Pharisees said he had a demon (11:18); but nothing could be more appropriate than that be whose mission it was to call men to repentance should himself set an example of austere self-denial. 5. went out to him.—Not-withstanding the unfavorable locality selected by John, he had no lack of an audience. The term all, however, is used here according to a Hebrew idiom by which it is put for the greater part. This appears from Matthew's subsequent statement that the chief priests and elders of the people did not accept John's baptism, and from Luke's statement that the Pharisees and lawyers, as a class, rejected it. (21:23-25; Luke 7:30.) 6. confessing their sins.—We have seen (verse 2) that John's chief theme was repentance, and here we learn that those baptized by him confessed their sins. Repentance and confession of sins, then, were the prerequisites to his baptism, and these imply faith in what he preached. The confession must have been of a very general character; for the brief duration of John's ministry, and the vast numbers that he baptized forbid the supposition of a detailed confession of all the sins of each individual. John's Preaching and the Christ Announced, Matthew 3:7-12. (Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:7-18) 7. Pharisees.—The term Pharisee is derived from a Hebrew word which means separated. It represents a party among the Jews who were so called because of their extreme care to keep themselves separated from all persons and things which were legally unclean. The sect originated in the early part of the interval between the close of the Old Testament history and the birth of Jesus, but at what exact time is not now known. The fundamental peculiarity of their system was belief in the traditions of the elders, which they understood to consist in laws and regulations orally transmitted from Moses and the prophets. On account of the supposition that these traditions originated with inspired men, they were regarded as equal in authority with the written word. (See 15:1-9.) The Pharisees lived abstemiously, believed in the resurrection of the dead, and had almost unbounded influence with the masses of the people. For further details in reference to their history and doctrine, see Josephus, Ant. xii. 9:5; 10:5; xviii. 1:3, 4; Wars. ii. 8:14; Smith's Dictionary; and the passages of the New Testament in which they are mentioned. Sadducees.—The Sadducees derived their name, according to Jewish tradition, from one Zadok, the founder of their sect. It is ingeniously argued, however, by a writer in Smith's Dictionary, that this tradition is incorrect, and that the name was taken from that Zadok who was high priest under Solomon. His descendants were called "sons of Zadok" (Ezekiel 40:46 Ezekiel 48:11), from which expression the term Zadokites or Sadducees, as it comes to us through the Greek, might very readily be formed. They were diametrically opposed to the Pharisees, rejecting the authority of oral tradition, living a luxurious life, and denying the resurrection of the dead and the existence of angels and spirits. (Matthew 22:23; Acts 23:8; Josephus, Ant. xviii. 1:4; Wars. ii. 8:14.) come to his baptism.—Many understand these words as meaning that the Pharisees and Sadducees came to be baptized by John. His question, "Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come," naturally suggests this meaning. But we are expressly informed that the Pharisees rejected John's baptism (Matthew 21:25-27; Luke 7:30), and the argument which John employs below (verse 9) implies that they were trusting in the fact of being Abraham's children, and that, consequently, they denied a necessity for either the baptism or the repentance which John preached. Moreover, the question which he put to them is susceptible of an easy interpretation in harmony with these facts. Seeing that they affected to despise John and to utterly disregard his warnings, it was not expected that they would go near to his place of baptizing; but they came, and, by coming, indicated that they felt some of the alarm which had been generally awakened by his preaching. By demanding, "Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" John taunts them with the fact that they were alarmed, and that his preaching had alarmed them. Luke's report of this speech represents it as being addressed to "the multitude" (3:7), but Matthew's more specific language points out the particular portion of the multitude for whom it was intended. generation of vipers.— More correctly rendered offspring or brood of vipers. This expression emphasizes the guile and malice of these men, and shows that they had no good motive in coming to the baptism. 8. fruits meet for repentance.—In this expression men are represented as trees, and the change of conduct brought about by repentance as fruit which they should bring forth. It probably suggested to John the allegory of ver. 10, below. 9. We have Abraham.—It was thought by all of the Jews that the Messiah's kingdom would be a kingdom over the Jews as a nation, and that all Jews would be citizens of it. They relied, therefore, for their admittance into the kingdom, on the mere fact that they were Abraham's children. It was this thought which led Nicodemus, after hearing Jesus declare that "except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God," to exclaim, "How can these things be?" (John 3:9.) of these stones.—The point in this remark is to show that it is the mere creative power of God that makes men children of Abraham, and that, therefore, there is no spiritual virtue in the connection. 10. the axe is laid.—Returning now to the metaphor of fruit trees, which he had introduced before (verse 8), John employs a brief allegory in which his hearers are compared to trees in an orchard. An axe lies at the root of every tree which has not hitherto brought forth fruit, in readiness for the woodman to cut it down if fruit shall not soon appear. Thus he insists on the personal responsibility of every man, without regard to ancestry. 11. I indeed.—John advances from the warning contained in his allegory to the announcement of him who would inflict the punishment therein indicated. He presents the Coming One, first, as contrasted with himself in reference to the baptism he would administer; and, second, as a judge who would separate the righteous from the wicked as a husbandman separates his wheat from the chaff. with water.—The Greek preposition (ἔν) here translated with primarily means in, and should be so translated in all instances, except where the context or the nature of the case forbids. It must be admitted by all that there is nothing in this context to exclude its ordinary meaning, unless it be the use of the same preposition with the terms Holy Spirit and fire. But the apostles were certainly baptized in the Holy Spirit; and it is equally certain that the wicked will be baptized in fire. (See below.) The immediate context, then, instead of forbidding the ordinary sense of the preposition, requires it. The remoter context has the same force, for it had just been said that the people were baptized by John in the Jordan; and there it is impossible to render the preposition by with. Baptized "with the Jordan" would be absurd. unto repentance.—The rendering, "I baptize you unto repentance," implies that the baptism brought them to repentance. But such is not the fact in the case, for John required repentance as a prerequisite to baptism, and it is rather true that repentance brought them to baptism. If we adopt the rendering, "into repentance," which is more literal, we are involved in a worse difficulty; for, if baptism did not bring the baptized unto repentance, it certainly did not bring them into it. Again, if to avoid these two difficulties we suppose the term repentance to be used by metonymy for the state of one who has repented, we encounter another difficulty not less serious; for the state of one who has repented is entered, not by being baptized, but by repenting. Finally, to assume, as some have done, that the preposition has the sense of because of, is to seek escape from a difficulty by attaching to a word a meaning which it never bears. The preposition (ἔις) is never used to express the idea that one thing is done because of another having been done. Neither, indeed, would it be true that John baptized persons because of their repentance; for, while it is true that repentance did precede the baptism, it was not because of this that they were baptized; but baptism had its own specific object, and because of this object it was administered. The phrase under consideration has another meaning which, though somewhat obscure as regards its connection with the facts, is very naturally expressed by the words themselves. The preposition is often expressive of purpose, and the phrase may be properly rendered "in order to repentance." The baptism was not in order to the repentance of the party baptized. To so understand it would be to encounter the difficulty first mentioned above. But a baptism which required repentance as a prerequisite would have a tendency to cause those yet unbaptized to repent, in order that they might receive the baptism and enjoy its blessings. Prizes in schools are given in order to good behavior and good recitations, although the good recitations and the good behavior must precede the reception of the prizes. Promotions in the army are in order to the encouragement of obedience and valor, although these qualities of the good soldier must appear before promotion can take place. In the same way was John's baptism in order to repentance. The inestimable blessing of remission of sins being attached to baptism (see Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3), the desire to obtain this blessing would prompt those yet unbaptized to repent, so that they might be baptized. The words declare simply that the general purpose of John's baptism was to bring the people to repentance. with the Holy Spirit.—In the Holy Spirit. (See first note on this verse.) The prediction here made that the Coming One would baptize in the Holy Spirit, began to be fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. (Comp. Acts 1:5 Acts 2:4.) But John speaks as if the baptism in the Holy Spirit was to be as general under Christ as baptism in water was under his own ministry. Some have inferred from this that all of the subjects of Christ's kingdom were to be baptized in the Holy Spirit; and another reason for the same conclusion is the fact that the baptism in the Holy Spirit and that in fire seem to include all men; the latter, all the wicked; the former all the righteous. But a prediction is best understood in the light of its fulfillment; and it is a fact that the apostles on Pentecost, and the household of Cornelius, are the only persons said in the New Testament to have received this baptism. (See Acts 1:5 Acts 2:4 Acts 11:15-16.) True, others, by imposition of apostolic hands, received miraculous gifts of the Spirit, and we would be justifiable in regarding these as instances of baptism in the Spirit if they were precisely like the two so called. But between these two and all others there is at least this remarkable difference, that in these two the Spirit came directly from Christ without human intervention, while in all others it was imparted through human hands. While the baptism in the Spirit, then, was actually confined to these two groups of persons, the benefits resulting from it extended to all. The benefit of this baptism in the house of Cornelius was the admission of all Gentile converts into the church on an equality with the Jews; and the benefit of that on Pentecost was to extend the blessed fruits of plenary inspiration to all disciples, both Jews and Gentiles. These considerations are sufficient to account for the general terms of John's prediction. Some have supposed that the baptism in the Spirit is not confined to those who received miraculous gifts, but is enjoyed by all who receive the Holy Spirit at all. This hypothesis, which I am not prepared to adopt, would very satisfactorily explain John's language. with fire.—A few eminent commentators refer the expression in fire to the cloven tongues which sat upon the apostles when they were baptized in the Holy Spirit. Alford affirms, "This was literally fulfilled on the day of Pentecost;" and, in opposition to the more usual interpretation which refers it to the final punishment of the wicked, he says: "To separate 'the Holy Spirit' as referring to one set of persons and 'fire' as belonging to another, when both are united in 'you,' is in the last degree harsh, besides introducing confusion into the whole." As to the literal fulfillment on Pentecost, the learned author seems to have forgotten that it was not literal fire which sat on the apostles, but "cloven tongues like as of fire" (Acts 2:2); and that, even if these tongues had been actual fire, their sitting on the heads of the apostles could not have constituted a baptism of the apostles in fire. As regards the separation of the persons addressed into two parties, we see no difficulty, for such a division is clearly indicated in the context. In the preceding verse John uses the fruitful trees for good men and the unfruitful for bad men; and in the following verse he uses the wheat and the chaff in the same way. It is not at all harsh, then, to understand him as keeping up the distinction in the intermediate verse, and as using the term you to comprehend both classes. The term you, indeed, must be understood indefinitely, because the parties he was addressing had not been baptized, and he could not say to them in the strict sense of the pronoun, "I baptize you." The term is used indefinitely for the people at large. Finally, in both of the connected sentences, the term fire is connected with the fate of the wicked, and used as the symbol of punishment. The unfruitful trees are to be burned with fire, and the chaff is to be burned with "unquenchable fire;" it is, then, "in the last degree harsh" to understand it differently in this sentence. It is clearly the wicked who are to be baptized in fire, and the fulfillment of the prediction will be realized when they are cast into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:15.) 12. whose fan.—The term rendered fan (πτύον) means a winnowing shovel, and is rendered fan because the modern implement for separating the grain from the chaff is so called. The ancients, after the grain was trodden out on the threshing-floor by oxen, winnowed it by tossing it repeatedly into the air with a large wooden shovel until the wind blew away all the chaff. This was called cleaning the floor; that is, the threshing-floor. The world is here represented by a threshing-floor; its mingled population of saints and sinners, by the chaff and grain covering the floor; the work of Christ, by that of a farmer who cleans up the floor with his winnowing shovel; the salvation of the righteous, by gathering the wheat into the garner; and the punishment of the wicked, by burning up the chaff. Jesus Baptized, Matthew 3:13-17. (Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22) 13. from Galilee.—The departure of Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan for the purpose of being baptized by John, is the first voluntary act of his life recorded by Matthew. It was the beginning of his public career. 14. John forbade him.—John's objection to baptizing Jesus shows clearly that he believed him to be the Coming One whom he had predicted, although he had not witnessed the final proof of this fact, which was the descent of the Holy Spirit on him after his baptism. (John 1:33-34.) The baptism which he needed from Jesus was evidently that in the Holy Spirit. 15. thus it becometh us.— In his reply Jesus acknowledges some force in John's objection. By the term now, "suffer it to be so now," he intimates that the appearance of inferiority to John was to be but temporary. The specific reason for which he submitted to baptism is then given. Baptism had two aspects: it was an act in connection with which remission of sins took place, and it was an act of obedience to a positive command of God. In its latter aspect it was incumbent on Jesus as a Jew, though he needed not the promised remission of sins. If he had neglected it he would have fallen thus far short of perfect righteousness, and this defect would have clung to him to the end of life. What is true of Jesus in this particular is certainly true of other men; so that even if we could in our thoughts divest baptism of its connection with remission of sins, it would still be an act of obedience the neglect of which would be a sin. 16. out of the water.—The preposition here rendered out of (ἀπὸ) means from. It is frequently used where the motion is out of, e. g., Matthew 2:1 Matthew 3:13 Matthew 7:4 Matthew 12:43 Matthew 13:1 Matthew 14:13 Matthew 14:29; but in such cases it is from the circumstances and not from the preposition alone that this fact is ascertained. It here designates the departure from the water after he had come out of it, and should be rendered from. In Mark, according to the corrected Greek text, we have ἔκ, and the parallel there is correctly rendered "coming up out of the water." (Mark 1:10.) he saw the Spirit.—The statement that he saw the Spirit descending, which is also the language of Mark (1:10), has been taken by some as implying that the Spirit was invisible to the multitude. But we know from John's narrative that it was also seen by John the Baptist (John 1:33-34): and if it was visible to him and to Jesus, and if it descended, as Luke affirms, in a bodily shape like a dove (Luke 3:22), it would have required a miracle to hide it from the multitude. Moreover, the object of the Spirit's visible appearance was to point Jesus out, not to himself, but to others; and to point him out as the person concerning whom the voice from heaven was uttered. No doubt, then, the Spirit was visible and the voice audible to all who were present. 17. a voice from heaven.—The voice from heaven gave expression to two distinct thoughts: First, That Jesus was God's beloved Son; Second, That in him— that is, in him as entering now on the work of human redemption— God was well pleased. It gave a pledge that the mediatorial work of Christ would be accepted on the part of God. Argument of Section 4 In this section Matthew presents two more proofs of the claims of Jesus. He shows, first, that he was attested by John, himself a prophet, as the one mightier than himself, who should baptize in the Holy Spirit and in fire— which was equivalent to declaring him the Messiah. Second, he shows that Jesus was declared both by the Father and by the Holy Spirit to be the Son of God— the Father uttering the words, and the Holy Spirit pointing out the person. Thus again, in a single section of his narrative, our author exhibits both the Messiahship and the Sonship of Jesus. Questions by E.M. Zerr For Matthew 31. What great man is introduced? 2. He came doing what? 3. Where did he operate? 4. What did he tell the people to do? 5. State the reason he gave. 6. Who had prophesied of this? 7. Where was the voice to cry? 8. What was to be prepared? 9. How make the paths? 10. Of what was the preacher’ s raiment? 11. How was he girded? 12. Tell the articles of food. 13. From where did people go out to him? 14. Were these places all cities? 15. How was the first related to the second? 16. What did John do for them? 17. This was upon what confession? 18. Why was it done in Jordan? 19. What class of attendants did John notice 20. Had he specially urged them to come ? 21. What was John’ s baptism “ for” ? 22. In coming to it what was their pretention 23. Did they mislead John? 24. What did he call them? 25. And state the question he asked them. 26. What fruits did he demand? 27. On what did they count so much? 28. Did such relationship really exist ? 29. Through what line could it have come? 30. State the line John said was possible. 31. What is at the root of the trees? 32. If at such place what is indicated ? 33. Who will use the ax? 34. What is done with the tree after falling? 35. State what fire this is.. . 36. In what element did John baptize? 37. Unto what? 38. Compare John and his successor. 39. Of what did John say he was unworthy? 40. Name the elements he was to baptize with. 41. What was to be in his hand? 42. Tell the use of this instrument. 43. What does the wheat represent? 44. And the chaff? 45. What is meant by gamer ? 46. State the fate of the chaff. 47. To what place does this refer ? 48. What person came to John? 49. From what place did he come? 50. For what purpose did he come ? 51. Why did John hesitate? 52. Jesus wished to fulfill what? 53. After baptism out of what did Jesus come? 54. What opened up to him ? 55. Did a dove light on him? . 56. Tell what else came from heaven. 57. Repeat its words. 3:1 Verse 1. In those days is indefinite and it is at least a quarter of a century after the close or the preceding chapter. In that chapter (Matthew 2:21) Jesus was but a "young child" while now he is about 30 years old (Luke 3:23) . Baptist Is from the Greek word which Thayer defines, "a baptizer; one who administers the rite of baptism," hence the name John the Baptist. It Is sometimes asked why a man would come to baptize in a wilderness where there are no people to baptize nor any water available tor such a purpose. Both assumptions are wrong, for while the territory was not settled or inhabited, there was nothing to prevent the people of the settlements going out to him, wbich they did (verse 5). Also the word does not mean a place where there would be no water. Wilderness is trom EREMOS which Thayer defines. "an uncultivated reglon .fit for pasturage," There would not likely be much pasturage where there was no water. Besides, Judea was not so large a region but that the river of Jordan could be reached for the purpose of baptizing. 3:2 Verse 2. Repent. from and Thayer defines It here as follows: "To change one's mind tor the better I heartily to amend with abhorrence tor one's past sins." To amend means more than a mere state of the mind; It requires that one do something about It. Is the only word in the Greek New Testament for "king dom." It has several phases of meaning and hence I consider it well to give a pretty extensive quotation from the lexicons as to their definitions: "1. royal power. kingship, dominion. rule. 2. a kingdom i.e. the territory subject to the rule of a king. 3. property the kingdom over which God rules ... the kingdom of tbe Messiah . . . the rule of God, the theocricy of God's rule, the divine administration."-Thayer. I have quoted only such words in Thayer's lexicon as are In italics, which denotes the direct detlnition. omitting for the sake of space his many remarks on the word. The same rule will be followed in quoting from the other lexicons: "1. dominion, reign, rule. 2. a kingdom, dominion, realm"'-Roblnson. "A king- dom; royalty, dignity, power, reign, rule. sovereignty, dominlon."-Groves. "A kingdom, realm, i.e. the region or country governed by a king; kingly power. authority, dominion, relgn."- Greenfield. This paragraph may not be quoted again in full. hence the reader is urged to study It carefully to discover its shades of meaning, also to make a note of Its locatlon for ready reference. At hand is from EOGIZO and means "Is near," which denotes that it was not yet In actual existence in the days of John the Baptlst. 3:3 Verse 3. The prophecy cited Is in Isaiah 40 : where the prophet passes from a favorable turn in the affairs of ancient Israel to the time when preparation. were to be made tor Christ's entry upon the new dispensation. Make his path straight has the idea. of preparing a path for another to use afterward. By taking down the high and rough places and taking out the sharp curves, the other party could make better progress in his travels. Of course this Is all figurative and refers to the work of John in bringing about a reformation among the Jews. Such a work would get a group of people in better frame of mInd and character to receive the more advanced work of Christ. 3:4 Verse 4. In Zechariah 13:4 a false prophet Is described as wearing a rough garment to deceive the public. indicating that such a garment was an article of clothing peculiar to a prophet. It was appropriate that John the Baptist, who was a true prophet, wear such a piece made from the hair of eamels. The girdle served as a belt to hold the loose garment close to the body. Leviticus 11:22 included the locust among clean foods that the Jews were permitted to eat. Wild honey is so called because it was made by wild bees and deposited in hollow trees or crevices of rocks. Honey Is one of the purest ot foods in the vegetable class, and locusts could be classed with the animal kind. John the Baptist, therefore, had a somewhat balanced though simple diet. 3:5 Verse 5. The text does not say that every individual in these dIstricts was baptized. but that great throngs from all of them came out to be baptized. 3:6 Verse 6. Baptized. is from BAPTIZO which Thayer deflnes first, "Properly to dip repeatedly, to Immerge, submerge. 2. to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water." Strong defines It. "To make whelmed (i.e. fully wet)." From this meaning of the word we can understand why John was baptizing In Jordan., not at or nearby. Confessing their sin is the simple phrase used here, but In Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3 it is worded "baptism of repentance." The meaning of the passage is that the people professed to have repented of their sins and were baptized on that declaration. 3:7 Verse 7.. The Pharisees and Saducees. were two leading sects of the Jews In the tlme of Christ. They had some radical differences which wtll be described. in another place. There were some principles. however, which they both had In common and one of them was hypocrisy. and both made great claims of excellence which they did not possess. This, too, will be described elsewhere. Generation of vipers is a figure of speech meaning a class of vile and poisonous characters, They came to the baptismal services of John for the outward appearance it made. In his preaching John exhorted the people to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. in order to escape the wrath of God. He had not specified any classes, so the response of these sects was an outward admission of their being sinners thougb their attitude was one of self-righteousness. 3:8 Verse 8. Meet for repentance means for them to prove by their works that they have really repented. A mere sorrow or regret for sin does not constitute repentance in the sight of the Lord, but the guilty one is expected to reform his life by ceasing to do the things that were wrong. 3:9 Verse 9. John was an inspired man and could read the thoughts of these boastful pretenders. But aside from this truth, the language at these Jews indicated thelr pride of ancestry. (See John 8:33.) John did not intend to belittle the importance ot Abraham, but he meant that having descended through the line of that great patriach did not entitle them to any special favors in their wrong doing. It was God's will that Abraham's lineal descendants become the special race for His purposes, but that was not because no other plan would have been possible. As far as power or ability was concerned, He could have caused the stones to .become impregnated with the divine germ of life so that they could give birth to children to be enrolled in the register of Abraham's seed. Such a possibility as described above existed though the Lord never intended to do such a thing. There was another feat. however. that was as wonderful as that, which was to convert Gentile heathen into descendants of Abraham by faith. (See Romans 4:11.) . 3:10 Verse 10. This verse is figurative and general and denotes the judgments of God against sin. An ax lying at the root of a tree suggests a probable attack upon it. The instrument is near but inactive, yet ready to be used if and when a decision is made against the tree. The tact on which the decision will be made is that the tree does not produce good fruit. I do not believe this verse applies to the Jewtsh nation as a whole for there was only one "tree" at the Lord tha.t could be considered. The words every tree indicate that John was speaking of indlviduals all of whom were exhorted. to repent and thus escape tbe wrath of God. The condemnation to such wrath was starting through the preaching of John. but the final result of rejecting that preaching would not come until the great judgment day. Being an inspired man John the Baptist was able to predict the future lot at all classes of men who were in his hearing, even to the punishment of fire awaiting the unsaved at the time of the final judgment. ThIs prepares us to understand the following two verses. 3:11 Verse 11. There are three baptisms referred to in this verse, one administered by John and two by the Lord; the two were in the future when John spoke. The three baptisms were in different elements, namely. water, Holy Ghost and fire. and the three were for that many different kinds of subjects. The water baptism administered by John was performed upon penitent Jews and it was for the remission of their sins. The Holy Ghost baptism administered by the Lord was performed upon the apostles and it was to "guide them into all truth" (John 16:13). The baptism with fire to be administered by the Lord (at the judgment day) upon the unsaved and it is for the purpose of punishment. The simple pronoun you Is used by John because he knew that in his audience were men who would become apostles and hence would receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost. He knew also that some of his hearers would live and die in their sins because they would be too stubborn to repent, and these would receive the baptism of fire. But he spoke to the multitude as a whole and intended the two baptisms to be applied to the ones deserving . them. This explains Acts 1:5; Acts 11:16 where the baptism of the Holy Ghost only is mentioned because the apostles were the only ones being considered. Shoes not worthy to bear is an allusion to the customs of that time. Loose sandals were worn in foot travel and upon entering a home they were removed and taken charge of by a servant. By way of illustration John regarded himself as unworthy even to bear the shoes of the one who was soon to come after him in the work of further reformation. 3:12 Verse 12. The figures' now change and are drawn from a different source. In verse 10 they were based upon the work of horticulture, while in this they are upon that of agriculture. Fan is from PTUON and is defined "a winnowing-shovel" in Thayer's lexicon. Grain was piled down on a smooth place called the threshing floor and trampled out by oxen or beaten with a large club called a flail. Then an instrument like a broad shovel was used to scoop up the shattered grain and toss it up into the wind so the chaff could be blown to one side. The grain was stored in the garner (granary) and the chaff was burned. The process is used to illustrate the separation of the wicked from the good at the day of judgment. The good will be taken to the garner which is heaven, and the wicked will be cast into the lake of fire. The terms ordinarily used to describe the threshing process do not cover all of the phases of the work as it pertains to humanity, hence John qualified the fire by the word unquenchable which comes from the Greek word and Thayer's definition is, "unquenchable." There will be only one judgment day and hence no continual gathering of chaff to cast into the fire. There is but one explanation, therefore, for using unquenchable fire, and that is that the wicked will not be put out of existence as literal chaff is, but will continue to exist and burn endlessly, and that will require a fire that cannot be put out. 3:13 Jesus had spent his life through childhood and early manhood with his parents at Nazareth which was in Galilee. The time came when he was to enter upon his life's work and he had reason for starting it with being baptized. There was only one man baptizing people then and that was John the Baptist, hence Jesus left his home and came into Judea where John was baptizing in the Jordan. 3:14 John did not know the divine identity of Jesus until the baptism had taken place (John 1:33), therefore his remarks were not prompted by that subject. They were cousins according to the flesh and about the same age. It is reasonable to conclude that John knew Jesus as a near relative and humbly placed himself in a lower rank of excellence. All that John knew as to the purpose of water baptism was that it was for the remission of sins. Someone had to start the great work of reform without being baptized himself, and of the two John considered Jesus to be the more worthy of the honor. 3:15 Had the remission of sins been the only result to be accomplished by baptism, Jesus would not have come to John at all for it because he had no sins to be remitted. Hence it was necessary for John to be informed of the reason why Jesus made the request. Fulfill is from PLEROO and Thayer's definition at this passage is, "to perform, execute." Righteousness is from and Thayer defines it as follows: "b. integrity, virtue, purity of life, uprightness, correctness in thinking, feeling, and acting. Matthew 3:15; Matthew 5:6; Matthew 5:10; Matthew 5:20; Matthew 6:33." Note that nothing in the definition requires any act in the nature of repentance or confession, hence Jesus who had no sins to confess could adopt the definition in his reason for requiring baptism. But while he had no sins to confess he did have a duty to "perform," and by so doing he could maintain his "integrity." When this explanation was made to John lie promptly performed the baptism and thus cooperated in the act that Jesus said would be fitting or becoming. 3:16 If Jesus went up out of the water it was necessary that lie go down into it, and that would agree with the definition of "baptize" as given at verse 6. The heavens were opened unto hint and he saw the Spirit in the form of a dove. This together with John 1:32-34 indicates that Jesus and John were the only witnesses of this remarkable event. It was fitting that John be permitted to see it since that was the sign the Lord had given him by which he was to recognize the One for whom all this preparatory work was being done. 3:17 If only the eyes of John and Jesus saw the heavens open and the bodily shape of the dove, it would be reasonable to conclude that their ears only heard these words. It also indicates one reason why the words "hear ye him" were not added as they were at chapter 17:5. The Father here acknowledged Jesus as his Son after he had fulfilled his righteous duty of being baptized. But his life's work was only beginning and hence it was not time to give the command to hear him. Matthew 4 "THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Chapter Four Following His baptism, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness where He fasted for forty days and overcame temptation by the devil (Matthew 4:1-11). Returning to Galilee and moving from Nazareth to Capernaum, Jesus began His Galilean ministry preaching the same message of the kingdom of heaven as that of John the Baptist. After selecting four disciples, Jesus went about Galilee teaching in the synagogues and healing all kinds of sickness and disease. Soon great multitudes from surrounding regions began to follow Him (Matthew 4:12-25). POINTS TO PONDER * How Jesus overcame His temptation by the devil * The beginning of His ministry in Galilee, His message and methods * The call of Peter, Andrew, James, and John to discipleship REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter? - The temptation of Jesus - Matthew 4:1-11- The beginning of Jesus’ Galilean ministry - Matthew 4:12-25 2) With what three temptations did Satan challenge Jesus? (Matthew 4:3; Matthew 4:6; Matthew 4:9) - "If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread." - "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down (from the pinnacle of the temple)." - "All these things (kingdoms of the world) I will give You if You will fall down and worship me." 3) How did Jesus respond to each of the three temptations? (Matthew 4:4; Matthew 4:7; Matthew 4:10) - With the Word of God ("It is written...") 4) Where did Jesus begin His public ministry? Fulfilling what prophecy? (12-16) - The region of Galilee; as prophesied by Isaiah (Isaiah 9:1-2) 5) What was the theme of Jesus’ preaching? (Matthew 4:17) - "The kingdom of heaven is at hand." 6) Who were the four fishermen called to follow Jesus? (Matthew 4:18-22) - Peter and Andrew, James and John 7) How did Jesus conduct His ministry in Galilee? (Matthew 4:23-24) - Teaching in the synagogues - Healing all kinds of disease and sickness, including demon possession 8) Where did people come from to follow Jesus? (Matthew 4:25) - Galilee, Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and beyond the Jordan Matthew 4:1-25 Verse 1Matthew 4 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. (Matthew 4:1) Led up of the Spirit ... does not mean that the Spirit provided the temptation, because God does not tempt any man (James 1:13). However, the Holy Spirit did desire that Jesus' temptation should take place at this particular time. Jesus' two great temptations were this one in the wilderness and that in the Garden of Gethsemane (Luke 22:42; Matthew 26:39); but he was tempted at other times (Luke 4:13), and perhaps at ALL times (Hebrews 2:18). Into the wilderness ... Dummelow saw in this wilderness temptation a contrast to the temptation of the first Adam. "The temptation of the first Adam took place in a garden ... the temptation of the second Adam took place in a wilderness."[1] The fruits and flowers of Eden contrast with the wild beasts and the disorder of the howling wilderness. Thus, the victory of Christ was made more wonderful. To be tempted of the devil ... The identity and person of Satan have long afforded fruitful fields for conjecture; although, in the present generation, there is a widespread tendency to reduce Satan to the status of a mere influence, or personification of evil.[2] However, it is plainly declared in the Holy Scriptures that Satan is actually a person, a being higher in the order of creation than man, but fallen from his first estate (Jude 1:1-16). Satan is held in awe even by angels and appears to have been cast out of his domain because of conceit and ambition (1 Timothy 3:6). Satan is the enemy that sows tares (Matthew 13:28); snatches the word out of men's hearts (Matthew 13:19); and, by means of countless snares and devices, takes men captive to do the devil's will (2 Timothy 2:26). Nevertheless, Satan is restricted and limited. He does not share control of the universe with God and may not even tempt one little child of God more than the child is able to bear (1 Corinthians 10:13). Temptation is in itself no sin. This is implicit in the fact that Christ was tempted. The oft-repeated lie of Satan that it is as wrong to desire to do evil as it is actually to do evil is frustrated by this passage. It is not temptation to do wrong that constitutes sin, but to that temptation. [1] J. R. Dummelow, One Volume Commentary (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 632. [2] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Matthew (Nashville, Tennessee: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1961), p. 96. Verse 2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he afterward hungered. Fasted forty days, etc. ... In this, Christ appears as "that prophet" like unto Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15). In fact, two Old Testament types of Christ carried out 40-day fasts, namely, Moses and Elijah (Exodus 34:28; 1 Kings 19:8). Afterward hungered ... Out of that hunger rose the first of Jesus' great temptations. More than an ordinary call of the appetite is seen in this. Christ was in the wilderness, sufficiently removed from society as to jeopardize his earthly life. He MUST eat, but HOW? Satan was ready with an illegal plan to meet the situation. Verse 3 And the tempter came and said unto him, If thou art the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.This "if" is characteristic of Satan. He always cast a doubt if possible. Satan himself had no doubt that Christ was indeed the Messiah; but the devil tried to raise a doubt in the heart of Christ himself! The tempter appeared in this passage as the Lord's antagonist in three different guises, giving rise to the impression that Satan too has a triune nature. Three names characterize Satan in the book of Revelation. He is called the devil, the beast, and the false prophet (Revelation 20:10). He appears in three guises: as a serpent (Revelation 20:2), as a lion (1 Peter 5:8), and as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14). This same triple pattern is seen in the temptation of Adam and Eve, through the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the vain-glory of life (1 John 2:16). It is noteworthy that the temptation of Christ followed this same three-phase pattern. Command that these stones become bread ... This was the first temptation, and it struck through the basic hunger of the body. Hunger is the body's great passion. Every other appetite or desire may be and has been subordinated to this instinctive need. The outstanding example of how this is so terribly true is seen in the tragic behavior of Jerusalem mothers (2 Kings 6:28). Hunger is the first and the last appetite of the body. By pressing the attack in this quarter, Satan attempted to steal into our Lord's heart as a serpent. Much more than mere physical hunger entered into this temptation, although the hunger itself must have been very great. Like all temptations, this one had reference to filling a genuine need, legitimate enough in itself. Christ surely required food that he could be strengthened and returned to the thousands who would attend his ministry. Christ did not know at that point how his need would be met. Satan's proposal was sinful because it would have involved Jesus in the use of supernatural powers for the ease and comfort of his own body. Also, it would have shown a lack of trust on Jesus' part if he should have taken things into his own hands and performed a miracle in order to eat. Verse 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.Jesus' answer to temptation was, "It is written ... it is written ... and again, it is written!" Fortunate are the Lord's followers when they are able to meet every crucial test of life with a like response. This places the highest stamp of approval upon the Bible. It is simply unthinkable that the Christ of God would have relied upon a merely human and fallible book in his encounter with the Prince of Evil. Jesus' use of the Scriptures in this situation plainly marks them as the words OF GOD! Indeed, in this very verse, this principle is dogmatically asserted, "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Man shall not live by bread alone, etc. ... This has a wealth of significance. Mere physical existence apart from the true life of the spirit is not really LIFE (John 10:10). The quotation Jesus used in this reply is from Deuteronomy 8:3. The Christian should receive as his never-to-be-rejected authority in spiritual matters, the word of God, the word only (Matthew 8:8), every word (Matthew 4:4), and nothing but the word (Matthew 15:9). Note the three places of these temptations, the wilderness, the temple, and the high mountain. The extremes were employed by Satan in a strong effort to win this encounter. Having lost the first round, Satan switched both the scene and the approach. Since Christ trusted the Father, Satan would try to make that very trust the basis of sin, presumptuous sin. The scene is also changed from the roaring wilderness to the sacred precincts of the temple, indicating that there are peculiar temptations to sin in close proximity to faith. Verse 5 Then the devil taketh him into the holy city; and he set him on the pinnacle of the temple.The expression "holy city" is peculiar to Matthew and shows his love and affection for Jerusalem. The exact location of the pinnacle of the temple is not determined; but the context indicates that it was of sufficient height that only a miracle could prevent death to anyone who leaped from it. Verse 6 And he saith unto him, If thou art the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and On their hands they shall bear thee up, Lest haply thou dash thy foot against a stone.Note the same employment of doubt as an instrument in temptation. "IF" is a big word in Satan's weaponry of deceit. A paraphrase of this second temptation is as follows: "Since you have so much faith in God, that is fine; just call all the people together in the temple and perform an outstanding miracle in the sight of all. For example, you could leap from the pinnacle of the temple unhurt, and the people would instantly hail you as the Messiah. You can see that this is a genuine time-saver, a shortcut that will enable you to achieve the necessary recognition without the time-consuming labor and pains of teaching and preaching." For it is written, He shall give his angels charge, ... Satan reinforces the temptation with a plausible appeal to Scripture itself, quoting in this place from Psalms 91:11-12. Christ did not charge Satan with misquotation or misapplication of the Scripture. As a matter of fact, the words do apply to Christ. Christ rejected the temptation, not on the grounds that Satan had misused the word of God, but on the grounds that it would have constituted an unnecessary presumption and would have, in fact, been making trial of God. Christ instantly cited the Scripture forbidding such presumption, Deuteronomy 6:16. Verse 7 Jesus said unto him, Again it is written, Thou shalt not make trial of the Lord thy God. Again it is written ... This is the key to the Scriptures! Every passage of the word of God is to be understood in the light of other passages bearing on the same subject. No isolated, proof-text method of interpreting the Scriptures is valid. God's will on any subject is to be understood in the light of ALL that is written. Christ made that principle clear in his words to the disciples on the road to Emmaus when he said, "O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken" (Luke 24:25). Nevertheless, the devil likes to quote Scripture. "Take a little wine for thy stomach's sake!" "Be not overly righteous!" "Eat, drink and be merry!" - who has not heard Satan quoting such passages as these? Satan's purpose in quoting Scripture is not to heed God's word but to circumvent it. May the child of God have the grace to answer, over and over, in all of life's confusing situations, "It is written ... it is written ... and again, it is written." This was Jesus' method, and he won the day. So shall his disciples win the contest if they use his method! Thou shalt not make trial of the Lord thy God ... Jesus did not argue with Satan but simply announced the word of God forbidding the thing Satan suggested. In this temptation, Satan appears as an angel of light, quoting the word of God, pretending to be interested in a "shortcut" victory for Christ. This was a dramatic change from the subtle insinuation of the first temptation. Failing in both maneuvers, Satan changed again; and, in the following temptation, attempted to overpower Christ, appearing before him as a roaring lion, arrogant, overbearing, and pretending to have world dominion. Verse 8 Again the devil taketh him unto an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and he said unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.The mystery of how Satan could do such a thing remains unknown. McGarvey is doubtless correct in pointing out the imagination as a key factor in this temptation. No literal mountain answers the specifications here. Christ, in some way unknown to us, was transported through Satanic power to a great eminence where the devil made all the kingdoms of the world to pass in review, as it were, before the mind of Jesus. As McGarvey expressed it, "If they were presented only to his mental vision, it might have been accomplished by a vivid description, such as Satan is capable of, aided by the excited imagination of Jesus as he looked abroad from the top of the exceeding high mountain."[3] All these things will I give thee ... What did Satan mean by that? Did the devil propose a union of his forces with the powers of Jesus for the purpose of establishing a world dominion with Christ as the nominal head but with Satan as the real ruler? Or was Satan's proposition an unqualified lie? This commentator recognizes that many distinguished students of the word of God are of a contrary opinion; nevertheless, it is the conviction of a lifetime that Satan lied to Jesus Christ in this third temptation. McGarvey saw no unwarranted assumption of power in the devil's claim to control over all the kingdoms of the world.[4] Also, H. Leo Boles believed that Satan could have delivered on his promise to Jesus, if Christ had yielded.[5] However, Satan is a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44). The Bible specifically refutes the idea that Satan has at his disposal all the world kingdoms. Nebuchadnezzar was compelled to eat grass with the beasts of the field until seven times had passed over him; and WHY? Only that he might learn a simple truth, namely, "That the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men and giveth it to whomsoever he will" (Daniel 4:25). It is impossible to suppose that Christ was ignorant of the truth mentioned in Daniel or that he was in any sense ignorant of the falsity of Satan's claims. How, then, could he have been tempted? Any tempted saint can answer that Satan's lies have the power to seduce even when they are known to be lies. No sinner ever did wrong but Satan promised him pleasure, but no sinner ever got what he expected. "The wages of sin is death," not pleasure. Here, therefore, in the temptation of our Lord was the handiwork of that original artificer of the phenomenon that flowered in Nazi Germany under Adolph Hitler, the strategy of THE BIG LIE. It must be admitted that in this case, Satan told such a big lie that God-fearing men still believe it, nearly two thousand years after the fact! Face the truth: If Christ had yielded to Satan, Christ would not have won the kingdoms of this world; Satan would have won them, and God's redemptive work would have failed. [3] J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on Matthew (Delight, Arkansas: The Gospel Light Publishing Company), p. 42. [4] Ibid., p. 43. [5] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 103. Verse 10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.Christ rejected Satan's proposal without regard to its truth or falsity. Satan's promise, whether true or false, had no bearing on the conduct of the Lord which was regulated altogether by the word of God, not by Satan's words. Christ quoted from Deuteronomy 6:13. Significantly, Christ applied that Old Testament passage to include devil worship. The prohibition is, in fact, against all worship except the worship of Almighty God through Jesus Christ. It is sinful to worship the devil, or angels (Revelation 19:10), or a man (Acts 10:26), or any object or being other than the Infinite God through Christ. It will be recalled that the wise men worshipped, not Mary, but Jesus (Matthew 2:11). Verse 11 Then the devil leaveth him, and behold angels came and ministered unto him.Christ won the encounter. In the third temptation, no less than in the other two, Satan was vanquished. As the roaring lion, he audaciously demanded that the Son of God fall down and worship the devil! There is a bold arrogance without precedent. As a serpent, as an angel, or as a lion, Satan brought all his cunning into play against the Christ, but to no avail. "Thanks be to God who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:57). Then the devil leaveth him ... This, of course, was not the end of Christ's temptations which were to continue without abatement until the cross itself appeared upon Golgotha. And yet, there is a devilish cunning in the Satanic method of leaving, for a season, and returning in full force another day. Luke indicated that this is what Satan did (Luke 4:13). Satan always seeks the opportune time to exert his evil power. He blows softly with the south wind to entice the unwary ship out of its haven and then to smite with the fury of Eraquilo! (Acts 27:13-14). Angels came and ministered unto him ... Thus, God did not leave Christ to die in the wilderness, after all. He was fed of angels. Satan's proposal to change stones into bread was as unnecessary as it was sinful. Christ, who is introduced in the New Testament's very first verse as "the son of Abraham," found in dire extremity the same truth uttered by Abraham on Mount Moriah, "Jehovah-Jireh!" "The Lord will provide!" (Genesis 22:14). Verse 12 III OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD; AND OF ITS OF AND LAWSMat_4:12-25; Matthew 5:1-48; Matthew 6:1-34; Matthew 7:1-29; Matthew 8:1-34; Matthew 9:1-38; Matthew 10:1-42; Matthew 11:1-30; Matthew 12:1-50; Matthew 13:1-52 Now when he heard that John was delivered up, he withdrew into Galilee. (Matthew 4:12)Delivered up refers to the imprisonment of John the Baptist by Herod. Christ's withdrawal into Galilee was precautionary, to avoid an untimely martyrdom, and to set his disciples an example for staying out of trouble with authorities, provided it can be avoided honorably. Christ's withdrawal into Galilee gave occasion for the Master's Galilean ministry, all of which Matthew omits, probably because Matthew was not an eye-witness of the events of that ministry. The following summary of the events of the Galilean ministry is given by Johnson:[6] Christ returns to Bethabara (John 1:15-17) He returns to Galilee, miracle at Cana (John 2:1-11) The first Passover and the cleansing of temple (John 2:14-25) The interview with Nicodemus (John 3:1-21) Jesus' ministry in Judaea (John 4:2) Jesus leaves Galilee, via Samaria, and has a conversation at Sychar with the woman at the well (John 4:4-52) He heals the nobleman's son (John 4:46-54) Jesus miracle at Bethesda (John 5:1-47) ENDNOTE:[6] B. W. Johnson, The People's New Testament (St. Louis, Missouri: Christian Board of Publication, 1891), p. 32. Verse 13 And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali.Between the last words of Mat 4:12 and the first words of Mat 4:13 there was an interval of at least one year's time. LEAVING is a reference to the rejection at Nazareth by the townspeople of that village who despised him because of what they supposed to be his humble origin and environment. The choice of Capernaum as his residence may have been due to the fact that it was the chief city of Galilee, the site of a Jewish synagogue, a Roman tax station, and the headquarters for a Roman garrison. At least five of the Twelve resided there: Peter, Andrew, James, John, and Matthew. Capernaum also rejected Christ and was denounced by him (Matthew 11:23). Which is by the sea ... is the body of water usually called the Sea of Galilee, but also known as Lake Gennesaret (Luke 5:1), the Sea of Chinnereth (Numbers 34:11), Chinneroth (Joshua 11:2), and Tiberius (John 6:1). This remarkable body of water is actually an extension of the Jordan River, lying 700 feet below sea level, and extends some twelve miles in length and six miles in width. In the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali ... Capernaum was located in the territory of Zebulun near the border with Naphtali, and Matthew quickly saw in this a fulfillment of the great prophecy of Isa 9:1-2, which is quoted here, not verbatim but nearly so. The thought which impressed Matthew is that from the contemptuous borders of these minor tribes should arise the Light of all nations, a fact clearly prophesied by Isaiah. Verse 14 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying:As always, Matthew made it clear that Isaiah was not the speaker, but only the prophet through whom God spoke. Matthew, who doubtless had a thorough knowledge of the Hebrew prophecies, quoted the passage from Isaiah: Verse 15 The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali. Toward the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles, The people that sat in darkness saw a great light, And to them that sat in the region and shadow of death, To them did Light spring up. Beyond the Jordan ... Jesus fulfilled this prophecy by crossing the sea many times. The trans-Jordan territory was called "Perea" by the Romans. Galilee of the Gentiles is a proverb emphasizing the low estate of those people in Galilee. Gentile customs, morals, and culture prevailed; and these were far lower than those of Jerusalem; and thus, the wretched and despised state of the citizens of Galilee, and especially of Nazareth, was proverbial. The people that sat in darkness ... is a reference to the spiritual poverty and ignorance of Galilee. Boles said, "The language expresses a symbol of hopeless gloom."[7] It was a peculiar providence of God that those who were in such gross darkness enjoyed the amazing benefit of our Lord's earthly residence in their midst. How marvelous are God's ways! Darkness has ever been a symbol of moral destitution and spiritual blindness. All people must remain in darkness until the Light shines in their hearts through faith. In the shadow of death ... is an expression that occurs a number of times in the Old Testament (Job 10:21; Psalms 23:4; Jeremiah 2:6, etc.). In this place it is only a further reference to the moral and spiritual condition of the people of Galilee. ENDNOTE:[7] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 110. Verse 17 And from that time began Jesus to preach, and to say, Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.Christ's first preaching has a ring similar to that of John the Baptist (Matthew 3:2). Repentance was the prime need of that generation. People had grown hard and indifferent to spiritual values. John's great call to repentance had been heeded by many, but significantly the leaders of the people despised John and set his teachings at naught. Christ's first move was to place the endorsement of God squarely upon John's clarion call for repentance. Repentance is still the prime need of this age and of every age. There must be repentance, even before the true life in Christ can begin. Christ's indication in this place that the kingdom of heaven was at hand is important. Moffatt translated this place: "Repent, the reign of heaven is near." Verse 18 And walking by the sea of Galilee, he saw two brethren, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishers.Jesus called BUSY men to follow him. Dummelow noted that "He called them while actually at their work, as he called Matthew (Matthew 9:9), in order to show that no idle or useless person can be a Christian."[8] It is wrong to think that these men were of an ordinary or degraded social position. True they were not members of the aristocracy; but Luke shows these four men, including James and John, to have been partners in a business (Luke 5:7); Mark mentions two hired servants in the boat (Mark 1:20); and it is evident from John 18:16 that John was favorably known to the high priest. Such considerations make it imperative to think of these men as far above ordinary persons. Socially, they were of the stable middle class which constituted at that time, and perhaps in every time, the solid portion of the entire social order. Reference to the apostles as "unlearned and ignorant" men (Acts 4:13) should be understood in a relative sense when they were contrasted with the sophisticated doctors of religion, and also as the usual taunt expressed by intellectuals against those who disagree with them. Simon who is called Peter ... This apostle was also called "Cephas" or "Stone" by our Lord (John 1:42; 1 Corinthians 1:12; 1 Corinthians 15:5; Galatians 2:9). And Andrew his brother ... Peter is always mentioned first in the New Testament references to the apostles, although his brother Andrew was a follower before Peter. Matthew telescoped many events, chronologically, in arriving so quickly at the call of these fishermen. All these men had been present at Cana of Galilee where Jesus performed his first miracle and had been faithful followers of Christ for at least a year. The significance of the call mentioned in this passage is that, henceforth, these men were to forsake all and follow Christ to the exclusion of every earthly interest (Matthew 19:27). This they had not previously been called upon to do. For they were fishers ... Augustine said, "They did not lay aside their nets but changed them!" Certainly, Christ did indicate a similarity between fishing and soul winning. Following are some of the similarities: skill is required; patience is essential; cooperation is helpful; methods vary with conditions; results cannot be accurately predicted; and, under some situations, an attractive bait is absolutely necessary. Ministers should ever strive to make the kingdom of God as attractive to men as possible, though never by a compromise of its principles. Just as a skilled fisherman provides an attractive lure for the fish, a gospel preacher should seek to entice the attention of men with as attractive and intelligent a presentation of truth as is humanly possible. One may well wonder if, at times, the very opposite procedure has been followed. A few have so flagrantly violated this principle as to bait the end of the pole, cast the naked hook into the water, and dare the fish to come out on the bank and fight! ENDNOTE:[8] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 634. Verse 19 And he saith unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you fishers of men. After me ... That is, after Christ, is every disciple's true place. The place of every disciple is behind his Lord, as a follower. Later, Peter was to forsake this place and be rebuked by Christ who said, "Get thee behind me, Satan!" Verse 20 And they straightway left the nets and followed him.We have already noted that these men had been unofficial followers of Christ for a year or more. Matthew, in this place, records the bold facts without regard to many of the details some might have considered pertinent. It is a characteristic of the Scriptural writings that some events are sensationally abbreviated, while others, seemingly inconsequential, are elaborately detailed. Verse 21 And going on from thence, he saw two other brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them. And they straightway left the boat and their father, and followed him.James was the first apostle to suffer martyrdom, and John was the last to die. These extremes suggest a mystical fulfillment of the request their mother made of Jesus that one of them should sit on the right hand and one on the left hand in his kingdom (Matthew 20:21). Both James and John belonged to that inner circle within the Twelve who were permitted in the bed chamber when Jairus' daughter was raised (Mark 5:37), on the mountain of transfiguration (Matthew 17:1), and with Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:37). Zebedee ... was the brother-in-law of the virgin Mary, according to H. Leo Boles.[9] The inference is from Matthew 27:56 and John 19:25. Although some have disputed it, Alford, Meyer, and others have received this deduction as true. This would make James and John cousins of our Lord, their mothers, Mary and Salome, being sisters. Zebedee is never mentioned as a disciple. ENDNOTE:[9] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 113. Verse 23 And Jesus went about in all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of disease and all manner of sickness among the people. All Galilee ... indicates an intensive preaching tour in that area. In their synagogues ... indicates the usual places where Jesus did most of his formal teaching. The gospel of the kingdom ... indicates the subject matter. Note that the message of the kingdom was "good news," indicated by the very term GOSPEL, a word derived from roots that mean "good news." This can only mean that the kingdom was to be established in the lifetime of the peoples then living. It would have been no "good" news to them that it would be set up in say, 1914, or long after they were dead! Verse 24 And the report of him went forth into all Syria: and they brought unto him all that were sick, holden with divers diseases and torments, possessed with demons, and epileptic, and palsied; and he healed them. And there followed him great multitudes from Galilee and Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judaea and from beyond the Jordan.The various cities mentioned in this place were the ones that provided the vast multitudes that followed Christ in this phase of his ministry. The various diseases, etc., mentioned show that Christ's power to heal extended to every possible condition of suffering and handicapped humanity. McGarvey noted that "The facts of this section (Matthew 4:12-25) furnish another argument in favor of the claims of Jesus (as the Messiah): (1) They show that his dwelling place was where the prophet Isaiah had predicted the appearance of a great light; (2) and that Christ was such a light. (3) That he was so great a light that some people left all things to follow him; and (4) that multitudes came from all surrounding regions to receive his blessing and enjoy his instruction. No clearer proof could be given that he was the Great Light whose rising had been predicted by the prophet."[10] ENDNOTE:[10] J. W. McGarvey, op. cit., p. 48. J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Matthew Chapter FourThe Temptation of Jesus, Matthew 4:1-11 Preparation, Matthew 4:1-2. (Mark 1:12-13; Luke 4:1-2) 1. led up.—The statement that Jesus was led up by the Spirit to be tempted shows that he was subjected to temptation in accordance with a deliberate purpose, but a purpose not his own. Mark uses the more forcible expression, "the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness." It is an example, then, not of voluntary entrance into temptation, but of being divinely led into it for a special divine purpose. The traditionary supposition that the wilderness into which he was led was the rugged mountainous region back of Jericho, is altogether probable. 2. when he had fasted.—The fast of forty days was intended, at least in part, to excite the intense hunger which Satan tried to take advantage of in the first temptation. That "he was afterward hungered" implies that his appetite was miraculously suspended during the forty days. There are two types of this fast in the Old Testament— the fast of Moses (Exodus 34:28), and that of Elijah (1 Ks. 19:1-8).First Temptation, Matthew 4:3-4. (Luke 4:3-4) Before we can properly estimate the temptation of Jesus we must fix a standard by which to judge of the force of temptations. All temptation results from the excitement of some lust or desire. (James 1:14.) The more intense the desire excited, other things being equal, the greater the temptation. Human experience teaches, also, that, other things being equal, the more cunningly the sinfulness of a wrong act is disguised, the more easily are we induced to commit it. Evidently, then, the force of a temptation is to be estimated by considering the degree of desire excited and the skill with which the sinfulness of the proposed act is disguised. When these two circumstances exist in the highest degree we have the strongest temptation. 3. If thou be the Son of God.—In addition to the desire for food, resulting from a forty days' fast, Satan seeks by the words, "If thou be the Son of God," to excite in Jesus another desire— that of rebuking the doubt which these words imply. It is impossible that a fleshly appetite more intense could be excited, or one in the gratification of which we would realize so little suspicion of evil. A good motive for the proposed act is suggested, and the sinfulness of it is so skillfully disguised, that few persons even to this day are able to detect it. It would be difficult, therefore, if not impossible, to conceive of a stronger temptation. It is one which no merely human being could resist. 4. he answered.—As soon as the suggestion of Satan was made the mind of Jesus reverted to the Scriptures and rested on the words of Moses: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." (Deuteronomy 8:3.) Israel had been led by God into the wilderness, where there was no bread; had been subjected to intense hunger there, and had then been fed by bread from heaven. Moses explains that this was to teach them that "man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God"— that is, by every means which God may appoint. Jesus finds in this a precedent for himself. He, too, had been led by God into a wilderness where there was no bread, and he was now suffering from consequent hunger. The duty of Israel is now his duty, for his circumstances are like theirs. They sinned by murmuring against Moses, and by proposing to seek bread in their own way— that is, by returning into Egypt. (Exodus 16:1-9.) He will commit a similar sin if, distrustful of God, he seeks to turn stones into bread. They were taught to rely upon the God who had brought them into trouble to deliver them from it. This, now, is his duty, and he accepts the precedent as his guide.Second Temptation, Matthew 4:5-7. (Luke 4:9-12) 5. the devil taketh him.—In what way the devil removed Jesus from the wilderness to the temple is not stated, and it would be vain to inquire. It is a question of no practical value. on a pinnacle.—The word translated pinnacle (πτερύγιον) means literally a little wing. Its force as an architectural term does not enable us to determine what part of the temple is meant. But the context shows that it was a point so high that a fall from it would be fatal; and with this the southeast corner of the outer wall around the temple best coincides. From this point to the valley of the Kedron below is said by Josephus to have been about 600 feet. This is doubtless an exaggeration, but recent explorations have proved that the descent was once much greater than it now is. The foundations of the wall are nearly ninety feet below the present surface of the ground. 6. cast thyself down.—This temptation, like the first, was addressed to the feeling uppermost in the mind of Jesus. While gazing down from a dizzy height the idea of a fall and its consequences instinctively possessed him. The suggestion of the tempter is supported by the written promise of God that Jesus shall not be allowed even to strike his foot against a stone, much less to be dashed to pieces by a fall like this. No injury, then, can result from the attempt if he is the Son of God; and this if, as in the former instance, contributed to the force of the temptation. Moreover, some good might result from the act. It would show how completely he trusted in the promise of God. and it would convince the Jews that he was under special divine protection. Every consideration seemed to be in favor of making the leap except the fear of personal injury, and this consideration must be rejected as indicating distrust of God. 7. Jesus said.—Jesus parried this stroke of the adversary, not, as some have since done for him. by objecting to the accuracy of Satan's quotation; nor by deriving that the promise referred to himself; nor by making a subtle distinction in reference to the "ways" mentioned in the quotation; but by remembering that the promise quoted is modified by the precept, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." The word rendered tempt (πειράσω) means to put to proof, whether for a good or a bad purpose. When used with reference to enticement to sin it is properly rendered tempt; but when it refers to God putting men to proof, or men putting God to proof, test is the best rendering. The answer of Jesus is as if he had said: True, these words are written; they are applicable to me and to all good men, and they will be fulfilled in their season; but to throw one's self into unnecessary danger because of these words would be merely testing God in reference to his promise, and this we are forbidden to do.Third Temptation,. (Luke 4:5-8) 8. sheweth him all the kingdoms.—If all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them were presented visibly to Jesus, Satan must have exerted supernatural power; if they were presented only to his mental vision, it might have been accomplished by a vivid description such as Satan is capable of, aided by the excited imagination of Jesus as he looked abroad from the top of the "exceeding high mountain." Which of these methods was adopted the text does not determine. 9. will I give thee.—Satan's promise to give Jesus the kingdom, when considered in connection with the capacities of Jesus himself, involves no very arrogant assumption of power. The promise implied, of course, that Jesus must unite his own efforts with Satan's in seeking to obtain the prize; and it is quite certain that if he had consented, and had not by this consent lost the power and wisdom which belonged to him, he could have attained in a short time to universal dominion. The expectation of the Jews that their Messiah would assume this very position, and a vague expectation which pervaded the most intelligent nations of the heathen world, that some great hero and conqueror was about to appear, would have been ready instruments in Satan's hands for fulfilling hit promise. For success in this, the final struggle, Satan depended solely on the intensity of the desire which he expected to excite. With no attempt to disguise the sin, there was a bold offer of the grandest prize which had ever dazzled the eyes of ambition. The doubting if— "if thou art the Son of God"— is also omitted, for it would have militated against the purpose of the tempter to remind Jesus of his Sonship in the very act of enticing him to worship Satan. 10. Then saith Jesus.—Satan estimated so highly the force of this temptation that he relied on it for overcoming one who had resisted all of his previous efforts. It was, in his own estimation, the most powerful temptation which he could employ; but so void of ambition was the spirit of Jesus that it excited in him only disgust. "Get thee hence, Satan," is his first exclamation; and the next, the well remembered command, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." 11. the devil leaveth him.—Satan now leaves Jesus— "for a season," as Luke adds— because he had exhausted his power. The Apostle John distributes the lusts through which we may be tempted into three classes, viz: The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life. (1 John 2:16.) Of all the lusts of the flesh, the one most usually gratified without sin, and the one most imperative in its demands, is hunger. Satan had tried Jesus by means of this under circumstances the most favorable to success, and had failed. His next appeal was to the lust of the eye, or the love of display. To this passion he could not hope to address himself more plausibly then he had on the pinnacle of the temple. To "the pride of life," or worldly ambition, he had just made the strongest appeal in the bounds of possibility, and had met with worse than defeat. Having, then, addressed to each class of lusts the temptation best of all calculated to succeed, he retires, baffled and disappointed, to devise some new and different mode of attack. We shall find him hereafter returning to the conflict in the persons of hostile Pharisees and unfaithful disciples. angels came.—It seems that the hunger which was tormenting Jesus at the beginning of his temptation was not yet appeased. As soon as Satan left him, angels came and ministered to him, supplying his physical wants. The suffering preceded the refreshment; the struggle with Satan preceded the enjoyment of angel company. So with his followers. The coming of the angels also completed the parallel between himself and Israel in the wilderness. As they learned by the falling of the manna that man shall not live by bread alone, so he, adhering to the same lesson, was fed at last, not by turning stones into bread, but by receiving bread from the hands of angels. At the same time the promise, "He will give his angels charge concerning thee," which had been quoted by Satan in tempting him, is now fulfilled to him, and this without putting God to the test in reference to it.Argument of Section 5In this section Jesus is presented as overcoming temptations by which all merely human beings have been overcome. The unexpressed conclusion is, that Jesus must be more than human. The story of his temptation is an argument for his divinity. But besides this, Matthew accomplishes two other important purposes in this section. He exhibits first the skill of Satan. This is seen both in his perfect adaptation of each proposal to the feeling which was at the moment uppermost, or supposed to be uppermost, in the mind of Jesus; and in the selection for this attempt of him on whose resistance depended the salvation of the world. Twice has the destiny of the world been suspended on the action of a single person, and each of these was made an object of especial temptation by our cunning adversary. The first Adam fell, and the race fell with him. The second Adam defeated Satan and redeemed the race from the effects of the fall. Secondly, our author shows us in this section how Satan can be resisted. Jesus achieved his victory by familiarity with the word of God, coupled with unhesitating acceptance of even the slightest indications of God's will No man can resist, as he did, without his reverence for God's will and his acquaintance with God's word. As we approach him in these two particulars we will approach him in his perfect resistance to the temptations of the devil.Historical Character of Section 5In discussing the foregoing section I have purposely omitted the questions, whether Satan appeared visibly and spoke audibly to Jesus, whether any part of the account is merely symbolical, and many other questions more curious than profitable which have been discussed by other writers. For a brief statement of these questions, the various theories to which they have given rise, and the various works in which these theories are defended, see Lange (Commentary on Matthew 4:3), who is not himself free from the supposition that the account is partly symbolical. It must be admitted by every candid reader that Matthew supposed himself, throughout this account, to be describing a real transaction precisely as it occurred. It is evident also, from the nature of the case, that he must have obtained his conception of the facts from an account given by Jesus himself. If, then, the account is not to be understood literally, Matthew was deceived, and Jesus deceived him. The deception, too, is one that remained after the plenary inspiration of the apostles had taken place, and was not one of those misconceptions of the Master's words which characterized the disciples during his personal ministry, and passed away when they became fully inspired. Any hypothesis which involves such consequences has in it the seeds of infidelity, and must be rejected by all who believe in the inspiration of the apostles. If Matthew is to be credited in reference to other events of which he was not an eyewitness, he is to be credited in reference to this. And, after all, if we admit any thing at all supernatural in the career of Jesus, there is no difficulty in admitting the reality of this entire account. The absurdities and contradictions in which the ablest men are involved when they deny the reality of the account, and invent hypotheses of their own concerning the transaction, can be seen by the reader if he will but glance over Lange's note above referred to; and they constitute no mean proof of the wisdom of those who humbly and unquestioningly accept the inspired narrative as we find it. Removal to Galilee and Theme of his Preaching, Matthew 4:12-17. (Mark 1:14-15; Luke 4:14-44; John 4:1-54) 12. when Jesus had heard.—The text here introduces the removal of Jesus into Galilee next after the account of his temptation, and fixes the time of it as immediately after Jesus heard of John's imprisonment. We are not to infer, however, that the imprisonment of John and the removal of Jesus occurred immediately after the temptation; for John's narrative clearly shows that all of the events of his first three chapters occurred in the interval, and that the events of his fourth chapter occurred on the journey into Galilee, which is here mentioned. In other words, if the first three chapters of John were to be inserted chronologically in Matthew's narrative, they would come in between the eleventh and twelfth verses of the fourth chapter of Matthew. (See John 1:29 John 1:32 John 4:1-4 John 4:43.)13. and leaving Nazareth.—The remark about leaving Nazareth implies that Jesus, on returning into Galilee, first came to Nazareth, but that, for some reason not given by Matthew, he changed his place of residence. The reason is given by Luke in Luke 4:16-31; a passage in Luke, which, notwithstanding the opinions of some eminent writers, I am constrained to regard as parallel to this. Capernaum, the place to which Jesus now removes, was the most important city in Galilee, and was situated on the northwestern shore of the lake of Galilee. Scarcely a vestige of it can now be found.14, 15. beyond Jordan.—The lands of Zebulun and Naphthali, here described as "beyond Jordan," were west of the Jordan, and Isaiah, who wrote these words in Jerusalem, was on the same side of the river. The expression "beyond Jordan." therefore, has not here its usual sense of on the other side of Jordan, but must mean beyond the source of the Jordan. The southern end of the lake of Galilee was the immediate source of the lower Jordan, and a part of Zebulon and the whole of Naphthali were beyond this point. Galilee of the Gentiles.—The name Galilee was originally confined to a small district in the tribe of Napthali. (Joshua 20:7.) In the days of Solomon it included twenty insignificant cities. (1 Kings 9:11-13.) It was afterward extended until it included all the lands of Naphthali, Asher, Zebulon, and Issachar. It was called by the prophet "Galilee of the Gentiles," because in his day the population was largely intermixed with Gentiles and corrupted by Gentile habits.16. saw great light.—A great light springing up in a dark place might fitly represent any great teacher or reformer; but the light here predicted by the prophet is located in the very land which witnessed the chief part of the ministry of Jesus, and here no great light but Jesus ever appeared. The enemies of Jesus themselves declared that "out of Galilee ariseth no prophet." (John 7:52.) It is certain, then, that Isaiah's prediction was fulfilled, as Matthew affirms, in Jesus.17. Repent: for the kingdom.—The theme of Jesus in the beginning was the same as that of John. He never ceased to preach repentance, and to enforce it by announcing the speedy approach of his kingdom; though, in his later ministry, other subjects became more prominent. As we have remarked before in speaking of John's preaching, this was the theme best calculated to prepare the people for the reception of the kingdom when it should be preached by the apostles. (See note on Matthew 3:2.)Call of the Fishermen, Matthew 4:18-22. (Mark 1:16-20; Luke 5:4-11) 20, 22. and followed him.—Matthew's narrative furnishes no sufficient reason why these four men so promptly followed Jesus at his call. True, it would be naturally inferred that they knew more of him than the narrative declares, but we are dependent on the other gospels for the details. We learn from John's first four chapters that Peter and Andrew at least had been his disciples for a considerable length of time; and from Luke, that they had witnessed some startling miracles just previous to their call. (Luke 5:1-11.) This was their call not to be his disciples, but to be his constant companions. Their call to be apostles was at a still later period. (See Luke 6:12-13.)General Circuit of Galilee, Matthew 4:23-25. (Mark 1:35-39; Luke 4:42-44) 23. went about all Galilee.—This paragraph contains a general statement of the journeying and labors of Jesus in Galilee, the details of which are given in subsequent chapters. It shows that in the course of these journeyings he visited every part of Galilee. in their synagogues.—The synagogues were buildings erected for a species of public instruction which had originated since the close of Old Testament history. It arose from a felt necessity for a more general knowledge of the law, and for such admonitions and exhortations as would lead to a better observance of it. The synagogues furnished Jesus, and the apostles after him, with a suitable place for public teaching on the Sabbath, and with a ready congregation. In them the law and the prophets were publicly read in such portions as to include the whole of the Old Testament in the course of the year. After the reading, comments were made, and exhortations delivered. A body of rulers, usually called elders, presided over each synagogue, and a discipline was enforced which sometimes resulted in expulsion, and sometimes in the use of the scourge. (See Matthew 10:17; Luke 4:16-20; John 9:22 John 12:42; Acts 13:14-16.) 24, 25. And his fame went.—In these two verses we have a summary of the miracles wrought by Jesus, and of the regions whence the afflicted were brought to him, and whence the multitudes came who flocked around him. Syria was the country lying next north of Galilee. Decapolis lay southeast of the lake of Galilee, and was so called because, it included ten cities and their suburbs. "Beyond Jordan" means the region east of the Jordan called by the Greeks and Romans Perea.Argument of Section 1 The facts of this section furnish another argument in favor of the claims of Jesus. They show that his dwelling-place was that in which the prophet Isaiah had predicted the appearance of a great light, and that he was such a light; that he was so great a light that some men left all things to follow him, and that multitudes came from all surrounding regions to receive his blessing and to enjoy his instruction. No clearer proof could be given that he was the great light whose rising was predicted by the prophet. Questions by E.M. Zerr For Matthew 41. To what place was Jesues led? 2. By what person was he led? 3. State the object of this. 4. For how long did he fast? 5. This left him in what condition ? 6. Who came to him? 7. What claim of Jesus did the devil mention? 8. To prove it what did he suggest ? 9. What condition would now make this a temptation 10. Could Jesus have done this work? 11. Is it wrong to eat bread? 12. Is it wrong to provide it miraculously? 13. What would have been wrong in this case? 14. Tell the reply of Jesus. 15. From whom was he quoting? 16. State the next move of the devil. 17. What is meant by the “ holy city” ? 18. How did he justify this temptation? 19. Did Jesus deny the quotation? 20. What was wr ong about the matter ? 21. To what place did the devil next take Jesus? 22. What were shown him? 23. Who claimed possession of these things? 24. Did Jesus question his claim? 25. State the offer of the devil. 26. By what name did Jesus address him? 27. What did he order him to do? 28. And what writing did he quote ? 29. What was next temptation at this time? 30. Tell what the angels did. 31. State the news reaching Jesus. 32. What did he d6 then ? 33. Tell what change in location he made. 34. In so doing what was accomplished ? 35. What about those sitting in darkness? 36. And those in the shadow of death ? 37. What did Jesus now begin? 38. Tell what he exhorted the people to do. 39. For what reason? 40. Had this been preached before? 41. Where was Jesus walking? 42. Tell whom he saw. 43. State their occupation. 44. What were they told to do ? 45. And what were they promised ? 46. Describe their response. 47. State whom he next saw. 48. What were they doing? 49. Who was with them ? 50. State their response to the word of Jesus. 51. Through what region did Jesus now go? 52. In what buildings did he teach ? 53. On what subject did he preach? 54. What did he do besides preach? 55. How extensive did his fame become ? 56. Who were brought unto him ? 57. With what result? 58. Tell what is said of the multitudes. 4:1 Led up of the spirit denotes that Jesus was divinely instructed to go into the wilderness (same place as chapter 3:1) and submit to the test. Tempted is from PEIRAZO and has various shades of meaning in the New Testament. I shall copy most of the italicized words in Thayer's definition which constitutes his direct description of the word: "To try, i. e. 1. to try whether a thing can be done; to attempt, endeavor. 2. to try, make trial of, test. To solicit to sin, to tempt. To inflict evils [afflictions] upon one in order to prove his character and steadfastness of his faith." The context must be considered in each case to determine which part of the definition applies. The word devil is from two originals in the Greek New Testament which are and DIA-BOLOS. Thayer defines the first, "1. the divine Power, deity, divinity. 2. a spirit, a being inferior to God, superior to men . . . evil spirits as the messengers and ministers of the Devil." (It is the word frequently thought of for demons.) The second word is defined, "prone to slander, slanderous, accusing falsely . . . false accuser, slanderer . . . In the Bible and in ecclesiastical writings THE is applied to Satan." The rule is that when the plural word "devils" is used it comes from the first word above, and if singular, "the devil," it is from the second word and means Satan. 4:2 A man would not have to go forty days without food to become hungry in the ordinary sense or degree. The meaning is that by the end of that period the pangs of hunger became severe. 4:3 Tempter is from the same word as "tempted" in verse 1, and the person doing the tempting is the devil also defined in that verse. The devil knew that the great issue at stake was the divinity of Christ, hence the suggestion he made was a challenge for Him to prove his claim. There is no doubt with us (and neither was there with the devil) as to Christ's ability to do the thing suggested. But Christ never used his miraculous power or divine character in his own behalf. He was here to set an example for his followers who were to be taught the lesson of self-denial. It would have been inconsistent to ask his disciples to resist temptation when they had only their natural powers for support, while He overcame his trials by falling back on his divine power. Another thing that would have made it wrong for Christ to turn the stones into bread is that it would have been an act proposed by the devil. It is wrong to have any fellowship with Satan in any act, even though it might be right in itself. 4:4 In quoting the statement that is in Deuteronomy 8:3, Jesus showed his respect for the inspired word of God and set a worthy example for others. He ignored the challenging phase of the preceding verse and based his reply on the principle that physical satisfaction is not the only thing that should interest a person in this life. One might be abundantly supplied and contented physically and yet lack the more important food which is for the inner man and is found in the words of God. 4:5 Thayer's definition for the original of taketh is, "1. to take to, to take with one's self, to join to one's self." The word does not mean that Jesus was carried against his will to the place, but that He accompanied the devil as a further step in the procedure of the test to which he was being put. The word pinnacle is a subject of some uncertainty in the several works of reference that I have consulted as to what part of the temple is meant. It is evident that a specific place is meant for the Greek definite article is used in the original text, making it read "the pinnacle" instead of "a pinnacle." But regardless of all these considerations the point is that it was a place high enough to have caused death to one who would fall from it. 4:6 Much importance has been attached by commentators to the devil's omission of the words "in all thy ways" from his citation to Psalms 91:11-12. The word ways is from DEREK which Strong defines, "a course of life or mode of action," regardless of whether that course is right or wrong. The context must determine in each case whether it is the one or the other. To say that casting himself down would have been wrong is to assume the very point in question. Had it been right for him to perform such a stunt as the devil suggested, then the passage which he cited would have given the assurance of divine protection according to the passage in Psalms. 4:7 The word for tempt is similar to the one in verse 1 but is a stronger word and is defined by Thayer, "To prove , test, thoroughly tempt." Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:16 and thus it will be well to look at that passage and consider the connection. It says not to tempt God as they tempted him in Massah. That refers to Exodus 17:2; Exodus 17:7 where the people complained because of their thirst and questioned if the Lord was among them. It was trying (one meaning of tempt) on the patience of God to hear such attacks upon His power and goodness. That justifies the comment of Thayer in his definition of the word when he says, "by irreligion and immorality to test the patience or avenging power of Christ." God's long-suffering is infinite for people who sincerely rely on Him for help, even to the last degree of indulgence for their unusual requests. But He will not suffer being approached in the spirit of challenge just to see if He can and is willing to gratify their disrespectful curiosity. 4:8 If the reader will examine the various definitions of kingdom given in chapter 3:2, he will learn that the word sometimes means the territory ruled by a king; in other words, it is something that can be seen with the fleshly eye. However , the rulership of such realms would necessarily involve much glory, so the devil called the attention of Jesus to that feature. A miracle or supernatural performance had to be done in order to make such a display before the eyes of Jesus, but that does not present any difficulty for the Bible has numerous instances that show he has been suffered to use such power when it suited the Lord's plan to have it so. 4:9 In the corresponding passage in Luke 4:6 the devil makes a stronger claim than is recorded here. He says that he possesses the "glory" of all these realms of the world and Jesus does not deny it; the following passages will also bear out his claim. (John 14:30; John 16:11; Ephesians 2:2.) In this verse the devil promises to give up his control of the glory existing in the kingdoms of the world and turn it over to Jesus. The only condition he requires is that Jesus fall down and worship him. See the note in comments on chapter 2:2 for the meaning of worship. Regardless of what phase of that word the devil had in mind, to have complied with the proposition would have been sin and that would have for ever disqualified Him from being a perfect sacrifice. 4:10 The word satin is spelled the same in both Greek and English and the definition in Thayer's lexicon (the part written in italics) is the single word "adversary" when used as a proper name, and "a Satan-like man" when used figuratively. Jesus used it as a proper name in this verse and thus identified him with "the devil" in this account of the temptation. Get thee hence means for him to leave which he will do in the next verse. Worship is from and serve is from LATREUO, and both of them are found in the long note on the word "worship" at chapter 2:2. 4:11 Luk 4:13 adds the words "for a season" to the statement here that "the devil leaveth him." This is significant and adds force to the statements in Hebrews 2:17-18; Hebrews 4:15 which indicate that Jesus was subject to temptation all through his life on earth. These temptations came whenever the devil or his servants had an occasion to try their hand. For the present the devil has gone the limit of his resources, for 1 John 2:16 says that "all that is in the world" is the "lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes and pride of life." He used these three with Eve and won over her . He used them in the temptation of Christ in the wilderness and was defeated. The item of bread was an appeal to the lust of the flesh; the display of the kingdoms of the world appealed to the lust of the eyes, and the idea of casting himself from the pinnacle appealed to the pride of life in that it would only be pride that would prompt a person to perform some sensational exploit. Having been defeated in this encounter with Jesus, the devil quit the scene to await another opportunity. 4:12 The account of John's im-prisonment is in the 14th chapter , being inserted there to explain a remark that was made by the Herod who was reigning then. We are not told in this place why Jesus departed from Galilee, but the purpose is indicated in John 4:43-45. When Jesus had heard. Jesus did not have to obtain information about the activities of men by the ordinary means of hearing (John 2:23-25), so the phrase is used merely to state the occasion on which he left Judea. It means as if it said "upon the report." etc., Jesus left Judea and went to Galilee. The word hear is from AKOUO and has various shades of meaning which must be understood in each passage according to the connection. The word is so im-portant that I believe it will be well to give a quotation from Thayer's lexicon on the definitions of the word. I shall quote the parts in italics since that is his direct definition, while the words in regular type are his own comments and explanation of the definitions. I urge the reader to make note of it and be prepared to consult it as occasion suggests. "To be endowed with the faculty of hearing. To attend to; consider. To understand, perceive the sense of what is said. To get by hearing, learn. A thing comes to one's ears, to find out (by hearing), learn (hear of); to learn. To comprehend, understand. To perceive any one's voice. To give ear to one, listen, hearken. To yield to, hear to one; to listen to, have regard to. To perceive the distinct words of a voice. To yield obedience to a voice." 4:13 Nazareth was a town in Galilee where the parents of Jesus lived after coming back from Egypt. Now he moves his residence to another town in the same province called Capernaum. From now on when mention is made of "his own city" it will mean this place, while the term "his own country" will still mean the vicinity of Nazareth. 4:14 That it might be fulfilled does not always mean that a certain thing was done just so a particular prophecy might be fulfilled, although it will sometimes mean that. In every such passage it will be well to consider it in the light of saying, "and in so doing the prophecy was fulfilled which," etc. 4:15 The prophecy of Isa 9:1-2 is quoted which was fulfilled when Jesus took up his residence in the city of Capernaum. Sometimes more than one place would have the same name, hence the inspired writers gave several marks of identity by which the correct one would be known. 4:16 Heathen darkness had brooded over the communities around Capernaum, but the presence and teaching of Jesus penetrated that gloom and gave the people the benefit of spiritual light which fulfilled an important prophecy of the scriptures. 4:17 From that time denotes that Jesus began his public teaching after his baptism and not before. Likewise, men are not regarded as the Lord's workers today until they have been baptized. It indicates also that they are expected to begin working for Him as soon as they are baptized. In most respects the preaching of Jesus was like that of John in that its main subject was to require men to repent in view of the nearness of the king dom of heaven. Each of them taught that the kingdom was at hand which would mean that it did not exist in fact in their lifetime. Moreover, it also shows that it was soon to appear which disproves the teaching of the present day by some that the kingdom is still in the future. 4:18 According to John 1:35-42 these two brothers were disciples of John. They had not ceased their regular occupation since there was nothing wrong about It and the command of John that his disciples repent would not interfere with their business. They were fishermen by occupation and were in the act of casting a net into the water when Jesus came by. That was the principal means of fishing in those days; the other was with a hook (Matthew 17:27). 4:19 We note that the Lord did not say anything to these men as to their personal conduct. They had already been converted by John and hence nothing was wanting along that line. John's work was to "prepare the way of the Lord" by persuading men and women to repent and be baptized. That made it entirely proper for Jesus to call upon them to enter the work for which they had been prepared. Make you fishers of men. That was a psychological appeal to these men in view of their usual occupation. Jesus did not belittle or even criticize their business, but only promised to give them an improved-opportunity to work at the trade of fishing. He intended for them to have better bait (spiritual meat) and take more valuable fish, the souls of men. 4:20 In leaving their nets they gave up their secular occupation for the sake of following Christ. A similar but fuller statement will soon be made of two others whom Jesus will call. 4:21 Zebedee is referred to in the reference works simply as a Jew who was a fisherman by trade. The information that he was the father of the two apostles, James and John, will be useful in other places for distinguishing them from other men with the same names. These brothers were called by Jesus and no particulars are given as to why they were called. 4:22 This contains the fuller statement referred to in verse 20; the brothers left the ship and their father. This would not have been necessary if nothing but information were the object. It would be taken for granted that they could not follow Jesus without leaving their father as well as all other objects at home. The lesson is that love for earthly relatives should not be regarded above service for Christ. 4:23 The word synagogue occurs many times in the New Testament and I will give Thayer's definition of the original Greek: "In the N. T. 1. an assembly of men. 2. a synagogue, i. e. a. an assembly of Jews formally gathered together to offer prayer and listen to the reading and exposition of the Holy Scriptures. b. the building where those solemn assemblies are held." The first meaning of the word is virtually the same as a congregation and then it came to be applied to the building in which the people met. Thayer says the following historically on the subject: "Synagogues seem to date their origin from the Babylonian exile. In the time of Jesus and the apostles every town, not only in Palestine but also among the Gentiles, if it contained a considerable number of Jewish in-habibtants, had at least one synagogue, the larger towns several or even many. " The law of Moses made no provision for these buildings, yet there was nothing in its teaching that would prohibit them. The national worship was conducted at Jerusalem where the tabernacle and later the temple were located. Such services, which consisted in the animal sacrifices and burning of incense, also the service of the show-bread and burning of oil on the golden candlestick, must all be conducted at Jerusalem only. But other items of Jewish worship might be performed in any place available and hence these many synagogues that are mentioned throughout the New Testament. The word gospel is from , and its universal definition in the lexicons is "glad tidings" or "good news." Any specific additional meaning to be attached to it must be obtained through the connection in which it is used. Hence in the present verse the words gospel of the kingdom simply means the good news that the kingdom is at hand. There is not much difference between sickness and disease. The first especially refers to the symptoms of nausea and the second to some bodily weakness. In taking care of all manner of ailments Jesus proved his superhuman power. 4:24 Syria embraced most of the country including Palestine and the region north and northeast of it. Such beneficial work as Jesus was doing would naturally be reported so that would cause him to become famous. The personal interest that people would have in such subjects as sickness and other afflictions would bring them forth to have Jesus relieve them. Possessed with devils will be explained in another place. 4:25 The preceding verse makes a general statement of the territory from which the afflicted people came; this specifies some parts of that vast area. Matthew 5 "THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Chapter Five Beginning in this chapter, Matthew records the "Sermon On The Mount". The theme of the sermon is "The kingdom of heaven" (cf. Matthew 4:17; 5:3,10,19-20; 6:10,33; 7:21). Jesus began with "The Beatitudes," describing the character and blessedness of those who would be citizens of the kingdom (Matthew 5:1-12) and illustrating their relation to world as salt and light (Matthew 5:13-16). Clarifying His own relationship with the Law, Jesus stressed how our righteousness must surpass that of the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 5:17-20) following with a series of contrasts between the oral interpretations of the Law and conduct expected of His disciples (Matthew 5:21-48). POINTS TO PONDER * The meaning of the phrase: "the kingdom of heaven" * The blessedness of those in the kingdom, and their relationship to the world * How our righteousness must surpass that of the scribes and Pharisees REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter? - The beatitudes - Matthew 5:1-12- Salt and light - Matthew 5:13-16- Jesus and the Law - Matthew 5:17-20- Interpretations of the Law versus kingdom righteousness - Matthew 5:21-48 2) What do the beatitudes describe? (Matthew 5:3-12) - The character and blessedness of the citizens of the kingdom 3) How are citizens of the kingdom to relate to the world? (Matthew 5:13-16) - As the salt of the earth and the light of the world 4) What was Jesus’ relation to the Law of Moses? (Matthew 5:17-18) - He came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it 5) What does Jesus expect of those who would be citizens of the kingdom? (Matthew 5:20) - Righteousness that surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees 6) List the five subjects whose interpretations are contrasted in this chapter (Matthew 5:21-48) - Murder, adultery, oaths, retaliation, love 7) What phrases illustrate the contrast? (Matthew 5:21-22; Matthew 5:27-28; Matthew 5:31-34; Matthew 5:38-39, 43-44) - "You have heard that it was said..." (not "It is written...") - "But I say to you..." 8) Then what contrast is being made with these five subjects? - The oral interpretation and application of the Law versus the teaching of Jesus Matthew 5:1-48 Verse 1 Matthew 5 THE SERMON ON THE (Matthew 5:1-12)And seeing the multitudes, he went up into the mountain: and when he had sat down, his disciples came unto him. (Matthew 5:1)The traditional site of this mountain is seven miles southwest of Capernaum; the place is known as The Horns of Hattin. Note the custom of sitting down to teach, a procedure that was long followed in the early church. Sitting to teach was an indication of authority. Dummelow noted that in the "early church, the preacher sat, and the congregation, including the emperor, stood."[1] Most of the cathedrals of Europe are still without pews or other seating facilities for the congregation. The reformer, Martin Luther, alluded to this custom when he said, objecting to the Pope's remaining seated to observe the Lord's Supper, "Let him stand up when he takes the communion, like any other stinking sinner."[2] [1] J. R. Dummelow, One Volume Commentary (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1931), p. 638. [2] John Bainton, Here I Stand (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1950). Verse 2 And be opened his mouth and taught them saying ...This indicates more than merely opening one's mouth in order to pronounce words. It denotes formal preparation and declaration of the cardinal principles set forth in the ensuing discourse, called the Sermon on the Mount. Verse 3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.The word "blessed" means "happy" and is so translated by some. The "poor in spirit" is understood in two ways, both of which harmonize with the Holy Scriptures: (1) It is that quality of recognizing one's spiritual destitution in such a degree as to enable the sinner to approach God, not as the Pharisee, but as the publican, supplicating the Father for all necessary and desirable blessing. The poor in spirit are the opposite of the proud, conceited, arrogant and disdainful. Only the poor in spirit can enter God's kingdom. Others will never feel their need nor know their poverty until too late. (2) Another conception of the poor in spirit is seen in the account of this beatitude by Luke (Luke 6:20), "Blessed are ye poor." Dummelow expressed it thus, "A Christian, whether rich or poor, must have the spirit of poverty, he must possess his wealth as if he possessed it not, and be able to resign it at any moment without regret, and to say with Job, `The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord'."[3] Theirs is the kingdom of heaven means that persons with the attitude of the poor in spirit shall have the privilege of becoming members of the kingdom, namely by entering it by means of the new birth. ENDNOTE:[3] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 639. Verse 4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.It is, of course, a paradox to say, "Happy are they that grieve!" but that is exactly what this beatitude means. The ministry of grief, mourning, and sorrow as affecting the development of Christian character is set forth in detail in the New Testament. Tribulation results in patience (Romans 5:3-4). It yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness (Hebrews 12:11). Godly sorrow leads to repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10). What a generous and merciful arrangement of Almighty God that even life's sorrows shall bless and reward his servants! "Sweet," indeed, "are the uses of adversity." Why should Christians mourn? They mourn for the world which lies in the darkness of sin. They mourn for the sins that mar their own lives. They mourn for loved ones and members of their families out of Christ. They mourn for the slain who have fallen in the encounter with the evil one. They mourn from those sorrows and bereavements which are the common lot of all men. How unspeakably blessed, therefore, is the promise of our Saviour, "THEY SHALL BE !" Verse 5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.This beatitude is mentioned in the Old Testament, although not in exactly the same words (Psalms 37:11). Meekness and lows are related terms (Matthew 11:29-30). Both Jesus Christ and the patriarch Moses are set forth in Scripture as being meek. Inherit the earth ... does not refer exclusively to the "new heaven and the new earth" (2 Peter 3:13), but to this present earth as well. This is not a mere prophecy that the Christians shall be the landed gentry; but it is a statement that their relationship to the earth and its possessions shall be such as to bring them the greatest possible benefit and enjoyment of it. Verse 6 Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.Alas, how many there are who manifest no hunger or thirst after the things of God; and what shall be said of this innumerable multitude? Why do they feel no hunger, no thirst? Like the absence of ordinary hunger, this spiritual lack of hunger is due to the awful cancer of sin gnawing out the heart of the victim. Others, already in the final throes of spiritual starvation, are past hunger and thirst. Some have perverted their desires and have no true hunger and thirst for spiritual things remaining. The ravages of disease, perversion, and starvation are thus able to destroy that eagerness of the soul that men should have with reference to the things of God. Particular attention should be given to the scriptural meaning of the term "righteousness." "Righteousness," in the Scriptural view, means keeping God's commandments (Luke 1:6); is revealed in the gospel (Romans 1:17); and may be obtained in only one way, namely, by obedience to God's commandments, all of which "are" righteousness (Psalms 119:172). They shall be filled ... The desire for righteousness is the only desire of man that can be truly and finally satisfied. Appetites of the flesh, all of them, can be satisfied only for the moment. The drunkard, for example, never satisfies his thirst, but must die, at last, still unsatisfied! Physical hunger, also, cannot be finally satisfied, except for the moment. Death always results, whatever the cause, when the hunger of body cells can no longer be met. It is literally true that "Solid joys and lasting treasure, none but Zion's children know!"[4] ENDNOTE:[4] John Newton, Hymn, "Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken" (Chicago: Great Songs Press, 1960), Hymn No. 545. Verse 7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.All types of unmerciful conduct are condemned by this verse. Cruel amusements, punishments, speeches, newspaper articles, letters - in short, ALL kinds of unmerciful and inhumane behavior are proscribed by the Son of God in this beatitude. Such things are forever excluded from the kingdom of heaven. Specific mention should also be made of cruel judgments of other people (Matthew 7:1) and cruel refusal to forgive those who sin against us (Matthew 6:15). The quality of mercy is not strained. It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath. It is twice bless'd: It blesses him that gives and him that takes. 'Tis mightiest in the mightiest. It becomes The throned monarch better than his crown.[5] They shall obtain mercy ... This is to say that those who are merciful toward others shall receive for themselves mercy from Almighty God. ENDNOTE:[5] William Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice, Act IV, Scene 1. Verse 8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.This refers not merely to those whose hearts are free from evil purpose and desire but particularly alludes to those whose hearts have been purified by faith (Acts 15:9) and obedience to the gospel (1 Peter 1:22). The "heart" in this passage is, of course, THE MIND. According to the Scriptures, it is "THE HEART" that imagines (Genesis 6:5), understands (Matthew 15:13), reasons (Mark 2:8), thinks (Luke 9:47), believes (Romans 10:9), and loves (1 Peter 1:22). These passages are more than enough to identify the Scriptural "heart" as the mind or seat of the intelligence. They shall see God ... This is true in two ways: (1) The pure in heart shall see God by faith, just as Moses endured, "as seeing him who is invisible" (Hebrews 11:27). (2) They shall see God and Christ Jesus in the eternal world (Revelation 22:4; 1 John 3:2). Verse 9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called sons of God.Christ is the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6). How proper it is, therefore, that the citizens of his kingdom shall be peacemakers. Indeed, persons without this attitude need not apply. There are several ways in which God's children can serve as peacemakers: (1) Through spiritual instruction, they can bring peace to hearts that are troubled. (2) They can bring peace to their fellow men who are at strife between or among themselves. (3) They can bring men, through preaching God's word, or teaching it, to become reconciled to God, which is the greatest of all the achievements of the peacemaker. Definite procedures for the peacemakers are laid down in the Bible. A peacemaker conceals the transgression of others (see Proverbs 11:13); seeks a personal interview (Galatians 6:1); and tries to save "the face" of the wrongdoer (2 Timothy 2:22-26). Such shall be called the sons of God because they are most like God in his efforts to reconcile man unto himself.[6] ENDNOTE:[6] J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on Matthew (Delight, Arkansas: Gospel Light Publishing Company), p. 51. Verse 10 Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.Those whose righteousness is of such a quality that Satan will vent his wrath upon them are indeed blessed. Persecuted persons whose troubles arise from other causes, such as their own misconduct, are not included in this beatitude. Verse 11 Blessed are ye when men shall reproach you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake.In Christ's teachings, there is often the pattern of proceeding from the general to the specific. The general class of the persecuted in the preceding verse gives way to the personal and individual cases envisioned in this verse. There is a similar progression from the general to the particular in the case of Christ's questions regarding his identity (Matthew 16:13-15). These verses give a glimpse of the hatred that must ever rest upon God's true people in whatever age they live. The faithful will be reproached for Christ's name. They will be persecuted for refusal to walk in ungods (1 Peter 4:16; 1 Peter 4:4). Verse 12 Rejoice and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets that were before you.The apostles took to heart this admonition of the Saviour to rejoice in persecutions. James (James 1:2-4), Paul (1 Timothy 3:12; Colossians 1:24), and the Twelve (Acts 5:41) were happy in persecutions. In this passage, Christ firmly underscored the principle motive undergirding human submissiveness to God. There were, in fact, three of these: love, fear, and hope of reward. There is nothing dishonorable about any of these motives. If there had been, Christ would not have appealed to all three. His emphasis in this place is on the hope of heaven (see under Matthew 6:9). So persecuted they the prophets that were before you ... Christ in this place puts the same dignity upon the apostles as pertained to the prophets of the Old Testament, ranking them, in fact, higher, and showing that they also are to be heeded as inspired men. Dummelow said, "It is this possession of prophetic gifts by the first disciples which justifies the church in regarding the New Testament as the inspired word of God"[7] (Acts 11:27; Acts 13:1; Acts 15:32). (Also 1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 2:20; Ephesians 3:5; Ephesians 4:11, etc.). There are also many other New Testament passages which indicate most emphatically that the New Testament is God's true word. Some of these are Jude 1:1-3; 2 Timothy 3:17; 2 Peter 3:2; John 12:48; 1 Corinthians 14:37; Hebrews 2:1-3; Galatians 1:6-9; Revelation 22:18-19, etc. THE OF THE TO THE WORLD (Matthew 5:13-16)In the Beatitudes, Christ emphasized the inner character of Christians and gave the beatitudes as identification marks of his true followers. The importance of the inner life is seen in that this was the first thing outlined. Next, Christ turned his attention to the disciples' relation to the world. ENDNOTE:[7] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 640. Verse 13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men.Regarding the question of salt's losing its savor, Elmer W. Maurer, research chemist with the United States Department of Agriculture and a brilliant contemporary scientist, made this interesting reference to this portion of the Saviour's teachings: Salt was accepted and collected as taxes by the Romans from the people of the Holy Land. One of the main sources of salt for Palestinians, of course, was the Dead Sea, or Salt Sea. So oppressive were these taxes that the people adulterated the salt with sand or other earthy material (the salt to begin with was not our nice pure table salt). The government purified the salt by spreading it in big vats or tanks, filling them with water and drawing off the concentrated salt solution or brine. All that remained was the earthy, insoluble material. Indeed, the salt had lost its savor because it was no longer salt. It was fit to be trodden underfoot. And this was not the only way that salt could lose its savor. The surface waters of the Dead Sea, on evaporation, have a chemical salts content of about 31 percent sodium chloride, 13 percent calcium chloride, and 48 percent magnesium chloride, together with other impurities. The calcium and magnesium chlorides are hygroscopic (take water out of the air) and will thus literally dissolve the sodium chloride. A bitter tasting composition results. It was the custom to store vast amounts of this salt in houses that had earthen floors. In time, the salt next to the ground spoiled because of the dampness. Since it would be harmful to fertile land because of its salt content, no man would allow it to be thrown on his field. The only place left was the street, where it was trodden under foot of man. Thus the Bible was proved scientifically accurate, even in its many small details - for this was just a lone example.[8] We might observe that accurate, scientific investigation of any of the so-called scientific errors in the teachings of Christ will always have the same result as that discovered by Maurer. Salt keeps food from being insipid and preserves it from corruption. Both these functions are performed by Christians for society as a whole. A little more salt (true followers of God) would have preserved Sodom and Gomorrah from destruction (Genesis 18:32). The world at large little realizes the debt of gratitude that is owed by the whole race to that relatively small percentage who truly walk in the commandments and ordinances of the Lord. Good for nothing ... What a truly worthless state is that of the apostate Christian! The Saviour's estimate of him is that he is "good for nothing"! Another pertinent observation regarding salt is that it must come in contact with that which is to be benefited by it. So must Christians come in contact with the rest of mankind. Christ did not encourage monasticism or asceticism. It is also proper to observe that SALT IS . So are Christians. Some people "pity believers; some have a patronizing air in their attitude; a few would abolish"[9] Christians; but, in this passage, Christ shows that Christians are truly indispensable to this world. THEY ARE THE SALT OF THE EARTH! [8] Elmer W. Maurer, article in The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe (New York: G. P. Putnam and Sons, 1955), p. 205. [9] Doran's Minister's Manual (1947), p. 105. Verse 14 Ye are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid.This is further testimony to the indispensable nature of God's children. The world would be in total darkness without them. Furthermore, there is no reason to suppose that God would allow a wicked world to stand if it were not for the faithful remnant remaining in it and remaining faithful to God. Christ also said, "I am the light of the world." That passage before us is not contradictory. It means that the light Christians give forth to others is truly derived from Christ (2 Peter 1:19). Just as all light, energy, and power on earth are derived from the sun, center of our solar system, just so, all moral and spiritual light are derived from the Sun of Righteousness, our Lord Jesus Christ (Malachi 4:2). A city set on a hill cannot be hid. Boles said of this, "The comparison (is) between a city on a hill and a group, or church, of his disciples. Their influence cannot be ignored in the world. There is no greater light for God than the church that is filling its mission in the community."[10] ENDNOTE:[10] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Matthew (Nashville, Tennessee: The Gospel Advocate Company), p. 128. Verse 15 Neither do men light a lamp and put it under the bushel, but on the stand; and it shineth unto all that are in the house. Even so, let your light shine before men; that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.This passage sets forth instructions regarding the Christian's light, or influence, in the world: (1) Christ forbade hiding it under a bushel (Matthew 5:14), that is, permitting business and commerce to obscure one's influence for the truth. (2) He warned against hiding it under a vessel (Luke 8:16), that is, permitting cares, duties, and obligations of life to take precedence over faith. (3) He prohibited hiding it under the bed of licentiousness, laziness, or idleness (Luke 8:16). What then should be done with the light or influence of the Christian's life? It should be placed upon "THE STAND." And, pray tell, what can this be? It is nothing less than the church of Jesus Christ, namely, the local congregation. Revelation 1:20 identifies the lampstands as the churches. Let your light shine ... The command is to glorify God through an abundance of good works. As the noted Negro minister, Marshall Keeble, was often heard to say, "The Bible does not say to MAKE your light shine, but it says to LET it shine!" This, to be sure, forbids ostentation and boasting. Origen against Celsus quoted this place and referred to the light of Christians as a "brilliant and unfading wisdom, ... the very reflection of everlasting light,"[11] and argued from this premise that Christians should not bow down before the sun, moon, or stars, seeing they themselves are light, and from the very same source! Good works ... It is noteworthy that Jesus never gave the slightest encouragement to the delusion that people are saved by faith "only"! Good works, from the very beginning, were considered to be a most necessary and primary requirement on the part of all who would truly follow Christ and would through him hope to have the abundant entrance into the everlasting kingdom. See under Matthew 19:17. Thus, Jesus concluded his analysis of the disciples' relationship to the world, making them to be both salt and light. THE OF THE TO THE LAW AND THE (Matthew 5:17-48)In this subdivision of the Sermon on the Mount, Christ spelled out his own authority as being superior in every way to the edicts of the Decalogue, noting at the same time that he was not destroying but fulfilling them. ENDNOTE:[11] Origen, from The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 547. Verse 17 Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy but to fulfill.Of course, this touched on the great difficulty. The Jewish nation had long held the Law of Moses in the utmost respect and honor. Any change in the status of their law was sure to be received unfavorably by them. Therefore, Christ quite early in his ministry took pains to spell out for them his true and proper relationship to the Law of Moses. Nevertheless, the difference in "fulfilling" and "destroying" the Law of Moses was about the same as the difference between "paying off" a promissory note and "repudiating" it. In either case, it is effectively removed. Christ took the law out of the way ( Colossians 2:14-16); and yet he did so, not by violating it, but by fulfilling it! Christ fulfilled the law (1) by his own unswerving obedience to it, (2) by his exact manifestation as its promised Messiah, and (3) by enlarging and expanding its teachings, lifting them to a higher and purer level, and by bringing all the Old Testament teachings to perfection in the perfect Law of Liberty. Verse 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished. Jots ... tittles ... were the minutest markings and characters, forming parts of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. Christ here expressed full confidence in the Old Testament with the strong warning that it should never be disparaged or set at naught. The New Testament teaches that all of the prophecies of the Old Testament shall indeed be fulfilled (Luke 24:44), that its narratives are "written for our example" (1 Corinthians 10:11), and for our admonition and learning (Romans 15:4). Here is the principle that the New Testament is essentially an extension of the Old, minus its types and shadows, plus an elevation and perfection of all its latent spirituality. However, the changes in Christ are so radically beyond anything ever dreamed of by the Old Testament prophets that the true connection tends to be obscured. The law of sacrifice was fulfilled in Jesus' death. The law of circumcision was replaced by that "circumcision not made with hands" (Colossians 2:11). The Passover gave place to the Lord's Supper and the sabbath day to the Lord's Day. Verse 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.In this verse, Christ plainly refers to his own commandments with the strong warning that men are under obligations to heed and observe the laws he gives. Today, there are some who speak of certain Scriptures as "mere command"! But Christ made his commandments to be of overwhelming importance and set forth the principle that "the least" of his commandments was to be received and honored with infinite respect and obedience. Verse 20 For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.The religion of the Pharisees, hence their righteousness, consisted of externals, ceremonials, rituals, liturgies, and formalities of many kinds, with little or no attention being paid to the condition of the heart. Christ flatly denounced such a concept and indicated that no one could be saved in such a state as that of the typical Pharisee of his day. Verse 21 Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, THOU SHALT NOT KILL; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.THE OF THE FIFTH IN THE (Matthew 5:21-26)This is a clear reference to the Decalogue (Exodus 20:14; Deuteronomy 5:18). What Christ did at this point in his teachings is bold, daring, and sensational beyond anything one could imagine today. Here was the case of a prophet, yet relatively unknown, placing himself squarely on record as superior to the Law of Moses, even the Decalogue. Christ in this chapter mentioned several of the commandments, exposed their weakness, and specifically elevated his own will and teachings ABOVE them. He also laid bare, in the most painful manner for the ceremonialists, the awful weakness of the Decalogue, in that a person might indeed keep the letter of it without being in any sense at all truly righteous in the eyes of God! Of course, the Pharisees were the obvious and notorious examples of that very condition; they kept the commandments, but were children of the devil. Jesus opposed the Pharisees and their way of life as essentially sinful in spite of all punctilious observances of tithes, ceremonies, and formalities of the Mosaic religion, embellished, of course, with countless traditions of their own. Thou shalt not kill ... did not, however, prohibit HATE, the cause of killing. The Pharisee might indeed keep the command while at the same time hating his enemy, hoping that a wild beast would slay him, that lightning would strike him, or that a poisonous serpent would bite him! Christ exposed the weakness and sinfulness of such views. He made anger with a brother a sin equal to murder; and also, such derogatory statements as "Raca" and "thou fool," he made subject to the penalties of murder. It may well be doubted if the church as a whole, even today, has any adequate conception of Jesus' true meaning on this subject. When it is considered that a derogatory or uncomplimentary remark about a Christian brother is subject to punishment in the "hell of fire," and when it is considered that much of the journalism so widely received by "churches of Christ" is filled with cruel, uncomplimentary, and even false and vicious statements about brethren, the true follower of Christ must stand in awe of the penalties which divine justice shall certainly execute against evil doers. O God, be merciful to thy people! Verse 22 But I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, `Raca,' shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, `Thou fool,' shall be in danger of the hell of fire. Raca ... is an Aramaic expression, according to Dummelow, and means "empty head"![12] There are numerous epithets of similar import in constant use by many who fancy themselves to be Christians. Although there are definite gradations in the crimes and penalties here enumerated by Jesus, it would be a mistake to suppose greater or lesser blame for insults answering to "Raca" or "Thou fool." The expressions are essentially the same, and the plain teaching of our Lord in this context is that ALL insults of every kind are sinful and that all our derogatory and deprecatory expressions against one's fellow human beings are murderous. Those who resort to the use of such expressions are guilty in the eyes of the Lord. This is true because such expressions find their origin in a heart full of hatred and enmity. In the light of this, who could use such a term as "nigger" to set at naught a fellow creature, made like ourselves in the image of God? The penalties arranged in precise order to correspond with the insults mentioned above are not to be understood as graduated penalties or punishments against crimes of more and more serious import; rather, they are to be understood as a three-fold reiteration of one overwhelming truth. They constitute three equivalent statements for the sake of emphasis, all of them dealing with a principle men find it very convenient to ignore. It is at this very juncture, relations with fellow humans, that the Christian is different from others. He is even denied by his Lord the right of worship, if his brother has anything against him! ENDNOTE:[12] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 642. Verse 23 If therefore thou art offering thy gift at the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee.This means that if one's conscience is aware of sins committed against a brother, the first duty is to make it right with the brother, a duty more imperative, even, than that of worship, and which takes precedence over it. Verse 24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.It is useless to offer worship to God when some brother has been wronged and insulted, until the would-be worshiper shall seek out the one wronged and make amends. Christ's plan of maintaining harmony and fellowship in his church is really quite simple. It is "Go!" Three definite situations are outlined in which it is imperative that the true follower of Christ "go" to his brother. These are: (1) when a brother has aught against such a one (this passage), (2) when such a one has been wronged by a brother (Matthew 18:15-17), and (3) when one shall observe that a brother has been overtaken in any fault (Galatians 6:1). Need it be said that this is the only procedure laid down in God's word for dealing with the sins of a brother? Furthermore, these divinely imposed procedures are applicable to all types of sins and errors brethren may commit. The artificial and unscriptural distinction as to "public" and "private" sins with an implied waiver of God's commanded procedure if the sins are said to be "public," is a gross and sinful perversion of our Lord's teaching. To distinguish sins as "private" or "public" and make the application of God's word depend on man's classification is every whit as sinful as the unwarranted division of faith into "historical" and "saving" varieties, or as the Roman classifications of "mortal" and "venial" sin! Where is the Scripture that says Matthew 5:34; Matthew 18:15 and Galatians 6:1 do not apply to "public" sins? Christ commands his servants to "go" to the brother who is sinned against or who has himself sinned against us, or when the brother has been overtaken in any "fault"! If obeyed, the Scriptures here outlined would prevent the sinful and destructive practice of venting animosities, pronouncing anathemas, shouting corrections, and launching vicious criticisms against one's brothers in Christ through such media as gospel papers, radio programs, and circulatory letters. See more on this under Matthew 18:15. Verse 25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou art with him in the way; lest haply the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.Settling disagreements and healing possible sources of friction should be the pressing business of every day. In that manner, hatreds and enmities would not be left to build up strength. An attitude of conciliation and fairness can pull the sting from many thorny human problems, provided it is manifested spontaneously and early enough at the first sign of disagreement or conflict. Verse 26 Verify I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou have paid the last farthing.As a matter of practical, everyday living, the teaching of Christ in this place is indeed light and wisdom. There are countless examples of human conflict ending in the most tragic results which could have been avoided altogether by the application of Christ's teaching. Illustration: In a certain city of the Southwest, two men owned adjoining houses in an attractive subdivision, and the driveways were adjacent with a small strip of turf, about a foot wide, between the driveways. They quarreled over this trifling strip. One planted onions in it; the other pulled them up and set out tomatoes! After many words, each stepped to the back door of his residence, took a shotgun, stepped out on the back steps, and shot the other dead while their respective families were at church! To "pay the last farthing" refers to reaping the last and bitterest fruit of a failure to handle problems in the manner here laid down by Christ. Verse 27 Ye have heard that it was said,; THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ,THE OF THE SEVENTH IN THE (Matthew 5:27-32)Once more, Christ selected as his target one of the great and highly respected words of the Decalogue, blasting it with his "BUT I SAY UNTO YOU!" No wonder Christ's teachings on this occasion resulted in astonishment and amazement among the people (Matthew 7:28-29). Verse 28 But I say unto you, that everyone that looketh upon a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.Thus, Christ made the lustful thought as sinful as the overt act. In the light of this, who is innocent? In this commandment, just as in the case of the Fifth Commandment, Jesus was more concerned with antecedents than with overt sins. Adultery proceeds from impure thinking; and in this passage Christ's law appears far higher and more discerning than the Decalogue. Verse 29 And if thy right eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish and not thy whole body be cast into hell.The location of this verse in the midst of Jesus' teaching on adultery makes the meaning clear. Christ expects his followers to avoid gross sin by keeping the fountain of the heart sweet and clean. That this requires exertion, self-denial, and determination of heroic proportions is seen in the implied comparison of plucking out the right eye. The comparison is valid and is so recognized in medicine which often amputates an offending member to save the entire physical body. The giving up of cherished sin is far more difficult but just as necessary for those who would truly enter into life. See under Matthew 18:8-9. Verse 30 And if thy right hand causeth thee to stumble, cut it off and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not thy whole body go into hell.This is the same thought as that in Matthew 5:29, repeated in a different figure for the sake of emphasis. Remember that Christ is still speaking of adultery; and the only proper meaning that can attach to these two verses (Matthew 5:29-30) must relate to that subject. It seems plain enough that Christians should strive, at whatever cost, to avoid lustful thoughts. See under Matthew 18:8-9. Verse 31 It was said also, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: but I say unto you that everyone that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery.Thus Christ, improving on the Decalogue, attached guilt to lustful thoughts, and in this place makes marriages to divorced persons sinful, except in the case of the innocent party of a divorce for adultery (Matthew 19:9). Interestingly enough, Jesus abolished the death penalty for adultery. At least, this can be deduced from his words addressed to the woman who was taken in the very act by the Pharisees, "Neither do I condemn thee, etc." (John 8:11). Verse 33 Again, ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths.THE NINTH ; REVISED (Matthew 5:33-37)In this passage, Christ does not quote verbatim from the Ninth Commandment, but rather deals with Pharisaical deductions, extensions, and exceptions on the Great Word which said, "THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS," It was far more offensive to the priestly mentality for one to violate his oath, especially with reference to some gift to the temple, than to bear slanderous witness against an accused on trial in a court of law, which is one of the primary meanings in the Decalogue. As he frequently did, Christ referred the whole question to higher ground, making it a sin, under all circumstances, to utter an untruth, thus bypassing altogether the question of violating an oath! Under the interpretation of the Pharisees, the divine prohibition was against "" a lie. This, in practice, meant that as long as one had not been properly "sworn in," or as long as one refused to deliver a formal oath, the offender could tell as many lies as he would without incurring guilt under the Law! It goes without saying that THAT interpretation was not of God, but it was only of sinful men. The glory of Jesus Christ is that he stripped off those superficial and shallow devices for circumventing God's Law and made the truth to shine before all people. See under Matthew 23:22. Verse 34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God; nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, for thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your speech be Yea, yea; Nay, nay: and whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one.The obvious meaning is that a Christian's word is his bond. He does not need to reinforce his words with any oath or any appeal for heaven to witness, or by any other device to underscore the truth of his remarks. A Christian's speech is limited to "Yes" and "No" with regard to oath. The only possible exception, and there is no unanimity of opinion even on this, is that of a Christian's taking a judicial oath to assure proper and legal testimony in a court of law. Many courts allow the conscientious adherent to our Saviour's words in this place the privilege of "affirming under the penalties of perjury" instead of taking the customary oath. Those who insist that a Christian may take such oaths point out that Christ, in this place, was clearly not talking about judicial oaths and that Almighty God himself is represented as taking an oath in these words, "Wherein God, being minded to show more abundantly unto the heirs of the promise the immutability of his counsel, interposed with an oath" (Hebrews 6:17). Speaking the truth in love is a badge of true discipleship. Falsehood, evil-speakings, slander, backbiting, gossip, and idle talk of all kinds - these are surely prohibited to the child of God. One cannot help observing that Christ's way is almost as novel, untried, and astonishing as it was to the generation that first heard these words! Various references to heaven, earth, Jerusalem, and one's head, are only examples of oaths which people of that day commonly employed. Verse 38 Ye have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.THE OTHER WITH JEWISH LAW (Matthew 5:38-48)Passages which contain this injunction are Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:20; and Deuteronomy 19:21. Harsh and demanding as such a principle appears to enlightened people of our day, it should be remembered that it was a tremendously significant advance above and beyond the primitive thinking of the untrained people who first heard it. The law of the jungle was far different: (1) If you kill my child, I will kill all your children, your wife, your brothers, your whole generation! (2) If you knock out my tooth (or eye), I will knock out ALL of yours and kill you also! Thus, the ancient Law of the Hebrews was a vast improvement in that it strictly limited punitive action to the extent of the original injury or loss that precipitated it. Verse 39 But I say unto you, Resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.The type of submissive meekness enjoined by Christ in these verses must appear very difficult to the people who have never tried it; but actually, this presents the most exciting and thrilling approach to life and its problems that can possibly be imagined. Those who have tried it unanimously affirm that it works. Illustration: Colin Byrne Smith of Australia told of a missionary who called on a tribe of cannibals. Taking his life in his hands, he crossed the inlet in a small boat, and when confronted by the tribe, meekly endured every insult. Long afterwards, when he had succeeded in converting many and establishing a church among them, he asked, "Why did you not eat ME when I came to preach to you?" The old chief, then a Christian, said, "You see, none of us wanted to eat you, because the reason we eat people is to acquire their skills and bravery; but nobody wanted to be like YOU, taking all those insults, and patiently bearing every blow against you!" When one strives honestly and faithfully to live up to Jesus' teaching in this matter, or any other, forces far beyond the knowledge of any man are working for the success of the obedient follower of the Lord. Turning the other cheek ... has taken the sport out of many an evil attack against the defenseless. Verse 40 And if any man would go to law with thee and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.This is exactly the same principle in another setting and is repeated for the sake of emphasis. Nor should too much be made of the fact that most of the losses in these verses seem rather trivial, a flick on the cheek, the loss of a coat, and going a mile. They do suggest, however, that there may be larger areas where the child of God may not use the "submissive response" enjoined in these passages. God does not say, "If one shall strike thy child, present the child's other cheek!" Verse 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.Does anyone live up to this? Certainly, one must agree that the Sermon on the Mount is still the Mount Everest of the Christian religion, namely, the highest peak of all and only rarely scaled. Did Christ mean that a Christian by lending to all comers should suffer the plundering of all his goods? Certainly, the apostolic church did not operate on any such premise. We can only conclude that Christ was teaching a basic truth in this place, namely, that it is better to invest in people by helping and befriending them, than it is to invest in hoarding treasures for one's self. Of that there can be no doubt. Verse 43 Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy: but I say unto you Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you; that ye may be sons of your Father who is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust.Leviticus 19:18 is the Old Testament passage which says, "Love thy neighbor." It does not, however, say, "Hate thine enemy." THAT was an addition to God's word by the scribes and Pharisees. Thus, the people of Jesus' day had fallen into the old and vicious habit of linking a sublime truth with a ridiculous error, thus "yoking the ox with the ass," to use an Old Testament figure of speech. The principle of loving one's enemies is valid and binding upon all who would follow Christ. There is no room in the Christian heart, purged from sin and forgiven of all transgressions, to entertain such a stifling and chilling a thing as hatred for anyone. Love in this place does not necessarily refer to sentimental and affectionate love such as one has for members of his own family. The kind of love meant is the love manifested by God himself in that he sends rain on the just and unjust, etc. The implication is that the Christian shall treat his enemies with fairness and equity, doing unto them as he would desire people should do unto himself. Verse 46 For if ye love them that love you, what reward have you? Do not even the publicans the same?Underlying these verses is the challenge that men shall be "like their Father who is in heaven." That is what it is really all about, that men should be like the pure and holy God whom they are taught to worship through Christ. God loves sinners, even dying for them while they were yet in sin; so Christians should love all men, sinners included, even their own personal enemies! To live the other way is to be no better than a publican (the gatherer of the Roman taxes); and, in the Jewish lexicon, that was about as low as a man could get! Christ here enunciated a new and thrilling principle to take the place of the old proverb that "One rotten apple will spoil a barrel of good apples!" That is, "One good apple can heal a barrel of rotten apples!" Only Christ could have revealed such an exciting new and effective doctrine as this. Verse 47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the Gentiles the same?This is one of the most interesting statements Jesus ever made, "What do ye more than others?" The implications of this are positively profound. Implicit in these words is the proclamation that Christians are different; they love more than others, will do more than others, and are in fact better in every way than others. Their righteousness is a matter of going beyond, giving the cloak also, going the second mile, turning the other cheek, loving enemies, praying for those who persecute them, and, in short, being "sons of your Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 5:45). Verse 48 Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.No one can say that Christ did not set a high standard for man to follow! To be perfect as God is perfect, what a challenge this is! At the outset, every candid student of the Holy Scriptures should admit and understand that there is not the slightest possibility of his ever graduating from this school, "Magna cum Laude"! Nobody, but nobody is ever going to be perfect; and yet, it is the genius of the Christian religion that perfection is required of its adherents. A contradiction? No, only a paradox. The goal or ideal is necessary that man may continually know that he is unworthy of salvation, that he can never in a million years merit it, and that any real perfection he might eventually attain must be the free gift of Christ. Illustration: In a measure of music, in ordinary 4/4 or quadruple time, a single half-note fills the measure half-full; a dot after that note brings it to 3/4 full, another dot 7/8 full, another to 15/16 full, another to 31/32 full, and so on and on. If one added a million dots, the measure would never be full, for each dot would add only half the value of the preceding dot. In a manner of speaking, this is the way it is with perfection. One may fill the measure half-full by obeying the gospel and by giving up all forms of vicious conduct; but there will always be some improvement to make; and a Christian can keep on and on improving until the end of a long life without ever attaining absolute perfection. An apostle is our authority for saying that no man is above sin, actually. John said, If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:8-9). Nevertheless, how boldly Christ flung down the challenge! , Sir, that's what is required. Even if one were found so foolish as to believe he had attained it, his blindness to any sin would constitute the biggest sin of all. This verse, as much as any other in the Bible, throws man upon his knees and bids him trust in Christ alone for eternal life. J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Matthew Chapter FiveChrist's Disciples and His Moral Law, Matthew 5:1-48 Sermon on the MountThe Beatitudes, Matthew 5:1-121. when he was set.—Throughout the ministry of Jesus we find a remarkable absence of action and attitude in the delivery of his public addresses. The apostles were not regardless of these aids to oratory, but Jesus usually delivered his addresses, as on the present occasion, in a sitting posture. (Comp. Luke 4:20 Luke 5:3.) 2. the poor in spirit.—By the poor in spirit are meant those who are sensible of spiritual destitution, and who long for a better spiritual state. The kingdom of heaven is theirs because they are the class who seek it, and who, when once admitted, abide in it. 5. the meek.—Meekness is opposed to arrogance. The arrogant grasp after dominion and power; but the meek will inherit the earth. They will inherit it in two ways: First, they shall enjoy it more fully while in it; Second, they shall finally, in the membership of a triumphant church, have possession and control of it. Possibly, the Savior also alludes to the final possession by the saints of the new earth. 4. they that mourn.—Not all that mourn— for "the sorrow of the world worketh death" (2 Corinthians 7:10)— but those who mourn in reference to sin. "They shall be comforted" because now there is at ample provision made for pardon. Perhaps we should also include in the reference those righteous persons who mourn over the follies and perversities of men, and who sigh under the bereavements of life; they shall be comforted as Lazarus was when received into Abraham's bosom. 6. hunger and thirst.—Hunger and thirst being our most imperious appetites, to "hunger and thirst after righteousness" is to feel the most intense desire to obtain it Under a heathen religion, and even under Judaism, such a desire could not be fully satisfied; but under the rich provisions of the kingdom of Christ it may be; and the promise is that it shall be. (Comp. Romans 8:3-4; Hebrews 7:11 Hebrews 7:19 Hebrews 7:25.) The promise is realized in part by the actual attainment of a higher degree of righteous living, and in part by the perfect forgiveness of our sins. 7. the merciful.—Mercy, strictly defined, has reference to the forgiveness of offenses; and in this it is distinguished from pity. The merciful are blessed because they shall obtain mercy; that is, as they are merciful to others, God will be merciful to them. (Comp. 6:14, 15.) 8. the pure in heart.—Purity of heart is freedom from evil desires and purposes. All human purity is only comparative, but it may exist in a very eminent degree. The pure in heart shall see God by faith, as a source of enjoyment on earth, and shall see him face to face in heaven. (Comp. 1 John 3:2.) 9. the peacemakers.—No particular class of peacemakers is designated. The term includes all who make peace between men, whether as individuals or as communities. It includes even those who worthily endeavor to make peace though they fail of success. They shall be "called the children of God," because they are like God, whose supreme purpose it is to secure "peace on earth and goodwill among men." (Luke 2:14.) 10. persecuted for righteousness.—To be persecuted for righteousness' sake is to be persecuted, not merely because you are righteous, but because of righteous acts which are offensive to the persecutors. In the lips of the persecutor himself his severe dealing is always because of some wrong with which he charges you. It is when the thing charged as wrong is actually right that the persecution is for righteousness' sake. The kingdom of heaven belongs to those thus persecuted, because it is the righteousness required by the laws of that kingdom which causes the persecution, and because, on the other hand, the persecution binds the persecuted still more closely to the kingdom for which they suffer. 11, 12. revile you.—This beatitude is chiefly an amplification of the preceding. Here we have persecution mentioned again, which refers to suffering in property and person, and, in addition to it, the reviling and evil speaking by which one suffers in reputation. We are to "rejoice and be exceeding glad" under this annoyance for the two reasons, that our reward is great in heaven, and that such suffering puts us into companionship with the heroic prophets of the olden time. To be of that goodly company is a great reward on earth; while the promised reward in heaven exceeds all conception. In requiring us to rejoice and be glad under such circumstances, Jesus makes a heavy draft on our capability; but it is a draft in the direction of our own happiness, and one to which some men have been able to respond. (See Acts 5:41.) General Remarks on the BeatitudesThe reader should observe that the first seven of these beatitudes have reference to traits of character or states of mind, viz: poverty of spirit, meekness, mourning for sin, desire for righteousness, mercifulness, purity of heart, peacemaking; while the last two have reference to external circumstances. It should also be observed that most of them are paradoxical. The world's conception of the man who is superlatively blessed has always been the reverse of what is here taught. The doctrine was new and strange, not only to the heathen world, but even to the most cultivated students of the Mosaic law; yet those who have received the fullness of grace that is in Christ, have learned to realize the unquestionable truth of all these maxims. We are not to understand that a man who possesses any one of the enumerated traits of character, and is void of the others, will enjoy the corresponding blessing; that, for example, the peacemaker shall be called a child of God, though neither merciful nor pure in heart; but, rather, that the seven specifications are to be found in a single person— thus making up the perfect character who shall receive in their fullness all of the specified blessings. It is impossible to imagine a character more admirable. On the other hand, if we imagine a man the opposite of all this— proud in spirit, arrogant in demeanor, taking pleasure in sin, despising righteousness, unmerciful foul at heart, and a disturber of the peace— we have the utmost extreme of the cursedness to which sin can bring down a human being Relation of the Disciples to the World, Matthew 5:13-1613. salt of the earth.—Salt being chiefly used to preserve animal flesh, the metaphor here employed means that the disciples sustain a similar relation to human society— the physical earth being put by metonymy for its inhabitants. They keep back the world from that complete moral corruption which would require its destruction. There was not salt enough in the antediluvian world, nor in the city of Sodom, nor in the tribes of Canaan, to save them. if the salt have lost.—In the expression, "if the salt have lost its savor," the reference is to the persons represented by salt. If they have lost the qualities which make them the salt of the earth, wherewith, it is demanded, shall the earth be salted? They are then good for nothing, as salt would be if it had no saltness. 14. the light of the world.—As light dispels darkness from the world, and enables men to see how to journey and labor, so the disciples, by their good works, their teaching, and their example, dispel ignorance and prejudice, and enable men to see the way of eternal life. In this way they are the light of the world. city set on a hill.—There is here a tacit comparison of the disciples as a body to a city situated on a hill— the point of comparison being the fact that it can not be hid. The Church has ever occupied such a position. Neither her beauties nor her blemishes can be concealed. Her constant aim should be to present as few as possible of the one, and as many as possible of the other. 15. a candle.—Properly, a lamp. Candles were not known till after the time of Christ. Having indicated by the symbol of a city on a hill the prominent position of the Church, Jesus now gives the reason why it was to be placed in such a position. Being intended as the light of the world, it is placed, like a lamp on the lampstand, in a position whence its light may shine abroad. under a bushel.—The original word here rendered bushel (μόδιος) is the name of a measure which held about a peck. Instead of the incorrect rendering, bushel, it would have been better to use the generic term measure. 16. Let your light so shine.—No ostentatious display of piety or righteousness is here enjoined, but the natural and unavoidable force of a good example, and the intended influence of our actions on the world. We are to studiously pursue such a line of conduct in the presence of the world as will induce them to glorify God. General Statement about the Law, Matthew 5:17-2017. Think not.—The remark, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets." is prefatory to what follows in this section of the sermon, and it was intended to prevent a misconstruction of some things about to be said in apparent opposition to the law. destroy the law.—The term destroy is here used in antithesis, not with perpetuate, but with fulfill. To destroy the law would be more than to abrogate it, for it was both a system of statutes designed for the ends of government, and a system of types foreshadowing the kingdom of Christ. To destroy it, therefore, would be both to abrogate its statutes and to prevent the fulfillment of its types. The former Jesus eventually did; the latter he did not. As regards the prophets, the only way to destroy them would be to prevent the fulfillment of the predictions contained in them. Instead of coming to destroy either the law or the prophets, Jesus came to fulfill all the types of the former and all the unfulfilled predictions of the latter. He fulfilled them partly in his own person, and partly by his administration of the affairs of his kingdom. The latter part of the process is still going on, and will be until the end of the world. Jesus also fulfilled the law in the sense of maintaining sinless obedience to it; but this is not the fulfillment to which the text refers. 18. one jot or tittle.—The words jot and tittle, both of which mean something very small, represent, in the original, yod, the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet; or iota, the smallest in the Greek alphabet; and keraia, a turn in the stroke of the pen, by which some letters were distinguished from others. That not a jot or tittle was to pass from the law until all was fulfilled, means that the law should remain in full force until the fulfillment above described. 19. least in the kingdom.—The man who would break what he considered the small commandments of God, under one dispensation, would be proportionately disobedient under a better dispensation; for habits of disobedience once formed are not easily laid aside. For this reason obedience or disobedience while under the law was an index to what a man would be under Christ. The text shows that the relative greatness of persons in the kingdom of heaven is measured by their conscientiousness in reference to the least commandments. To the great commandments, as men classify them, even very small Christians may be obedient; but it requires the most tender conscience to be always scrupulous about the least commandments. 20. righteousness of scribes and Pharisees.—The scribes, and Pharisees were models of righteousness, both in their own estimation and in that of the people. "When the disciples were told, therefore, that unless their own righteousness should excel that of the scribes and Pharisees, they would not be admitted into the kingdom, it gave them a lofty conception of the righteousness which would be required. The disciples here addressed were those who, when the kingdom was first set up, were its citizens. The righteousness in question was to be attained by them before entering the kingdom; but such would not necessarily be the case with candidates for admission subsequent to that time. Still, the text indicates that all within the kingdom shall attain to such righteousness as a condition of remaining in it. The Law against Murder, Matthew 5:21-2621. said by them of old time.—The reference is to the sixth commandment. It was said to them of old time, rather than by them. To them is a better rendering, both here and in verses 27 and 33 below. danger of the judgment.—Not the final judgment of the world, but the tribunal established by the law of Moses in each city for the trial of murderers and other criminals. (See Deuteronomy 16:18.) Every manslayer was tried before this tribunal, and either put to death or confined in the city of refuge. 22. whosoever is angry.—Jesus goes back of the murderous act, and forbids the anger and the reproachful words which always precede it and are likely to lead to it. The council mentioned is the supreme court provided for by the law of Moses (Deuteronomy 17:8-13), and represented in the days of Jesus by the Sanhedrim. The difference be-between it and "the judgment" was, not that it could inflict penalties which the judgment could not— for either could inflict the death penalty— but that the council was the more august tribunal, and the more dreaded. The thought is, that to call a brother raca (empty) was a more fearful sin than to be angry with him. The reader will observe that the words "without a cause" are omitted from the Greek text on very high authority. in danger of hell fire.—Here the climax is reached— the climax of sin in saying "Thou fool," and the climax of punishment in hell fire. Jesus here passes entirely away from the reference to Jewish courts and punishments, and speaks of the final punishment of the wicked. The valley of Hinnom was a deep, narrow valley southeast of Jerusalem, and lying immediately to the south of Mount Zion. The Greek word gehenna is first found applied to it in the Septuagint translation of Jos 18:16. (For the history of the valley see the following passages of Scripture: Joshua 15:8; 2 Chronicles 28:3 2 Chronicles 33:6; Jeremiah 7:31 Jeremiah 19:1-5 Jeremiah 2:1-37 Ks. 23:10-14; 2 Chronicles 34:4-5.) The only fire certainly known to have been kindled there was the fire in which children were sacrificed to the god Moloch. This worship was entirely destroyed by King Josiah, who polluted the entire valley, so as to make it an unfit place for even heathen worship. There is not the slightest authentic evidence that in the days of Jesus any fire was kept burning there; nor is there any evidence at all that casting a criminal into fire there was ever employed by the Jews as a punishment. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 5:2 Opened his mouth and taught them is very significant. In all of God's dealings with man He has never influenced him in his moral and spiritual conduct except by the use of words, either written or spoken, and hence Jesus followed that plan in talking to his disciples about things pertaining to the kingdom of God. In this great sermon Jesus lays down many principles of life that pertained to the time before the kingdom was set up, and others were to be applied afterward. Where a distinction is necessary to the understanding of any passage I shall so state it. 5:3 Blessed is an adjective coming from the Greek word , and Thayer defines it simply by the words "blessed, happy." In the Authorized Version it is rendered by. the first 43 times and by the second 6 times. These verses are usually called "beatitudes," and Webster's definition of that word is, "Consulate [complete] bliss; blessedness." It will be well for us to think of the ward in the sense of being happy as that is the more familiar word. To be poor in spirit means to recognize one's need of spiritual help. Such characters are the ones who will accept the kingdom of heaven. 5:4 There could be no happiness in the fact of mourning but it is by way of contrast. The new system that Jesus was about to set up would provide the only genuine relief from the sorrows of this world. 5:5 The word for meek is PRAOS which Thayer defines, "gentle, mild, meek." It is a contrast with the fierce and domineering spirit so often shown by the members of earthly kingdoms, especially the rulers. To inherit is generally defined in the lexicons "to receive by lot." Thayer's definition of this verse is, "to partake of eternal salvation in the Messiah's kingdom." The earth is the same that is referred to in 2 Peter 3:13 which the apostle says was promised to the righteous. 5:6 To hunger and thirst after righteousness means to be eager to learn what constitutes a righteous life. It does not stop there, for when a man is hungry he not only seeks to find some food, but also is ready to partake of it. This means that the ones whom Jesus was blessing would be eager to do that which is right. 5:7 The single English word "mercy" is Thayer's definition of the word here. It is defined in the English dictionary to mean to be sparing in inflicting even punishment that is due another. It does not call for endorsement of wrong or for overlooking it, but to be considerate of the other person. 5:8 When disconnected from all qualifying terms the word pure simply means "unmixed"; something that is not combined with any other substance, and hence it could mean either good or bad. An object that has no good in it would be pure evil. When the connection shows it is used in a good sense (as in our verse) it means a heart not mixed up with the evils of a sinful world. The definition of the Biblical heart will be given in another place. 5:9 Every statement of scripture must be understood in harmony with others on the same subject for the words of inspiration do not contradict each other. James 3:17 says the wisdom from above is first pure then peaceable, and Paul in Romans 12:18 commands us to live at peace with all men "if possible." The verse here means that disciples are to make every scriptural effort to be at peace with each other, and also to bring about a peaceable settlement between others who are at variance. Such will be called the children of God because He deals with mankind on that principle. 5:10 Thayer defines the original at this place, "to harass, trouble, molest," and he says that it may be done "in any way whatsoever," hence the persecution may be against one's body or his mind. But this must be done because the victim is righteous, and has no reference to accidental affliction, or punishment for wrong doing. These persons have the qualities of the citizens in the kingdom of heaven. 5:11 This verse is similar in thought to the preceding one except that it is considering only the persecution of the mind. The evil things said against a disciple must be done in falsehood to bring him under the application of this blessing. 5:12 This verse continues the thought of the preceding one. It will be nothing new for the Lord's disciples to be treated unjustly, for the righteous prophets were thus treated in forme years. The rejoicing is to be for having been classed with the righteous prophets. The reward will come after this life is over and the victims have been admitted into heaven. 5:13 The teaching of Jesus contains many illustrations drawn from nature and the customs of mankind. Salt has two outstanding qualities; preservation of articles with which it comes in contact, and rendering food more agreeable to the taste. The lives of true disciples will shed the truth among men by example and teaching, and thus contribute to the salvation of their souls. And next, the trials or hardships of this life will be easier to bear, will "taste better" for having the salt of divine truth mixed with them. But if the salt losses its savour ("to make flat and tasteless") it will not be of any use either as a preservative or palliative. The first it is a pronoun for the earth which cannot be salted if it (the salt) has lost strength. Such salt is fit for nothing but to be trodden upon as the soil of the ground. Likewise. if the disciples of Christ cease to be an influence for good--cease to practice the principles taught by their Master, they will finally be rejected and trodden upon by the Judge. 5:14 Disciples of Christ are the light of the world in much the same sense that they are the salt of the earth. The righteous lives they exhibit and the truth they spread among their fellowmen will reflect the light that comes from the Lord. The hill is the mountain or government of Christ and the light of divine truth shines forth from that exalted position like the glow of light from a city upon a hill. 5:15 It is possible for a strong light to be rendered useless, which would be done if a man lighted a lamp and then put some vessel over it. But men do not do such things in temporal matters; only in spiritual things do they act thus foolishly. 5:16 Jesus does not wish his disciples to act so unreasonably as the description in the preceding verse implies. Let your light shine does not call for any special effort to bring attention to the good light that has been made. If a host just makes a good light and leaves it uncovered, the guests will see it and give proper credit for the favor. Your light and good works are mentioned in direct connection which shows they mean the same. It is not necessary for one to boast of his good works in order to have men see them; all that is necessary is to perform the works. However, the doer of these good deeds for the benefit of others, must also live a good life otherwise or in addition to his benevolence, or his good deeds will be rendered ineffective in the mind of men. ("Let not then your good be evil spoken of.") Glorify is from DOXAZO and Thayer's definition at this place is, "to praise, extol, magnify, celebrate." It is the Greek word for "glorify" in every place in the Authorized Version. The reason men will glorify God for these lives of the disciples is because they know that such conduct is not the natural result of the fleshly motives. 5:17 Jesus lived and completed his work on earth while the law of Moses was in force. He taught that men should respect and obey that law, yet he gave many instructions that were not specifically set forth in that system. That was because he was getting ready to bring into the world another system of laws that were to be different from the old. This opened the way for the critics to charge him with being opposed to the law of Moses. In answer to such erroneous notions he used the difference between destroying and fulfilling. He was not in the world for the first but for the second. The Old Testament writings had predicted that a son of David was to come into the world and give it a new religious law. Because of such predictions, the very things Jesus taught of a different character constituted a fulfilling of the law. 5:18 Verily is from the Greek word AMEN which occurs 150 times in the New Testament. In the Authorized Version it is rendered "amen" 50 times and "verily" 100 times. Thayer defines the word as follows: "surely, of a truth, truly; most assuredly; so it is, so be it, may it be fulfilled." These various phrases define the word according to the connection in which it is used, whether at the beginning or ending of a passage, etc. Till heaven and earth pass is a phrase denoting the certainty of the fulfillment of the law of God. The material universe will pass away, but not until it has served the purpose of the Creator. Likewise, the law will not pass away until it has all been fulfilled. Jot is from IOTA which is the smallest letter of the Greek alphabet and was originally written as a subscript' under the regular line. Tittle is one of the diacritical marks used by the Greeks in their writings. The two terms are used to illustrate the importance that Jesus attached to the law. Even such apparently small points of the law as these will not be dropped until they have been fulfilled. 5:19 The commandments of the law will not be in force in the kingdom of heaven. The thought is that a man who would break the least of these commandments while they are in force shows the wrong attitude toward divine law. Such a person would not rank very high in the kingdom of heaven after it has been set up. 5:20 Exceed is from the same Greek word that is used in 2 Corinthians 3:9, and we know that it is there used in the sense of quality and not quantity. Jesus means that his disciples must have a better kind of righteousness than the Pharisees practiced, 'for theirs was done for appearance and came from the lips only. A full description of the Pharisees will be found in connection with the comments at chapter 16:12. The kingdom of heaven was to be entered into only by men who were converted in heart and whose actions were induced by a genuine acceptance of the Lord's corn-mandments. 5:21 In half a dozen places in this chapter Jesus quotes some things that were said in old time which means the time that was regulated by the law of Moses. He does not discredit the authority of the Sinaite lawgiver, but shows how some changes or additions will be made in the teaching for the kingdom of heaven. He being the Son of God and the one who will be the king on the throne of David when the church is set up, it was appropriate that he begin showing some of the contrasts between the two. Those contrasts will generally consist in making a more spiritual application of the ancient laws, and/or in tightening their requirements so as to make them more rigid. One of such items was the law of trial for murder, that such a crime would lay a man under charges to be heard by the judgment. This is from the Greek word KRISIS and I shall give the definition of two lexicons: "The college of judges (a tribunal of seven men in the several cities of Palestine; as distinguished from the Sanhedrin, which had its seat at Jerusalem . . . Matthew 5:21-22)." Thayer. "A judgment seat, tribunal, put for a court of justice, judges, i. e. the smaller tribunals established in the cities of Palestine, subordinate to the Sanhedrin; see Deuteronomy 16:18; 2 Chronicles 19:5. According to the Rabbins they consisted of 23 judges; but Josephus expressly says the number was seven."--Robinson. Even as serious a crime as murder was considered as only being in danger of facing this secondary court of justice. 5:22 Jesus is teaching that under the standards of right and wrong that he will establish, being angry with a brother without a cause will endanger one before the same judgment seat as murder did in old time. As a further indication of increased strictness, to give way to one's temper to the extent of calling his brother Raca (a term of reproach meaning empty-headed or senseless), would endanger him before the greater court; the council which was the Sanhedrin. Still increasing the picture of responsibility, to accuse a brother of being a fool will put a man in danger of hell fire. According to Thayer, Robinson and Greenfield, the word for fool means "a wicked rebel against the Lord." And it should be noted that all of the evil actions are on condition that they are without a cause. The word hell is from CEHENNA which refers to the lake of unquenchable fire into which the wicked will be cast after the Judgment. A fuller definition of the English word "hell" as it is used in the New Testament will be given in another part of the . 5:23 Therefore is said because the last subject treated was the sin of showing the wrong attitude toward a brother. Under the law of Moses the Jews were encouraged to bring voluntary gifts to be consecrated to the Lord on the altar of sacrifices. These were in addition to the sacrifices specifically required on stated occasions or for specific purposes. Such an act was supposed to indicate that the giver was very much devoted to the Lord, and yet at the very time he might recall that his brother had a complaint against him. Such a complaint, for instance, could consist of calling him "a fool" according to the preceding verse. 5:24 One command is no more important than another, neither may one duty be made to take the place of another. But the gifts presented at the altar were expected to proceed from the heart, which would not be the case if a man would refuse to make a matter right with his brother. In other words, a ritualistic service should not be treated as a substitute for one of humility and brotherliness. Hence the man was directed to postpone his altar service until he had made. it right with his brother. 59. See the comments at Matthew 5:25-26. 5:26 Had the man offered to settle privately he might have been let off upon the payment of a part of the debt. If he lets it go on through court he may have to lie in prison until the entire debt is paid to which will be added the "court costs." 5:27 This verse introduces another place where Jesus shows that his laws will be stricter than the old ones. The law against adultery pertained to the physical act only as it was pronounced "by them of old time." 5:28 This passage has been strained out of its true meaning. To say it means a man sins if he thinks of the subject of sex at all in connection with a woman would be to fly in the face of much scripture. In 1 Corinthians 7:2 Paul instructs a man to marry in order to "avoid fornication," and yet he could not have been in any danger of that sin unless he had been mindful of the subject in connection with some woman. The apostle does not condemn him for the mere fact of that state of mind and hence we should not construe the teaching of Jesus to make it condemn him. The thought is of a man who has no intention of honorable marriage, but who indulges his mind with the subject and who cultivates an imagination on the subject in a case where he knows he could not carry out his inclinations without violating the moral law, either because he or the woman would not be free to consummate the union. 5:29 A physical operation will not cure a moral evil of the mind. If a man were deprived of his natural eyes it would not prevent him from thinking of the woman towards whom he had been looking with evil intent. But the loss of so valuable an organ as the eye is used to illustrate the extent of sacrifice that one should make in order to rid himself of an evil action of body or mind. A friend or an occupation may seem to be as valuable as the eye, yet one should better go on through life without it rather than enjoy it a few years and then he be lost entirely. 5:30 The lesson in this verse is exactly the same as that in the preceding one, using the hand instead of the eye for the illustration. A full definition of the word hell will be given here and may not be repeated in full again. The reader should mark the place for convenient reference when needed. The word comes from three different Greek words in the New Testament. I shall give Thayer's definition, based upon his knowledge of history and of the language: "GEHENNA, the name of a valley on the S. and E. of Jerusalem . . . which was so called from the cries of the little children who were thrown into the fiery arms of Moloch, i. e. of an idol having the form of a bull. The Jews so abhorred the place after these horrible sacrifices had been abolished by King Josiah (2 Kings 23:10), that they cast into it not only all manner of refuse, but even the dead bodies of animals and of unburied criminals who had been executed. And since fires were always needed to consume the dead bodies, that the air might not become tainted by their putrefaction, it came to pass that the place was called GEHENNA PUROS [Gehenna fire]." The following are all the places in the New Testament where the word hell comes from GEHENNA. Matthew 5:22; Matthew 5:29-30; Matthew 10:28; Matthew 18:9; Matthew 23:15; Matthew 23:33; Mark 9:43; Mark 9:45; Mark 9:47; Luke 12:5; James 3:6. HADES is defined by Thayer as fol-lows: "1, a proper name, Hades, Pluto, the god of the lower regions, the nether world, the realm of the dead . . . it denotes, therefore, in Biblical Greek, Orcus, the infernal regions, a dark and dismal place . . . the common receptacle of disembodied spirits." Following are all the places in the New Testament where the word hell comes from HADES: Matthew 11:23; Matthew 16:18, Luke 10:15; Luke 16:23; Acts 2:27; Acts 2:31; Revelation 1:18; Revelation 6:8; Revelation 20; Revelation 13, 14. The word hell comes from in one place only which Isaiah 2 Peter 2:4, and the definition is not very different from that of hades. To sum up, HADES is the place where all disembodied spirits go at death regardless of whether they are good or bad. is that part of HADES where the spirits of the wicked go at death. GEHENNA is the lake of unquenchable fire into which the whole being of the wicked (body soul and spirit) will be cast after the judgment. 5:31 The law referred to is in Deuteronomy 24:1 which required a man to give his wife a writing that showed she had not deserted him, but that he had compelled her to go away. We know that was the purpose of that law, for the next verse says she may become another man's wife. If she did not have the writing no man would risk marrying her for fear she was a deserter. If the writing had been done the husband was considered as having done full justice to his wife. But Jesus is going to show this to be another instance where his law will be stricter than the old. 5:32 Jesus never taught anything at one time that disagreed with what he taught at another. This verse should be considered in connection with chapter 19:9 which is a fuller statement. The mere putting away of a wife does not constitute adultery, for there may be cases where a man would have to put his wife from him in order that he might live a Christian life. A woman might be guiltless as far as the intimate subject is concerned, and yet develop such a character and conduct herself in such a manner as to prevent a man from doing his full duty as a disciple of Christ; this idea is taught in chapter 10:34-39. But unless his wife also is guilty of immorality the husband is not permitted to marry another. Neither would the wife who is put away for some cause other than immorality have the right to marry another under the regulations of the kingdom of heaven that Jesus was soon to set up. 5:33 Forswear means to make a false oath, or to testify under oath that which one does not intend to fulfill. The reference is to Leviticus 19:12 where false oaths were expressly forbidden. Jesus cites the saying in contrast between his ruling and the old. 5:34 As to whether an oath is true or false is not the question with Jesus, for he forbids his disciples to make any oath at all. When a man makes an oath he backs it up by the authority of some power supposed to be great enough to make the oath good. That is why Jesus mentions various things by which men might pronounce an oath. The Jewish people had come to think they should not swear by the name of God, but Jesus shows it is as bad to swear by heaven since that is God's throne. 5:35 On the same basis as the above, they should not swear by the earth since it, too, is a part of the seating place of God, being his footstool. Jerusalem was the city of the great King who was God in the old system and will be the city of the new king when the kingdom of heaven is set up. 5:36 If a man cannot even cause one hair of his head to change its color at his will, it would be foolish to rely upon it for making his oath good. 5:37 Yea, yea; Nay, nay means to let the statements be simply that of affirming what is in the positive class and denying the negative. The laws of the state do not require any man to make an oath if he declines to do so, but will accept his affirmation at the same value as an oath. Since that is true, there could be no good reason for wanting to add the oath, which is the reason Jesus said it cometh of evil. 5:38 In a number of places the old law did require the kind of penalty that is described in this verse. That was to be done as a legal act and not a personal one. Jesus teaches that no personal retaliation was to be permitted under the pretense of that law. If a man is actually harmed he has the right to appeal to the law of the land as it is in authority for that purpose (1 Timothy 1:9-10), but he should not take the law into his own hands. 5:39 The sermon on the mount is largely a document of principles and not specific rules, and the spirit of the teaching is to be followed instead of the letter. This very verse is an indication of the correctness of the aforesaid conclusion, for no one would be expected literally to turn a cheek toward a would-be smiter. 5:40 Men wore inner and outer garments in old time. Using the circumstance as an illustration only, as was done with the cheek, Jesus teaches that if a man insists on having one's outer garment, just let him have the other also. 5:41 Under some peculiar customs of the old times there seems to have been one of providing an escort for a man making a journey. However, the lesson is the same as that contained in the preceding verses which is that the disciples of Christ should show a willingness to be imposed on rather than wanting to impose on others. 5:42 In all of the teaching of the scripture regarding the granting of favors, we should consider what Jesus says in Matthew 7:6. We should always try to learn whether the person asking a favor is worthy before granting it. If we find that he is, then we may give him what he asks and lend him what he wishes to borrow. 5:43 The passages that were cited for the saying in this verse are Leviticus 19:18 and Deuteronomy 23:6. Jesus is still on the line of contrasts between his teaching and the old, and that introduces the subject of love which has caused some difficulty with students of the Bible. They think that Christians are required to have love in cases where it seems impossible. The difficulty lies in not understanding that the English word love comes from two words in the Greek New Testament which have different meanings. I shall give the information gleaned from the lexicons and the reader should make note of it for reference. One of the Greek words in verb form is AGAPAO, and it is defined in part as follows: "To love, to be full of goodwill and exhibit the same: Luke 7:47; 1 John 4:7; with accusative [objective] of a person, to have a preference for, wish well to, regard the welfare of: Matthew 5:43; Matthew 19:19; Luke 7:5; John 11:5; Romans 13:8; 2 Corinthians 11:11; 2 Corinthians 12:15; Galatians 5:14; Ephesians 5:25; Ephesians 5:28; 1 Peter 1:22, and elsewhere; often in the epistle of John of the love of Christians towards one another; of the benevolence which God, in providing salvation for men, has exhibited by sending his Son to them and giving him up to death, John 3:16; Romans 8:37; 2 Thessalonians 2:16; 1 John 4:11 . . . of the love which led Christ, in procuring human salvation to undergo sufferings and death, Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 5:2; of the love which God has for Christ, John 3:35; John 10:17; John 15:9; Ephe-sians 1:6. When used of love to a master, God or Christ, the word involves the idea of affectionate obedience, grateful recognition of benefits received: Matthew 6:24; Matthew 22:37; Romans 8:28; 1 Corinthians 2:9; 1 Corinthians 8:3; James 1:12; 1 Peter 1:8; 1 John 4:10; 1 John 4:20, and elsewhere. With an accusative [objective] of a thing AGAPAO denotes to take pleasure in the thing, prize it above other things, be unwilling to abandon it or do without it; . . . to welcome with desire, long for; 2 Timothy 4:8."--Thayer. "To love (in a social or moral sense)."--Strong. In the noun form it is from AGAPE and defined in part as follows: "a purely biblical word. . . . In signification it follows the verb AGAPAO; consequently it denotes 1. affection, good-will, love, be nevolence: John 15:13; Romans 13:10; 1 John 4:18. Of the love of men to men; especially of that love of Christians toward Christians which is enjoined and prompted by their religion, whether the love be viewed as in the soul or as expressed; Matthew 24:12, 1 Corinthians 13:4-8; 2 Corinthians 2:4; Galatians 5:6; Philemon 1:5; Philemon 1:7; 1 Timothy 1:5; Hebrews 6:10; Hebrews 10:24; John 13:35; 1 John 4:7; Revelation 2:4; Revelation 2:19, etc. Of the love of men towards God; . . . of the love of God towards Christ; John 15:10; John 17:26. Of the love of Christ towards men: John 15:9; 2 Corinthians 5:14; Romans 8:35;Ephesians 3:19. 2. Plural AGAPAI, agapae, love-feasts, feasts expressing and fostering mutual love which used to be held by the Christians before the celebration of the Lord's Supper, at which the poorer Christians mingled with the wealthier and partook in common with the rest of food provided at the expense of the wealthy: Jude 1:12." Thayer. "From AGAPAO; love, i. e. affection or benevolence; specifically (plural) a love-feast."--Strong. The other word for love is PHILEO, a verb, and is defined in part as follows: "1. To love; be friendly to one, Matthew 10:37; John 5:20; John 11:3; John 11:36; John 15:19; John 16:27; John 20:2; John 21:15-17; 1 Corinthians 16:22; Revelation 3:19; . . . to love, i. e. delight in, long for, a thing . . . to love to do with pleasure:3. As to the distinction between AGAPAN and PHILEIN: the former by virtue of its connection with AGAMAI, properly denotes a love founded in admiration, veneration, esteem, like the Latin diligere, to be kindly disposed to one, wish one well: but PHILEIN denotes an inclination prompted by sense and emotion, . . . Hence men are said AGAPAN God, not PHILEIN; and God is said TON KOSMON (John 3:16), and PHILEIN the disciples of Christ (John 16:27); Christ bids us AGAPAN (not PHILEIN) TOUS (Matthew 5:44), because love as an emotion cannot be commanded, but only love as a choice . . . As a further aid in judging of the difference between the two words compare the following passages: John 11:5; John 11:36; John 21:15-17 . . . From what has been said, it is evident that AGAPAN is not, and cannot be, used of sexual love."--Thayer. "To be a friend to (denoting personal attachment, as a matter of sentiment or feeling: while AGAPAO is wider, embracing especially the judgment and the deliberate assent of the will as a matter of principle, duty and propriety)."--Strong. These definitions are somewhat detailed, and for the convenience of the reader, I shall condense the two and the information of the lexicons will be the authority for the statements. One word means that sentiment of feeling such as a man will have for his wife or other close friend. The other is that feeling of interest that a man can have in another's welfare that would prompt him to try to save him if possible, regardless of his unpleasant disposition that might naturally provoke a feeling of dislike. 5:44 Love your enemies is explained with the note on the preceding verse. Bless is from EULOGEO which Thayer defines, "2. to invoke blessings, Matthew 5:44," or to wish something good of another. Curse is from KATA-RAOMAI and Thayer defines it in this place as follows: "To curse, doom, imprecate [ask or wish for] evil on." The clause means that while an enemy is wishing for some evil to come on us, we should be wishing something good for him. Do good to them that hate us does not mean to do him a favor that he could use in the furtherance of his evil intentions, but do something that will actually benefit his soul. To pray for our persecutors denotes that we ask the Lord to help us overcome the evil one with right eous deeds in the hope of leading him into a reforming of his life. 5:45 Children are supposed to be like their parents in disposition and actions. The disciples of Christ should be like their Father in heaven in that they are not selfish or partial in the bestowal of favors. God gives the blessings of nature on all classes alike, because these favors are not supposed to be rewards for righteous living, and hence their bestowal could not be regarded as an endorsement of their lives. 5:46 Love here is from AGAPAO, and the word is defined in the long note at verse 43. From that it can be seen that Jesus disapproves of the selfishness that would lead us to benefit only those who are willing to benefit us. Even the publicans were willing to do that, although that class of citizens was not thought of very highly. 5:47 To salute means to "pay one's respects to" in the way of polite greeting. We should show that much courtesy even to those who are not in our class; not be "clannish." 5:48 Perfect is from TELEIOS and the simple meaning of the word is "completeness." When anything or person is all that is expected of it, it can be said to be complete and hence perfect. It is taken for granted that human beings are not expected to possess all of the traits that God has, but the spirit of impartiality is one characteristic that man can possess in common with God. If he does then he is complete on that score and hence is like the Father in heaven. Matthew 6"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Chapter Six The "Sermon On The Mount" continues as Jesus teaches the righteousness of the kingdom expected in those who would be citizens of the kingdom. He discusses righteousness with respect to man’ s relation to God, regarding charitable deeds (Matthew 6:1-4), prayer (Matthew 6:5-15), fasting (Matthew 6:16-18), materialism (Matthew 6:19-24), and anxiety (Matthew 6:25-33). POINTS TO PONDER * Performing acts of righteousness in ways that please God * The danger of materialism and overcoming anxiety about such things * Making the kingdom of God and His righteousness our number one priority REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter? - Righteousness with respect to man’ s relation to God - Matthew 6:1-18- Overcoming materialism and anxiety - Matthew 6:16-33 2) As we perform acts of righteousness, what should we avoid? (Matthew 6:1-2; Matthew 6:5; Matthew 6:16) - Doing it for the purpose of being seen by men - Acting like the hypocrites in the synagogues and in the streets 3) How can we ensure that God will reward us for our righteous acts? (Matthew 6:4; Matthew 6:6; Matthew 6:18) - By doing them in secret where only the Father sees 4) How else does Jesus teach us to give, pray, and fast? (Matthew 6:3; Matthew 6:7; Matthew 6:17) - Do not let our left hand know what our right hand is doing as we give - Do not use vain repetition as we pray - Do not disfigure our faces as we fast 5) What is the likely purpose of "The Lord’ s Prayer"? (Matthew 6:9-13) - To serve as a model of prayer ("In this manner...") 6) Of things in "The Lord’ s Prayer," on what does Jesus elaborate? (Matthew 6:14-15) - The need for us to forgive others their trespasses against us 7) Where are we to lay up treasure? Why? How? (Matthew 6:20; Matthew 6:24; cf. Matthew 19:21; 1 Timothy 6:17-19) - In heaven; to serve God rather than mammon; by giving to the poor 8) What is the key to overcoming anxiety? (Matthew 6:25-32) - Trusting in the providential care of God 9) How can we ensure that God will provide what we need? (Matthew 6:33) - By seeking first the kingdom of God and His righteousness Matthew 6:1-34 Verse 1Mat 6:1-34 Take heed that ye do not your righteousness before men to be seen of them: else ye have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 6:1)THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT (continued)The prohibition in this verse is against a false motive for righteousness, namely, "to be seen." Secrecy is not here enjoined in any absolute sense; because Christ also said, "Let your light so shine ..." (Matthew 5:16). However, secrecy is by far the best, where possible, as a test of one's personal motive for deeds of righteousness. Verse 2 When therefore thou doest alms, sound not a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have the glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have received their reward.The area of instruction covered here is personal and individual, the broad assumption being that every true follower of Christ gives alms; that is, helps other people. Christ did not say, "If thou doest alms ..." but "WHEN"! One's obligation to be mindful of human need and suffering is not totally discharged by the support, however generous, of any church budget. The reference to "sounding a trumpet" refers to an ostentatious practice of the Pharisees, termed "hypocrites" by the Lord; but here it has a much wider application and constitutes a prohibition against all forms of boastful and vain-glorious conduct. The idiomatic expression "blowing one's own horn" is perhaps derived from this very passage. Note also the contrast of rewards in these two verses. There is the genuine and eternal reward in heaven, on the one hand, and the ephemeral, uncertain, and unsatisfying reward of popular applause or approval, on the other. The child of God should always have respect to the greater. Verse 3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth.This is a heavenly guideline for maintaining the desired privacy as applied specifically to alms-giving. Verse 4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret shall recompense thee.It is notable that there are especially compulsory requirements for secrecy in this area of righteousness. Secrecy in giving personal aid and assistance to helpless or unfortunate persons is commanded by Christ and has these easily discernible qualities to commend it: (1) It assures purity of motive in the heart of the giver by removing the temptation to hypocrisy. (2) It protects and honors the privacy of the recipient, a privacy that is indispensable to his recovery and rehabilitation. (3) It protects the benefactor from a proliferation of calls upon his generosity. (4) It provides a noble basis for the development of true love and friendship between the helper and the person helped. (5) It honors this specific commandment of Christ; and, to the Christian, this is the most important of all. The tragic consequences of failure to observe this principle of secrecy are today clearly visible on a national scale where the state's ostentatious helping of the poor has degraded millions who, stripped of every dignity, must stand in line, bare the innermost secrets of their souls to "case workers," and finally sink into a state of permanent and professional poverty and the complete abandonment of self-esteem, self-reliance, and responsibility. Not even a government can violate Christ's commandment in this important business of human welfare without sustaining extensive and irreparable damage both to itself and to its citizens. Verse 5 And when ye pray, ye shall not be as the hypocrites: for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men.As in the matter of alms-giving, it is not a case of "if" but "when." Prayer is a vital and constant condition of the truly spiritual life. In this passage with verses following, Christ exposes the entire area of hypocritical and ostentatious prayers. The proper exercise of the privilege of prayer is violated (1) by the choice of an improper place of prayer, (2) by the use of vain repetitions, and (3) by the employment of long and verbose monologue. Each of these violations receives our Lord's specific attention. (1) Improper place for prayer is indicated by "the street corners." How about crowded restaurants and public places? Thanksgiving for private meals is surely enjoined, but semi-public prayers of thanks could be another matter. To be sure, prayer may be offered anywhere at any time, from the belly of a whale, from the cross, in a storm, during battle, in a garden, ! Yet, there are some places that do not fit the purpose of prayer. Prayers offered before congregations, at public gatherings, and in halls of parliaments and legislatures are not proscribed; but any occasion or place selected that invites public scorn and contempt for religion is a far different matter. Prayers offered at mealtime are best when offered in the quiet reverence of private situations. Whether or not, then, a Christian should offer thanks for meals in public places would have to be decided upon the basis of the particular time and place, sometimes yes, and sometimes, possibly, no. It is usually not very difficult for a person to know if he is in a street-corner situation or not. Verse 6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thine inner chamber, and having shut thy door, pray to thy Father who is in secret, and thy Father who seeth in secret shall recompense thee.(2) The best place for prayer is characterized by secrecy, privacy, and quietness. The secret place, the private room, the inner chamber, the shut door - these are the best situations in which acceptable prayer may be offered. Verse 7 And in praying use not vain repetitions, as the Gentiles do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.(3) The third area of abuse of the sacred privilege of prayer is in the matter of vain, empty repetitions. The customs of Gentiles in regard to this abuse were well known. Water wheels, wind chimes, endless chanting over and over of prescribed words are old and widely observed characteristics of pagan prayers; and these have continued down the centuries until these very times. About 1960, Life Magazine printed numerous samples of such "rote" prayers in an article on the Far East. One such example was the following: Hail, Jewel in the lotus flower; Hail, Jewel in the lotus flower; Hail, Jewel in the lotus flower ..., etc. Of all such repetitious exercises, Christ said, "Use not!" Any person familiar with the Rosary cannot fail to wonder how such a thing could be observed among the followers of Christ; that is, if considered in the light of Jesus' words in this passage. They think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. This not only condemns rote, repetitious prayers, but also limits the amount of speaking in prayer. How often and how outrageously this divine injunction is violated, and sometimes by the very best of people! A classical example was the harangue of Cardinal Cushing on the occasion of the inauguration of President John F. Kennedy. Mislabeled "a prayer," it ran on and on for 17 minutes and 30 seconds. Even that was exceeded by Aimie Semple McPherson whose 31 minutes and 10 seconds of "prayer" before the Democratic convention that nominated Franklin D. Roosevelt the first time must have set some kind of record at Chicago in 1932. The scandalous length of such prayers was rebuked on that occasion by the humorist Will Rogers who immediately followed her and quipped, "Well, I didn't know anybody could think up that much to impress the Lord in favor of a Democrat? This remark touched off a full-fledged demonstration! Verse 8 Be not therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what thing's ye have need of, before ye ask him.This, of course, is elementary wisdom. A God who needs to be told what men need could certainly not help if told! Prayers, giving God information, are as ridiculous as they are impious. Verse 9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.THE LORD'S PRAYERBy a strange coincidence, this prayer is translated by 66 words in the King James Version, and by 39 words in the Luke account in the Revised Version, corresponding respectively to the 66 books in the Bible and to the 39 books in the Old Testament. The above rendition of the prayer has 55 words, due to the omission of the doxology. After this manner ... The Lord did not say, "Pray in these words," but "After this manner." How strange it is that this very prayer should have become the very thing it was designed to prevent, namely a rote prayer! Surely, the very mystery of iniquity is evident in such a development. And what is the "manner of this prayer"? It is: (1) short, (2) spontaneous, (3) God-oriented, the first three petitions being for things of God rather than for things of men, (4) extemporaneous, being given in two forms by Christ himself as evidenced by the Matthew and Luke accounts, (5) to the point, and (6) full of humility. Our Father who art in heaven ... The Biblical image of God presents Him as a loving Father. This is especially true in the teachings of Christ which refer to Him as "Father" no less than 160 times. Men are constrained to acknowledge common parentage, equal need, and community status as to their sins and requirements in order to supplicate God for his blessings. Christ could and did pray, "My Father," but his disciples must ever pray, "Our Father." God is man's Father because he created him, sustains him, and provides all that man needs. In this petition, God's Fatherhood is presented on a higher level, namely that of the new birth (John 3:5). As Paul expressed it, "As many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God" (Romans 8:14). Since God is man's true and only spiritual Father, it is sinful and improper to refer this title, spiritually, to any man (Matthew 23:9, which see). God's Fatherhood was dimly perceived by the Hebrews but is far more graphically presented by Christ. God loves men enough to give his Son (John 3:16); a sparrow cannot fall without his care (Matthew 10:29); if people become prodigals, the Father waits patiently to welcome their return (Luke 15:22); and if people become cold, merciless bigots like the elder brother, the Father entreats even them (Luke 15:28). Oh, what a Father to fallen man is God! Christ revealed that heaven is the place where God is. No childish, naive, materialistic concept of heaven as a kind of upstairs beyond some convenient cloud is meant. Heaven is "up" in that a total set or system of higher values and principles is in operation there. God is not merely "in" heaven but is "everywhere" (Acts 17:28). Therefore, the Scriptural definition of heaven is primarily not a place at all, in the ordinary sense, but a state of being higher and nobler than our earthly life, invisible to mortal eyes (1 Timothy 6:16), not subject to material limitation, nor to the presence of death or sin, and yet a true reality of the most transcendent importance and glory. The Christian faith is a heaven-centered faith. Christ's teaching places the utmost emphasis upon it, making it the abode of the Father, the ultimate home of the redeemed, and the source of all blessing. The word "heaven" was ever on his lips. From heaven he came, of heaven he spoke, to heaven he pointed the way, from heaven he brought the Father's message, from heaven angels came to support him in the wilderness of temptations and in the garden of Gethsemane. In heaven the skies were darkened when he was crucified; from heaven angels came to roll away the stone from his grave, not to let him out, but to let the witnesses in and to announce his resurrection to the disciples. To heaven the angels escorted him to receive the everlasting kingdom; from heaven angels warned the disciples about gazing idly into heaven; and in heaven he is interceding at God's right hand. From heaven he will come a second time to judge the quick and dead, to cast evil out of his universe and to welcome the redeemed into the home of the soul. Hallowed be thy name ... The very first petition of this prayer is solicitous for the honor of God's name. Top priority belongs to the things of God and not to the things of men. Man's spiritual well being, dependent entirely upon his relationship to God, is infinitely more important, even than daily bread - a point of view which comes difficult indeed for sinful men. The Third Commandment in the Decalogue emphasizes this same point, that being negative, this positive enlightenment on the same truth. Men hallow the name of God when they honor His word, His church, His doctrine, His Son, His laws, and His name. Thy kingdom come ... It should be remembered that at the time Jesus gave this example of an acceptable, spontaneous prayer, the kingdom was yet future. The establishment of his kingdom on the day of Pentecost after the resurrection of Jesus Christ fulfilled this petition, answered it. The kingdom his disciples were instructed to pray for is now rounding out nearly two thousand years of successful existence on earth, and it seems strange indeed that men still pray this prayer in exactly the same words. Should this be? No! Especially if it is prayed with any thought that God's kingdom is not yet established. Thus, if one limits these words to their obvious, primary, and original meaning, they form no proper part of a prayer today. However, a word of caution should be observed. These words may be, and undoubtedly are, capable of another meaning. The Britannica World Language Edition of Funk and Wagnalls Standard Dictionary gives no less than meanings for the word "come," and the fifth of these is: "to attain an end or a completion. Thy kingdom come." Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth ... Men may know what is the will of God through study of his word and resultant renewing of the mind (Romans 12:2). In a certain sense, the will of God is now being done. Nothing, not even evil, can exist apart from God's will; but this prayer is a petition that men's hearts may be responsive to God's will for man. As in heaven ... is a reminder that the highest order of intelligent beings, even angels, comply with the will of God. To what extent are floods, earthquakes, disasters, etc. the "will of God"? People fancy that their knowledge of medical science, for example, removes such things as the Black Death of the 1300's from the category of God's will and relegates them to the status of man-controlled and understood inconveniences. It is true that here and there man has plucked a feather from the wings of the angel of death or discovered one of the Grim Reaper's ambushes; but, in the larger view, he has eliminated neither suffering nor death. These exist by God's permissive will. Such things as catastrophes, epidemics, plagues, tornadoes, hurricanes, and all such things are a part of our world as God made it, or at least as he allows it to be. The ancient who bowed his head under the duress of sorrow or disaster and meekly said, "Oh God, thy will be done," in all essential areas, stood upon the same ground the Christian occupies today when he prays this prayer. It is wonderful that the of this prayer are so often on men's lips, especially in view of the divisions that have marred Christendom. Whatever the state of unity and harmony in heaven, it is God's will that the same unity and harmony should prevail upon earth. This prayer, therefore, rebukes the common heresies and schismatic divisions so rampant in the name of religion. Give us this day our daily bread. The Greek term here translated "daily bread" is not found elsewhere in the Bible, and scholars do not agree on how it should be rendered. Weymouth translates it: "our bread for today"; Moffatt has it, "our bread for tomorrow"! Origen believed it referred to the word of God, and Dummelow suggests the meaning as "heavenly bread.[1] We feel no embarrassment in choosing the common version. Note that the prayer is not for cake, or wine, or luxuries, but for bread, and that for only one day at a time. Millions today do not pray this prayer meaningfully because they have a week's supply in the refrigerator, including luxuries. One should not pray for "my" daily bread but for "our daily bread." Thus is reaffirmed the principle of man's interdependence upon his fellow creatures and the community of interest pertaining to the whole human race. This prayer bespeaks a profound trust in God. "Bread for a day" reminds one of the words of J. H. Newman: "I do not ask to see the distant scene, One step enough for me."[2] It also suggests moderation. "Daily bread" brings one back to the level of actual need. Dependence upon God is also taught. True, man may have a month's provisions stored up, but whether he lives to use them or not is totally dependent upon the Father's will. In the comprehensive sense of this prayer, daily bread comes only from God. "Back of the loaf is the snowy flour And back of the flour the mill; And back of the mill is the wheat and the shower and the sun and the Father's will.[3] And forgive us our debts as we also have forgiven our debtors. The word "trespasses," generally used in the common recitations of this prayer, comes from William Tyndale's translation, whence it came into the Book of Common Prayer, and thence into general usage wherever the English tongue is spoken. Luke's account uses the word "sins," but "debts" certainly includes the same thought. This indicates that Christ did not think his disciples would lead sinless lives (1 John 1:8). Forgiveness is absolutely preconditioned upon the petitioner's forgiveness of others. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. This indicates the danger in temptation and stresses man's weakness. Think of all the holy names lost amid the storms of temptation, the hosts of the slain in the encounter with the Prince of Evil. Only a fool could face the subtle and invisible powers of evil with any feeling of superiority or overconfidence. This line is intended to impress the worshiper with the incredible force which evil can exert to lure men from the path of honor and safety (1 Thessalonians 3:5). The reference to the "evil one" is a reminder that man's foe is a PERSON, a ubiquitous enemy who sows tares in the wheat (Matthew 13:28), snatches the word out of men's hearts (Matthew 13:19), and goes about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter 5:8). See more on Matthew 4:1 ff. For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen. These words are not improper, merely because they have been omitted in the English Revised Version (1885), since the Lord did not give it as a rote prayer to begin with. The doxology is most appropriate and has a positive value in affirming the fact of the kingdom's being already established. This is inherent in the use of the present tense. The addition of this doxology automatically requires another construction upon "Thy kingdom come" other than that of a petition for the kingdom to be established. [1] J. R. Dummelow, One Volume Commentary (New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1932), p. 647. [2] J. H. Newman, Hymn No. 431, "Lead Kindly Light" (Chicago: Great Songs Press, 1960). [3] Maltbie Davenport Babcock, Give Us This Day Our Daily Bread (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1939), from Bartlett's Quotations, p. 731. Verse 14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.This is a reiteration of the divine prerequisite for forgiveness, namely, a forgiving heart. This is an absolute condition. True, Luke quoted our Lord as saying, "If he repent, forgive him" (Luke 17:3); but this applies specifically in those cases where a brother is tempted to withhold forgiveness even from one who has repented and must not be construed as an amelioration of the condition laid down here. It appears that forgiveness actually has two centers, human and divine. Christ forgave the ones who crucified him, saying, "Father, forgive them"; but it is clear that this forgiveness was extended on the human level only and did not mean that the murderers of our Lord were pardoned immediately in heaven. Some of them, at least, repented and were forgiven when they obeyed the gospel on Pentecost. THAT forgiveness was from above, in heaven (Acts 2:36 ff). The same two levels, human and divine, are observable in the case of Saul of Tarsus (Acts 7:58-60). Stephen forgave him (on the human level) as the deed was done; but Saul was forgiven in heaven when he had obeyed "from the heart that form of doctrine" (Romans 6:17 KJV). It is the Christian's duty to forgive all men without regard to their repentance. If he should think to forgive only those who repent and ask it, his forgiveness duties would be practically eliminated altogether! Verse 16 Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may be seen of men to fast. Verily,, I say unto you, they have received their reward. But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thy head, and wash thy face; that thou be not seen of men to fast, but of thy Father who is in secret: and thy Father, who seeth in secret, shall recompense thee.Fasting, like prayer and alms-giving, is clearly indicated as a Christian duty, but is delimited by these words to the status of a private, personal, and individual devotion. Widespread neglect of this duty does not countermand it. However, it certainly does not lie within the province of any religious organization to "command" fasting or to prescribe abstinence from certain meats. Such church regulations are identified with the apostasy by Paul who said, In later times, some shall depart from the faith ... commanding to abstain from meats, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by them that believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected ... (1 Timothy 4:1-5). Verse 19 Lay, not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth; where moth and rust consume, and where thieves break through and steal.Christians must curb the acquisitive and hoarding instincts. "A man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth" (Luke 12:15). Earthly possessions cannot satisfy. This can be illustrated in nearly any community, indeed in almost every life. Say that one is a collector of souvenir spoons, plates, salt shakers, stamps, coins, or , and that after, many years one's collection numbers hundreds or thousands of items, is the thirst for another item thereby assuaged? No! If one has any number, however extensive, he desires always another, and another, and another. The pursuit of earthly treasures is a disease that feeds and increases upon itself. If one is collecting "thousands" or "millions" of dollars, the possession of any number of units does not satisfy the "collector" but only sends him avidly in search of more. This hungry pursuit of wealth, or any earthly achievement, pierces the pursuer through with many sorrows, temptations, and snares, as well as thrusting him into many foolish and hurtful lusts "which drown men in perdition" (1 Timothy 6:9-10). In addition to this, there is the uncertainty of earthly treasures. Christ here mentioned moth and rust and thieves, elementary sources of loss which have hardly changed since our Lord spoke these words. Riches make themselves wings and fly away (Proverbs 23:5). If one is tempted to disbelieve it, let him ask any man who has seen a flood, a tornado, an earthquake, a volcano, a change in fashion, a war, a revolution, the death of a partner, the betrayal of a sacred trust, a serious illness, or an automobile accident, or any of a million other things that continually illustrate the truth of this divine wisdom. As an antidote to man's covetous instincts, Christ taught that "It is more blessed to give than to receive," and requires that his followers shall give of their means, as they have been prospered, for the support of the Truth. The prudent accumulation of money, wealth, or property against anticipated earthly needs is not here condemned out of hand and without qualification. Luke speaks in this place of him that "layeth up treasures for himself, and is not rich toward God" (Luke 12:21). Even at its best, however, and even when most nearly under control, a man's natural selfishness is a source of awful and constant danger to his eternal welfare. Verse 20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth consume, and where thieves do not break through nor steal.The inducement that giving to righteous causes is for "yourselves" should not be overlooked. All that one gives or does for the kingdom of God will accrue to his eternal credit. Not even a cup of cold water will lose its reward (Matthew 10:42). Verse 21 For where thy treasure is, there will thy heart be also.The principal concern of the Saviour is seen in this, namely, "Where is thy heart?" The love of Christ and his kingdom, the constant choice of spiritual rather than carnal values, and the preference for eternal things as contrasted with things material and secular, these considerations mark the broad purposes of the new life in Christ. Possessions must be possessed; they must not possess their owners. Verse 22 The lamp of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!This is the topic sentence of this section of the Sermon on the Mount, and it comes in the form of a climax. The subject is human duplicity. Christ laid bare the deceitful and double motives which prompt men in their religious actions. Looking back to the beginning of this chapter, note that: (1) men do alms for two motives; (2) they pray for two motives; (3) they fast for two motives; (4) they even SEE DOUBLE! The evil eye is the one that explores every action, regardless of how sacred it is, for the purpose of discovering what base motive might also be served by the doing of it. The corrupting power of this behavior is total; "How great is that darkness!" Any act, even that of prayer or charity, without the proper motivation, becomes sinful. Christ's words in this place truly described the society into which he came as the Visitor from on high. The problem was one of unmitigated hypocrisy, caused by the attempted service of both God and the devil at the same time, or, in another frame of reference, the dual service of God and mammon, or wealth. The Pharisees of that day had corrupted the inner springs of conscience by the duality of their lives. It is certain that many in all generations fall into the same error. Verse 24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will hold to one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.Dr. F. F. Bruce, noted English scholar and frequent contributor to Christianity Today, compares this verse, especially the words, "No man can serve two masters," with James 1:1 which has "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ," and concludes that they are a valid argument for the deity of Christ. James had indeed heard our Lord declare that no man can serve two masters; and it is Bruce's contention that James was not flaunting the fact that he indeed was serving two masters, but that THE TWO ARE ONE! The sharp truth is that one must choose whom he will serve. The erroneous assumption that he can merely go along with a foot in either camp is a vain and fatal delusion. The heart can acknowledge only one master. Knowing the difficulty that man has in breaking away from material domination, Christ, in the next few verses, reveals God's providential care for his children with a view to convincing man that God will take care of him, if only man will seek God's kingdom first. Knowledge of and dependence upon God's love and protection make it absolutely unnecessary for man to serve mammon as a means of meeting his earthly needs. Verse 25 Therefore I say unto you, Be not anxious for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shalt drink: nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than the food, and the body than the raiment? Behold the birds of the heaven, that they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns: and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not ye of much more value than they?The area of need explored by these words is not incidental but basic. It is a question of food, clothing, and shelter. Jesus' argument is that God who made man and gave him life will also provide him with the means to sustain it, reinforcing his argument by the fact that God does this very thing for the lower creation. Surely, God could not be charged with watching out for sparrows and neglecting his children! The mystery of how God cares for the myriads of his creatures both great and small is an unfailing marvel. Anyone familiar with wild life is aware of the remarkable continuation of every species from age to age. That God does indeed do this is a certainty. The weight of our Lord's argument here is overwhelming when it is recalled that of all God's creatures, from insects to the great animals of the forest, man alone is constantly anxious about his survival on the planet. What a glimpse this gives of the ruin and wretchedness that have resulted from man's sin and rebellion against his Maker. Anxiety, that sure corollary of sin committed, has invaded man's every thought, destroyed his serenity, and sent him scurrying in all directions; and, most significantly, anxiety only makes things worse! Verse 27 And which of you by being anxious can add one cubit to the measure of his life? and why are ye anxious concerning raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.Although the emphasis in this entire context is away from the material and workaday needs of life, there is no repudiation of such prosaic virtues as work, thrift, responsibility, and diligence. These verses are not license to leave the care and feeding of one's family to others or to the state (1 Timothy 5:8). Edgar appropriately gathers the import of these words as follows: Consider how poor the life is which makes eating and dressing the chief thought. A man's life is intended to be much more assuredly than this; and, yet, are there not some who have no thought beyond this? The weight of anxiety is purely secular and physical. The devotees of the table and of the fashions make eating and drinking all. Now the idea of the passage is that no one is so circumstanced as to be compelled to think only or chiefly of food and raiment. There is not a poor man but may feel that he was born for higher thoughts and things than to "keep the pot boiling."Luke 1:1-80, p. 358."[4] ENDNOTE:Luke 1:1-80, p. 358."[4] R. M. Edgar, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: 1961), Vol. 16, Luke 1:1-80, p. 358. Verse 30 But if God doth so clothe the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? Be not therefore anxious, saying, What shall we eat? or What shall we drink? or Wherewithal shall we be clothed?This entire, rather extended, passage continues to stress man's need for utter trust and dependence upon God who cares for the grasses and the fowls of the air and will surely, therefore, care for his human children. Bryant's immortal are in this same periphery of thought: "He who from zone to zone Guides through the boundless sky thy certain flight, In the long way that I must tread alone, Will lead my steps aright?[5] God's care for grasses and birds, such as lilies and sparrows, and, in fact, for all the countless creatures that he has made has always made a profound impression upon the thoughtful mind. Benjamin Franklin, the great patriot, exclaimed before the Constitutional Convention that gave birth to the United States of America, "God governs in the affairs of man; and if a sparrow cannot fall to ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?"[6] [5] William Cullen Bryant, "To a Waterfowl" (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1939), from Bartlett's Quotations, p. 372. [6] Dr. Frank S. Mead, The Encyclopedia of Religious Quotations (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1965), p. 361. Verse 32 For after all these things do the Gentiles seek; for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.The word "Gentiles" means "nations," and may also be freely translated as "pagans" or "heathens" and refers to all natural men everywhere as distinguished from the Hebrews who were a people presumably prepared in heart to discern spiritual things and to receive the Messiah when he should appear. Christ found the chosen people very much like the rest of mankind in spite of all the wonderful privileges they had known through contact with the holy prophets and teachers of the Old Covenant. God's knowledge of man's need is enough to assure God's provision of the things needed. The injunction is, "Leave all those things to God, AS FAR AS ANXIOUS THOUGHT IS , and strive for higher things." Verse 33 But seek ye first his kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.This is a divine appeal for men to put first things first. The kingdom of God should be placed first: (1) in importance, (2) in point of time, and (3) in emphasis. The righteousness men should seek is that of Christ, not their own. This means that God's commandments should be honored, rather than men's, and that his doctrine should be received and practiced instead of the commandments and traditions of men. As a result of true obedience, God will add "all these things" to the estate of his children. This is true not merely of individuals, but of nations and states as well. It can be no accident that those areas of the world which are most characterized by attention to and observance of the teachings of Christ are also those areas most civilized, having the highest standards of living and the greatest abundance of "all these things"! Verse 34 Be not therefore anxious for the morrow; for the morrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.Thus ends a rather long and urgent section of Jesus' teachings, all directed squarely toward the removal of anxiety from men's hearts. Bridges should be crossed only when men come to them. Anxiety is impractical, impious, and impotent. William Tyndale translated this place, "For the day present hath ever enough of its own trouble." McGarvey's Commentary For Matthew Chapter SixAgainst Hypocrisy and Worldly Care, Matthew 6:1-34 Sermon on the Mount— ContinuedAgainst Hypocrisy in Almsgiving, Matthew 6:1-41. Your righteousness.—This term, which is adopted in the corrected text in the place of alms, gives the precept contained in this verse a general character, making it include all acts of righteousness done to be seen by men. It is declared that for none such have we any reward from God. In the next verse almsgiving is introduced as a specification under this general precept. 2. sound a trumpet.—Trumpets are sounded as signals to large bodies of men. From this circumstance a man who takes pains to draw attention to himself is said to sound a trumpet before him. This the hypocrites did when they gave alms. As the alms were given to be seen by men, every effort was made to prevent any from missing the sight. We still say of a man who acts thus, that "he blows his own trumpet." their reward.—The Pharisees, to whom there is especial reference here, had in hand the reward which they sought— the admiration of the people. More accurately translated, the remark is: "they have in full their reward;" which implies that the praise of men was the only reward which they would ever receive. In contrast with this it is asserted below (verse 4) that if alms are given properly God himself will reward the giver. 3, 4. thy left hand know.—"Let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth" is a very striking expression. Once heard it is never forgotten; neither is it easily misunderstood, but it may be misapplied. While it very emphatically condemns all attempts to publish abroad our almsgiving, it does not condemn the publication of it for a proper purpose by others. Jesus, in order to teach a good lesson, published the liberality of the poor widow (Mark 12:41-44); and Luke, in order to stimulate the liberality of others, made public mention of the benevolence of Barnabas. (Acts 4:36-37.) Even in this, however, we must be on our guard, lest we tempt men to give tor the sake of the notoriety with which they expect others to reward them. 4. shall reward thee.—Notwithstanding the truth so clearly revealed in the Scriptures, that our salvation is a matter of favor and not of reward, it still remains true, as this verse clearly asserts, that for all the good which we do God will reward us. The joys of the eternal world, as well as the blessings of this, are included in the reward. (Comp. Matthew 25:34-40.) Against Hypocrisy in Prayer, Matthew 6:5-155. as the hypocrites.—Public prayer— that is, prayer spoken aloud for the edification of others— is not referred to in this paragraph; for this must be offered in public, while the prayer here spoken of is to be offered in the closet. (Verse 6.) The practice condemned is that of assuming an attitude of prayer in public places, when the prayer it self is not for the public. The hypocrites would stand up in the synagogues, and, with upturned faces and uplifted hands, would offer a silent prayer. They did the same on the streets, and especially on the corners of the streets where men coming from four different directions could see them. Nothing but a desire to be seen by men could have prompted this practice. It was hypocritical, because it was a pretended act of homage to God, while it was really an effort to obtain honor from men. The same fault is committed now by preachers who assume attitudes of private prayer in the pulpit, and by members who do the same in the pew. Jesus says to all such, Go to your closet, and shut the door. their reward.—Their reward, as in the case of almsgiving (verse 2), was what they sought and obtained— the praise of men. What was actual hypocrisy appeared to the unsuspecting people to be great religious boldness, and they praised the men who were not ashamed to be seen praying even on the corners of the streets. 6. enter into thy closet.—Inasmuch as a closet is not found in every house, or in every place where private prayer ought to be made, we understand the Savior as using it to represent any place of privacy. That the door is to be shut, indicates the strictness of the privacy which is to be observed. Of all our earthly hours, those which we spend in prayer to God should be the most completely freed from disguise and pretense. When we are alone with him, no eye but his to see us, no being near to be deceived by false appearances, we have the least possible incentive to hypocrisy. shall reward thee.—For such prayerfulness as is here enjoined there is a reward. The prayer thus offered is likely to be answered; but in addition to the answer a reward is bestowed for the fidelity with which the praying is done. 7. vain repetitions.—There is some uncertainty as to the exact meaning of the Greek word (βαταλογήσητε) rendered "use vain repetitions; but this rendering harmonizes well with the context, and can not be far from the exact meaning. The reason given why the heathen are guilty of this fault is that "they think they shall be heard for their much speaking." Much speaking includes not only vain repetitions, but all unnecessary words. The precept restricts us, then, to simplicity of expression, and to a single utterance of each petition in the same prayer. It is especially violated by the multiplied repetitions of the Roman Catholic rosary. When we pray we speak to God: we can not order our speech too carefully. 8. before you ask him.—That God knows what things we have need of before we ask him, is a good reason why we should not use vain repetitions. If he were ignorant of them we might be excused for excess of words in striving to make them known; but as he already knows them, a single statement of each at any one time must be sufficient. If it be objected that the fact of God's knowledge renders prayer itself unnecessary, we answer that it certainly would if the only object of prayer were to give God information: but as this is not even one of its objects, the objection is irrelevant. 9-13. After this manner.—The expression "after this manner" indicates that the prayer which follows, called the Lord's prayer because it was taught by him, is intended as a model of matter, arrangement and expression. The following analysis of it will help the reader to appreciate its value as a model: I. The Invocation.— "Our Father who art in heaven." Nearly all of the prayers recorded in the Scriptures begin with a solemn address to God, which is called the invocation. The most common invocation of the Jewish fathers had been "O Lord God of our fathers; "but now that the Son of God had appeared as the brother of man, a new form is introduced, and the disciples are taught to say, "Our Father." II. Three Petitions for Others. a. "Hallowed be thy name." "Hallowed" means, first, made holy; second, treated as holy. The petition calls for that reverence which is duo to the name of God. There is no limit assigned it, and therefore it embraces the universe of intelligent creatures, and calls for universal worship of God. b. "Thy kingdom come." This is a petition for the inauguration of the kingdom which Jesus came to establish. c. "Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven." This contemplates the conversion and the complete sanctification of the whole human race. III. Three Petitions for Self. After praying for the glory of God, the establishment of his kingdom, and the spiritual good of all men, the speaker is next allowed to speak of his own wants. a. "Give us this day our daily bread." Bread, the staff of life, is the representative of the things needful for the body. The petition is not for milk and honey, the symbols of luxury, but for bread, and bread sufficient for this day. We are to be moderate in our requests for even necessary things. b. "Forgive us our debts as we have forgiven our debtors." Here the term debts is used for trespasses, as appears from the comment on this petition in verses 14, 15. This petition expresses the one thing needful to the soul in regard to the past. It is conditional, and the condition is expressed in the petition itself— the same condition previously indicated in the fifth beatitude (v. 7). c. "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." Here the one want of the soul for the future is expressed. God does not tempt us (James 1:13), but by his providence he sometimes leads us into circumstances which become the means of temptation. This petition expresses our natural desire not to be thus led, and at the same time, by adding, "deliver us from evil," it indicates that we expect to be brought more or less into conflict with evil, notwithstanding our expressed desire to avoid it The counterpart to the petition is found in Paul's assurance that "God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above what you are able; but will, with the temptation, make a way to escape, that you may be able to bear it." (1 Corinthians 10:13.) For thine is the kingdom.—This doxology is rejected, on good ground, as an interpolation. It is a mark of the singular simplicity of the prayer that it closes without a doxology, and even without the Amen which was customarily employed in the apostolic churches (1 Corinthians 14:16), and is now an invariable termination of public prayer. Brief as this prayer is, it comprehends all for which we should pray. The first petition comprehends all that pertains to the honor and glory of God; the second and third, all that was requisite to the coming of God's kingdom and to the conversion and sanctification of men; the fourth, all the daily wants of the body; the fifth, all that the soul now needs or can enjoy in regard to the past; and the sixth, all that the soul needs to care for in regard to the future. Two changes are necessary in order to adapt this prayer to present use. We must omit the petition, "Thy kingdom come;" for in the sense of the petition the kingdom has already come, and it is improper to retain the words and yet attach to them a sense different from that in which Jesus employed them. We must also insert the name of Jesus as the mediator through whom we pray; for on the night of the betrayal he taught his disciples to thenceforward ask in his name. (John 16:24. See also Colossians 3:17.) 14, 15. For if ye forgive.—These two verses are appended to show why the petition for forgiveness of sins must be conditional. It fills us with awe to think that one condition of the forgiveness of our own sins is the forgiveness by us of sins committed against us. One of the most difficult duties of life is to forgive our fellows, yet the most essential thing that we pray for is contingent on it. Let us realize the fact, and act and pray accordingly. The manner in which we are to imitate this model prayer must consist in imitating its peculiarities as they appear in the prayer itself, and in the instructions which accompany it. We must pray, first, in privacy; second, without useless words or repetitions, third, having forgiven those who have trespassed against us; and fourth, with that unselfishness which places the glory of God and the good of others in advance of our own interests. It is strictly a prayer, and not an expression of thanks. Against Hypocrisy in Fasting, Matthew 6:16-1816. as the hypocrites.—The hypocrisy in this instance consisted in the pretense that the sad countenance assumed and the disfigured appearance were the result of deep devotion to God, when they were really intended to attract the attention and to excite the admiration of men. 17, 18. anoint and wash.—The Christian is here required to maintain the same personal appearance when fasting as on ordinary occasions, that he may not appear to men to be fasting, and may thereby avoid the temptation to hypocrisy. As in the case of almsgiving and praying when done in secret, a reward is promised. (Comp. 4, 6.) One object of fasting is self-abasement; but when it is observed to be seen by men it cultivates religious pride. It was doubtless the influence of teaching like this which led the Christian Jews to abandon the absurd practice prevalent among their ancestors of putting on sackcloth and sitting down in a pile of ashes on occasions of fasting and lamentation. Against Care about Riches, Matthew 6:19-2419. Lay not up.—The prohibition is not against the mere accumulation of property; for this, if accompanied by a proper use of it, in one means of laying up treasures in heaven; but it is against hoarding earthly possessions for selfish purposes. The uncertainty attached to such possessions, exposed, as they are, to moth and rust, and to the depredations of robbers, is given as one reason for not hoarding them, while a still better reason is reserved for verse 21 below. 20. but lay up.—The precept, "Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven," is not explained; but the meaning of it and the methods of accomplishing it are both left to the good sense of each individual. The security of such treasures against the moth and the rust and the thieves which threaten earthly possessions is presented as a motive to obedience. The contrast is very striking. No man who pauses a single moment for reflection can fail to realize it. 21. for where thy treasure is.—Here is the chief reason for laying up treasures in heaven and not on the earth. Where the heart is, there is our source of happiness. If it is on the earth, our happiness must partake of all the uncertainty of earthly things, and it must be lost forever when we leave the world. But if it is in heaven, when we leave this world we go away to the real sources of our happiness, and we find them as durable as eternity. 22, 23. The light of the body.—In these two verses there is a brief allegory, the meaning of which is to be ascertained from the context. The subject under consideration is the propriety of laying up treasures, not on earth, but in heaven. The man whose eye is single— that is, it sees nothing double or with confused vision— represents him who lays up treasure in heaven. As the good eye fills the whole body with light, or supplies to the whole body the advantages of light, so does the rule of life insisted on in the context, enable the man to see in a proper light all matters of duty and of enjoyment But he who lays up treasures on earth has the evil eye, or the eye whose vision is distorted, and which sees all things incorrectly. The light that is in him is darkness; that is, the rule by which his life is guided is false and pernicious: and this being the case, how great is the darkness in which he walks! 24. two masters.—Two masters whose interests are different and conflicting, as God and mammon. He who lays up his treasures in heaven serves God, while he who lays up his treasures on earth serves mammon. Mammon is a Chaldee term for riches. God will accept none of our service unless he has it all. Satan is willing to accept a part because he knows that by securing a part he really gets all. Against Care about the Necessaries of Life, Matthew 6:25-3425. Take no thought.—Dean Trench, in his admirable little work on Bible Revision, has shown clearly that when our translation was made the word thought was often used for melancholy; and that the expression take thought, meant to go into a state of melancholy or despondency. He quotes from Lord Bacon this example: "Harris, an alderman in London, was put in trouble and died with thought and anxiety before his business came to an end." From one of the Somers Tracts, written in the reign of Elizabeth, he quotes: "In five hundred years only two queens have died in childbirth. Queen Catharine Parr died rather of thought." But still more to the point is an example found in Shakespeare. When the conspirators against Julius Cæsar were discussing the effect which the proposed assassination would have on Mark Antony, Brutus is made to say: "Alas, good Cassius, do not think of him: If he love Cæsar, all that he can do Is to himself— take thought, and die for Cæsar." (Jul. Caes. Act II, Scene ii.) These examples illustrate the expression as used by our translators who were cotemporaries of Shakespeare. It expresses, not the mental act of thinking, but the state of feeling which results from a despondent view of the future. In this sense alone does it correctly represent the original word μεριμνάω, which means to be anxious or to be full of care. It is rendered in two passages of the New Testament by the term careful. "Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things." (Luke 10:41.) "Be careful for nothing." (Philippians 4:6.) Here the term careful is not used in its modern sense of painstaking, but it means, as its etymology indicates, full of care. (See also 1 Corinthians 7:32-34.) I would render it in the passage before us, "be not anxious." The prohibition is not against an excessive degree of anxiety, but simply against being anxious. life more than meat.—In the prohibition of anxiety, two general objects of anxiety are named— life and the body; that is, the prolongation of life, and the comfort of the body. In reference to the former there are two specifications, "what ye shall eat," and "what ye shall drink;" and in reference to the latter, one, "what ye shall put on." The prohibition is supported, in the remainder of the paragraph, by several forcible reasons, of which the first is that life is more than food, and the body than raiment; that is, life has more important aims than to provide food and drink; and the body has wants more pressing than the want of raiment. These are inferior wants, and therefore unworthy of anxiety. The superior wants are specified below in verse 33. 26. the fowls of the air.— Here is the second reason. The birds are free from anxiety, although they neither how, nor reap, nor gather into barns. Though they do none of these things, the heavenly Father feeds them. Men are much better than they; much more certainly, then, will God feed them. Let us sow and reap and gather into barns, then, without anxiety. 27. can add one cubit.—The third reason is based on the fact that anxiety is unavailing. Instead of stature, we should have age; for this is the more usual meaning of the Greek word, λικα, and is better suited to the context. If anxiety will not avail to add even a cubit to one's age, how idle and impotent it is in reference to the necessities on which life depends! 28-30. Consider the lilies.—The fourth reason, like the two preceding, is an argument a fortiori: If God clothes the lilies which neither toil nor spin; and if he clothes them more beautifully than Solomon in all his glory, although they are of so little value as to be burned in the oven, how much more will he clothe his people. The grass, or rather the herbage, is spoken of as being cast into the oven, because it was used by the Jews to heat their bake-ovens. The country about Jerusalem had long ago been stripped of its timber. 31, 32. For after all these.—The fifth reason is, that food, drink and raiment are the things which the Gentiles, or the heathen, seek after, and Christians must be different from them. We have a God who can supply us, and they have none. Closely associated with this, is the sixth reason: "Your heavenly Father knows that you have need of all these things." As he knows that we need them, and as he is able to supply them, we may expect to obtain them and be free from anxiety. 33. But seek first.—Here we learn the true objects of anxiety, and the true method of obtaining all that is necessary to the present life. We are to seek, and to seek first, the kingdom of God, admission into it, and the righteousness which he requires of us. If we do this we have the promise of him who feeds the birds and gives raiment to the lily, that we shall have food and clothing. The righteousness which God requires leads to that cheerful and undistracted industry which always, with the divine blessing, secures food and raiment while we are in health, and which helps to surround us with friends when we come to want. 34. Sufficient unto the day.—Here is another reason why we should rid ourselves of anxiety. Each day brings with it some evil of its own: if to this we add anxiety about the morrow, we but add to the unavoidable evil of today. Questions by E.M. Zerr For Matthew 61. Was fasting commanded? 2. What people pretended to practice it? 3. How did they go about it? 4. What was their motive? 5. Give the date of their reward. 6. In fasting how should deception be avoided ? 7. How will such be rewarded? 8. What will endanger earthly treasures ? 9. How may this disappointment be avoided ? 10. What motive is condemned in giving alms ? 11. Of what will such motive deprive us? 12. What demonstration do the hypocrites make? 13. In what places do they do this ? 14. State their purpose. 15. Is their reward future or present ? 16. Of what does it consist? 17. When should we not cross our hands ? 18. What should be done in secret? 19. And what will be done openly ? 20. Do the hypocrites ever pray? 21. Do they love to pray ? 22. Where do they go? 23. Is it wrong to pray there? 24. State the sin they commit. 25. Will they be rewarded ? 26. In prayer where should we enter? 27. And how pray? 28. In what way will be our reward ? 29. What must not be used in our prayers ? 30. This would be like whom? 31. What is their motive ? 32. Is prayer for purpose of informing God ? 33. State chief feature of this prayer in light of v. 7. 34. What quality given to the Father’ s name ? 35. State the request about the kingdom. 36. Why not pray that now? 37. In coming, what will was accomplished ? 38. What food was requested ? 39. On what terms debts to be forgiven ? 40. State the prayer about trials. 41. What things are here ascribed to God? 42. State distance between one’ s treasure and heart. 43. How many means of light to the body? 44. What is the literal meaning of this light? 45. If the eye is evil how dark will it be? 46. What is meant by a "single” eye ? 47. Why cannot one serve two masters ? 48. Tell the two masters mentioned by Christ. 49. Which is greater, the body or its clothing? 50. And the life or its nourishment? 51. State the source of both. 52. Therefore what should we not do? 53. What creatures are cited for example? 54. Does this teach that we are not responsible? 55. In what sense are we ‘ Tetter than they” ? 56. What cannot be done by ‘‘ taking thought” ? 57. In what do the lilies excel? 58. Was this by their own art? 59. What lesson does this fact teach? 60. How uncertain is the life of flowers ? 61. In spite of this what does God do? 62. What was Tebuked by this fact ? 63. For what do the Gentiles seek ? 64. But we should not do what? 65. What about the knowledge of God ? 66. Tell what should be sought first. 67. And then what shall be done ? 68. What about the morrow? 69. What is sufficient for each day? 6:1 To be seen is the key to this verse. To say it means we should do all of our good deeds unknown to others would make it contradict chapter 5:16 where others were to see our good works. But our motive in doing good deeds should not be to be seen of men. If we do so, we will get only the reward that men can give us in the form of praise, for the Father will not give us any reward for it. 6:2 The three words sound a trumpet are from SALPIZO which Thayer defines "to sound a trumpet." The same author comments on the word as follows: "To take care that what we do comes to everybody's ears, to make a noise about it." In the preceding verse the alms were done in order to be seen of men. This verse goes further and sounds the trumpet in order to be sure the deeds will be seen. Hypocrite is from which Thayer defines as follows: "1. one who answers, an interpreter. 2. an actor, stage-player. 3. in Biblical Greek a dissembler, pretender, hypocrite." The word originally had no moral significance, meaning only a man who went upon the stage to play a certain role in a drama. It then got into the moral and religious language to mean a man who acts a part on the stage of human experiences. The word means one who pretends to be something he knows he is not. Have their reward. The first word is defined, "To have received all that one can expect." The praise of men is what these hypocrites sought and that is what they will have; nothing else. 6:3 Hands cannot literally know anything hence we have to conclude this verse means we should not make a great ado over our good deeds. 6:4 Alms in secret. We have seen in verse 1 and chapter 5:16 that our good deeds are not required to be done literally in secret. The meaning of this verse, therefore, must be that we should do good even in cases where men may not realize the good we have done. But God knows all things and will give full credit where it is due. 6:5 The place of the praying is not what is condemned, but the motive, to be seen, is the thing that is wrong. At any proper time it would be right to pray even on the streets, but it must not be done for show. Have their reward virtually means they may not expect any further reward. (See verse 2.) 6:6 The servants of the Lord may offer either private or public prayers in lawful service to Him. Both kinds should be considered in connection with this chapter. But it is improper to pretend to be offering a private prayer and yet do it in a way to attract attention. This verse means that if a disciple actually means his prayer to be private he should seek a private place to offer it. 6:7 Vain repetitions is explained in the lexicon to mean saying the same things over and over again for the sake of taking up time, or for the purpose of making a favorable impression. Heathen is from which Thayer defines, "3. in the New Testament savoring of the nature of pagans, alien to the worship of the true God, heathenish." Much speaking means the same as vain repetitions as to its motive. Many prayers of disciples of Christ today have unnecessary phrases that would come under the disapproval of Jesus. Our prayers should be brief and simple and made to pertain to the occasion that caused the prayer to be called for. 6:8 Prayer is not for the purpose of informing God about our needs for He already knows that. It is an occasion of showing our faith in the Heavenly Father. 6:9 After this manner denotes that Jesus only intended this to be an example of the kind of prayers he wished his disciples to offer. It therefore is not "the prayer he taught his disciples to pray." There are no set forms of service in the kingdom of heaven as to the wording of them. Hallowed is from HAGIAZO and is defined, "to render or acknowledge to be venerable, to hallow." It is equivalent to saying that the name of our Father is holy. 6:10 Both John and Jesus had taught that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. That would mean that it was near but not yet set up. The prayer for the kingdom to come would therefore be a scriptural one for the disciples to offer at that time. However, it would be unscriptural to make that prayer today since the kingdom is in earth now. As in heaven. God's rule had been going on for centuries in heaven, hence the prayer was to recognize that fact while praying for it to take place on the earth. Such a prayer indicated two things; that the disciples wished the kingdom to come, and also that they believed in the promise of Christ that it was to come soon. 6:11 There are two outstanding thoughts in this verse. Daily is from a Greek word that means "necessary," showing they were to pray for what they needed and not what they merely desired. And this day indicates that prayer should be offered daily. 6:12 God does not have to be given an example of righteous performances before He will do it. But if a disciple is unwilling to forgive those indebted to him, the Lord will not regard him as worthy of such a favor. (See Matthew 18:23-35.) 6:13 Temptation. is from a word that sometimes means "adversity, affliction, trouble," and evil is from one meaning "hardships." God never leads men into sin and the words are not used in that sense in this place. The clause is simply a prayer for God to help the disciples in the trials of life. For thine is the kingdom, etc., is given as a reason for believing that God could control the elements of creation according to His will, and hence he would be able to give the disciples this assistance. For the meaning of the word amen see the comments at Matthew 5:18. 4-15 See the comments on verse 12 for the explanation of these. 6:16 Fasting was never commanded as a regular practice, but it was voluntarily done on particular occasions as an outward symbol of grief or penitence or great anxiety. The act was approved by the Lord when prompted by a sincere motive. But the hypocrites wished to obtain the praise of men for fasting when they had not actually abstained from food long enough to produce any visible effects on their countenance. To accomplish their purpose they would disfigure their faces and then put on a sad look. Thayer defines the word disfigure, "to deprive of lustre, render unsightly; to disfigure." This was done in order to appear unto men to fast or appear as men fasting. 6:17 When David was ready to cease fasting (2 Samuel 12:20) at the death of his child he arose and washed himself. Jesus instructed his disciples to proceed with the usual customs of daily life in spite of their season of fasting. That would tend to the opposite effect of the disfigurement that the hypocrites practiced for attention. 6:18 Appear not unto men to fast. By following the usual routine as described in the preceding verse the disciples would not appear to be men on a fast. That would take them out of the class of hypocrites who made a show of their performance in order to receive the praise of men. God who knows the hearts of men would see and reward the devotions of His servants as would be fitting. 6:19 For yourselves is the key to this verse and is in line with 1 Timothy 6:18. To say the passage forbids the accumulation of property beyond the present day needs would be to set some scriptures against others. We may lay up something for the future but not simply for ourselves: it Is that "we may have to give to him that needeth" (Ephesians 4:28). When we have thus accumulated a surplus we must be careful not to trust in it or become attached to it lest we make it an idol. 6:20 In addition to the reasons against hoarding described in the preceding verse, it is also foolish from the standpoint of an investment. Our idle wealth may be attacked and taken by thieves and all be lost for any good use. But the treasures in heaven, which consist of the credits from God for our righteous lives, will be safe because no thief will ever be admitted to that place, neither will any form of decay be possible there. That is why Paul used the impressive words, "Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life" (1 Timothy 6:19). 6:21 This is another reason for not hoarding material wealth for ourselves, because that will become the object of our greatest interest which will lead to a form of idolatry. Doubtless that is the reason for Paul's statements in Ephesians 5:5 and Colossians 3:5. The heart is the inner man and the seat of emotions and the cause of activities. If that is centered in worldly wealth it will induce man to devote his attentions upon it to the neglect of God. 6:22 The human body is again used for illustration, the eye being the particular part for the comparison. This organ is the only one that admits light into the body and hence complete dependence upon it is necessary. Single is from HAPLOUS which Thayer defines by, "good, sound." The literal fact is that if a man's eyes are sound or normal he will be able to receive all the light that is offered him. 6:23 Evil is defined in the lexicon to be "in a bad condition." If the light that is in thee be darkness. If the only means that one has for receiving light be darkness (which it would be if it became in bad condition), then the darkness would be great because one has no other means of seeing. The lesson in this illustration is that a man has only one means of receiving spiritual light which is his intellect or mind. It is that part of his being by which he either accepts or rejects spiritual light. (See John 3:19-21.) Therefore if that mind is rendered "unsound" by the love of darkness or evil deeds, "how great is that darkness." 6:24 In the time of Christ and the apostles the country had many slaves and the relation of master and slave was referred to frequently in the speech and literature. If a man belonged to a certain master he would not be able nor even should desire to serve another or to divide his services. It he so much as attempted to do so he would be brought to punishment by his rightful master. Jesus made his own application of the illustration by comparing it to God and mammon. That word is derived from a Chaldean one that is defined, "what is trusted: treasure; riches." We have seen in verses 19-21 above that our wealth can become an idol in our hearts, and that would make it another god that would be a rival of the true God. The lesson is that we must not try to divide our devotion between God and anything or anyone else. 6:25 Therefore". If you are going to serve God and not riches, you will not he so concerned about temporal things which do not constitute the object of your chief devotions. Take no thought is from , which Thayer defines, "to be anxious; to be troubled with cares." It is the word for be careful in Philippians 4:6 where the connection shows it means not to be too much concerned but to look to the Lord for help. Hence Jesus does not mean that his disciples were to be indifferent about the needful things of life, but they should not be overanxious about it. The reasoning the Saviour offers is both simple and forceful. The body and the life within it are certainly more valuable than the clothing for the body or the food for the life. But they already possessed the major blessings, then why have any doubts about God's ability and willingness to give them the minor ones? 6:26 This verse Is not intended to encourage indolence on the part of man, for the fowls cannot perform the scientific works of production while man is able to do so. The idea is that since these helpless creatures are abundantly supplied without their own help, it shows the power and willingness of the Creator to accomplish all that is necessary. Therefore the servants of God should have full confidence in His ability and willingness to supply all the needs of man that he cannot obtain for himself. 6:27 Undue anxiety will not add the slightest amount to one's size, hence it is useless to be concerned about the necessities of life to the extent of foolish worry. 6:28 This verse has the same lesson as verse 26 except it has to do with clothing only. The lilies are as helpless as the fowls and do nothing to produce their outward appearance and growth. 6:29 The glory of Solomon's royal robes was artificial, made by the art of man, and doubtless was unexcelled by any other king of his time. His general surroundings also were the greatest of his time. (See 1 Kings 10.) The glory and beauty of the flower is natural and hence is made directly by the hand of the Creator without the instrumentality of man, which shows the ability of God to accomplish the utmost in the field of adornment and clothing. 6:30 Grass is from CHORTOS and is defined in the lexicon, "grass, herbage, hay, provender." The lily is of the vegetable kingdom and hence is in the general class of the herbs. Which is comes from ONTOS which is defined, "truly, in reality, in point of fact . . . that which is indeed."--Thayer. The thought is that this beautiful lily is actually in existence but only for a brief time. Notwithstanding its uncertain and short existence, God thinks enough of it to give it a beauty that far excels that of Solomon. Certainly, then, He will not forget man who is made in His image. Cast into the oven refers to the use of light fuel such as leaves and grass that was burned in the portable baking stoves of many homes in that day. Smith's Bible Dictionary says the following of these ovens: "The eastern oven is of two kinds--fixed and portable. The latter is adapted to the nomad [traveling] state. It consists of a large jar made of clay, about three feet high and widening toward the bottom, with a hole for the extraction of the ashes. Each household possessed such an article, Exodus 8:3, and it was only in times of extreme dearth that the same oven sufficed for several families; Leviticus 26:26. It was heated with dry twigs and grass, Matthew 6:30, and the loaves were placed both inside and outside of it." 6:31 This verse is a summing up of the thoughts in the verses starting with 25 and the repetition is for the purpose of emphasis. 6:32 Gentiles is from ETHNOS and refers to the nations in general out over the world. God knows all about our needs for He has created the very bodies that have them, hence he certainly will not refuse to provide what is necessary to support them. 7The Bible does not contradict itself, hence an apparent conflict in its language will be understood when all the passages involved are considered. Ephesians 4:28 directs men to labor for the necessities of life, so we are to understand our present passage to mean that our desire for them must not be our chief purpose in the world; it should all be regarded in the light of Matthew 6:33. Sealed is from , and Thayer defines it at this place, "To confirm, authenticate, place beyond doubt." The idea is that we should seek the food that the Son of man offers which will lead to everlasting life. This is assured since the Father has placed his seal or stamp of approval on his Son's work. 6:34 Again the exhortation comes not to be overanxious about the morrow which means the future in general. Evil is from KAKIA and Thayer defines it at this place, "evil, trouble." The thought may well be ex-pressed with a familiar one "don't borrow trouble" from the future. Also by another household saying not to try to "cross a bridge before we get to it." Sufficient unto the day, etc., means that each day has enough trouble for itself without looking ahead and worrying about some evil that may never come anyway. When the morrow comes, if it brings trouble to us it will then be time enough to think about it. We will be able then to care for it in the way Just set forth in this chapter. Matthew 7 "THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Chapter Seven The "Sermon On The Mount" continues with Jesus discussing the righteousness of the kingdom with respect to man’ s relation to man, with a warning regarding judging (Matthew 7:1-6), the importance of persistence (Matthew 7:7-11), and keeping "the golden rule" (Matthew 7:12). It concludes with exhortations to enter the kingdom: choose the narrow and difficult path (Matthew 7:13-14), watch out for false prophets (Matthew 7:15-20), do the Father’ s will (Matthew 7:21-23), being doers of the Word (Matthew 7:24-29). POINTS TO PONDER * The nature of judging condemned by Jesus * How Jesus’ "golden rule" differs from that found in other religions * The importance of doing the Father’ s will to being saved REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter? - Righteousness with respect to man’ s relation to man - Matthew 7:1-12- Exhortations to enter the kingdom - Matthew 7:15-29 2) What sort of judging is Jesus warning against? (Matthew 7:1-6) - Not all judging, but hypocritical, censorious condemnation (cf. John 7:24) 3) How does Jesus illustrate the need for persistence? (Matthew 7:7-11) - By literally saying "keep on" asking, seeking, knocking 4) How does Jesus’ "golden rule" differ from that found in other religions? (Matthew 7:12) - Most state it negatively (Don’ t do to others what you don’ t want done to you) 5) Contrast the two "ways" described by Jesus (Matthew 7:13-14) - The way to life: narrow gate and difficult way, found by few - The way to destruction: wide gate and broad way, traveled by many 6) How do false prophets operate? How can we identify them? (Matthew 7:15-20) - As wolves in sheep’ s clothing; by their fruits 7) Who will not enter the kingdom of heaven? Who will? (Matthew 7:21-23) - Many who believed in the Lord, did many great things for Him, but practiced lawlessness (i.e., did things without His authority) - Those who do the will of His Father in heaven 8) What is the key difference between the wise and foolish listeners? (Matthew 7:24-27) - The wise do what Jesus said, the foolish do not 9) Why were the people astonished at Jesus’ teaching? (Matthew 7:28-29) - Because He taught as one having authority Matthew 7:1-29 Verse 1Matthew 7 SERMON ON THE MOUNT (concluded)This portion of the Master's great sermon is composed of miscellaneous exhortations and is not easily conformable to any formal outline. Judge not that ye be not judged. (Matthew 7:1)The word "judge" in this place is translated from a Greek word, [@krino], also found in such passages as John 12:48; Acts 17:31; and 2 Timothy 4:1, indicating that the type of judging forbidden in this place is that of presuming to determine salvation, or the lack of it, in others. Not even Christ did this while on earth. "I came not to judge the world but to save the world" (John 12:47). The exercise of such judgment is all the more sinful in that it is premature. "Judge nothing before the time" (1 Corinthians 4:5). The widespread failure of otherwise devoted people to observe this injunction is tragically regrettable; and yet some insist on their right to judge others and defend it on the basis of Jesus' words, "By their fruits ye shall know them" (Matthew 7:20). Discerning and judging, however, are two different things. The Greek term for accounting, or thinking, with reference to another is [@hegeomai]. Making a private, personal, and tentative appraisal of others is not forbidden; but "judging" is prohibited. One must deplore the conduct of self-appointed "fruit inspectors" whose flagrant violations of this commandment have worked untold damage in the church. Verse 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you.The thought of these parallel expressions is identical, the repetition being for the sake of emphasis. A censorious, presumptuous preoccupation with other people's destiny encourages a reciprocal judgment from them, resulting in all kinds of bitterness, recriminations, and vindictive hatreds. Verse 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?One who judges others is compared to a person presuming to cast a splinter out of his brother's eye while a plank is in his own eye! This is a vivid picture of a person who ignores his own grievous sins while trying to correct the relatively minor shortcomings of another. The mote and the beam represent the disparity between that which is tiny, insignificant, almost invisible, and that which is obvious, flagrant, and obtrusive. The mote hunter is the nitpicker, the specialist in fine, disputed points, who focuses on the most minute deviations while ignoring far more basic and important considerations. Verse 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me cast the mote out of thine eye; and lo, the beam is in thine own eye?The deftness and accuracy of our Lord's comparisons have never been even approached by other teachers. A mote, although trifling and insignificant, can nevertheless be a serious and painful handicap when located in the eye. Thus, Jesus cannot be charged with making even the slightest sin or fault a matter of indifference. That is not the point under consideration. What he is emphasizing here is the evil inconsistency of Big Guilt correcting Little Guilt. It may be doubted that Christ ever employed humor in his teachings, but there is certainly a suggestion of it here. The ridiculous picture of a man with a plank in his own eye casting a splinter out of his neighbor's eye must have brought a chuckle from those who heard the Master's words. Verse 5 Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.This shows that Christ does not minimize any moral fault, however tiny. It is implicit in the comparison that the mote should be cast out of the eye. Tiny as it is, it may not be accepted lightly. Surely, this is an inspired metaphor. Judging and disposing of the faults of others is: (1) dangerous, (2) hypocritical, and (3) futile. If one would truly aid another, his first consideration is to get the plank out of his own eye. This means that he should prepare himself by acknowledging his own sins and turning to him alone who is the sinner's friend. Any other method defeats itself. Verse 6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest haply they trample them under their feet, and turn and rend you.Dummelow thinks this passage means "that the most holy things ought not to be offered indiscriminately to all persons."[1] In such a view, the dogs and swine would refer to mean and vicious persons who have no desire to apprehend spiritual things. This interpretation has come down from very ancient times. Clement of Alexandria said, "It is difficult to exhibit the true and transparent words respecting the true light to swinish and untrained hearers."[2] Another view is that the sacred abilities and powers of life should not be squandered upon the appetites and lusts of the flesh which can never be satisfied but which end by "rending" the giver. This, of course, is true, but is not necessarily what Jesus said here. [1] J. R. Dummelow, One Volume Commentary (New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1932), p. 649. [2] Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II, p. 312. Verse 7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.Christ said, "Men ought always to pray and not to faint" (Luke 18:1). This is the Saviour's great promise that prayer will be answered, although not always in precisely the manner expected. God answers prayer: (1) gradually, as in the case of Hawthorne's little Ernst in "The Great Stone Face," (2) literally as in the case of Jonah, (3) by denial of the request, as in the case of Paul's thorn in the flesh, (4) by sending something other than was requested as in the case of our Lord's prayer for the cup to pass but which was answered by his receiving strength to drink it, and (5) after delay as in the case of Jairus' prayer for Christ to heal his daughter. This wonderful verse is easily memorized by aid of the acronym formed by the letters A-S-K. A-sk, and ye shall receive ... S-eek, and ye shall find ... K-nock, and it shall be opened ... Verse 8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.These words are far more than a promise to answer prayer; and, depending on what men pray for, they may be even a threat. Certainly, there is a statement of God's law that prayers, in some measure at least, determine the kind of answer. Goodspeed's translation is, "Ask, and what you ask will be given you. Search, and you will find what you search for."[3] Thus, if one pursues unworthy goals, he may attain them. Alas, many do. Prayers should be disciplined to request only those things which are truly desirable and should always submissively include the provision, "Nevertheless, not my will but thine be done" (Matthew 26:39). Of all rash things, a rash prayer is the rashest. Rachel prayed, "Give me children, or else I die" (Genesis 30:1). God gave her children, "and she died" (Genesis 35:18). The children of Israel "lusted exceedingly in the wilderness, and tempted God in the desert. And he gave them their request, but sent leanness into their soul" (Psalms 106:14-15). Elizabeth Barrett Browning wrote: "God answers sharp and sudden on some prayers. And thrusts the thing we have prayed for in our face, A gauntlet with a gift in't."[4] Ralph Waldo Emerson put it this way: What we seek we shall find; what we flee from flees from us; as Goethe said, "What we wish for in youth, comes in heaps on us in old age," too often cursed with the granting of our prayer; and hence the high caution, that, since we are sure of having what we wish, we beware to ask only for high things.[5] [3] Edgar J. Goodspeed, New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). [4] Frank S. Mead, The Encyclopedia of Religious Quotations (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1965), p. 338, from Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Aurora. [5] Ibid., p. 339, from Ralph Waldo Emerson, Conduct of Life. Verse 9 Or what man is there of you, who, if his son shall ask him for a loaf, will give him a stone; or if he shall ask for a fish, will give him a serpent?Christ's argument here from the predictable conduct of men has strong overtones teaching the likeness between God and man. Of course, this is inherent in the fact that man was created in God's image (Genesis 1:27), and Jesus' words here show that something of God can be known by observing that which is highest and best in man. The basic kinship between God and man is a broad principle underlying the entire Judeo-Christian revelation. The apparent relation between a loaf and a stone is that of appearance. Some stones resemble ancient "loaves" of bread. The second portion of this passage repeats for the sake of emphasis the essential wisdom of the first part. These expressions are actually a form of Hebrew poetry in which there is a rhyme of thought rather than of syllables. Another example is in Matthew 7:2. Verse 11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?Note the contrast between "know how to give" and "give." Although God is like man in man's highest and best capacity, he is also far better than man. Men, taught by the deepest instincts, and carrying within themselves footprints of the Eternal, indeed know how to do good but do not always do it. God, on the other hand, will surely do that which is right. Verse 12 All things therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them: for this is the law and the prophets.This is the Golden Rule. Since it is in this place connected with our Lord's teaching on prayer, the observance of this principle, therefore, becomes one of the conditions of acceptable prayer, along with a forgiving heart, importunity, and general submissiveness to the Father's will. There have been countless parodies on this. Westcott said, "Do unto the other feller the way he'd like to do unto you, an' do it fust!" [6] Mead has another, "Do unto others as they would do unto you if they had a chance."[7] Still, this verse haunts the human race; and, now and then, some wise man has caught a glimpse of its true importance. Millikan listed the idea of the Golden Rule first among those ideas that "stand out above all others in the influence they have exerted upon and are destined to exert upon the development of the human race."[8] Kossuth declared, "The era of Christianity - peace, brotherhood, the Golden Rule as applied to governmental matters - is yet to come, and when it comes, then and then only, will the future of nations be sure."[9] [6] Ibid., p. 193, from Edward Noyes Westcott, Moral and Religious Aphorisms. [7] Ibid., p. 191. [8] Ibid., p. 192, from Robert Andrews Millikan, Forbes Magazine. [9] Ibid., p. 192, from Lajos Kossuth. Verse 13 Enter ye in by the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many are they that enter in thereby. For narrow is the gate, and straitened the way, that leadeth unto life, and few are they that find it.The relative number of the saved and the lost is plain from this. They shall be as the few to the many. This eternally recurring contrast between the numbers of the saved and the lost with reference to each succeeding generation should not be discouraging. Wheat does not grow grain all the way to the ground but only in the ear. Although salvation is obtainable and available for all who truly desire it, the plain fact is that the majority in all generations will despise it. And, of wheat, it will be remembered that Christ himself used this grain as a figure of the saved and lost in Matthew 3:12. The relative number of redeemed souls in any generation is not the scale by which God's success may be measured. God will keep on saving men until the "fullness" of his purpose is achieved (Romans 11:25). The term "narrow" is meaningful. Truth can be no other way than narrow, as attested in any field of knowledge whatsoever. A radio band width may be moved almost imperceptibly to tune out a dance orchestra in New York City and tune in a political rally in Southern California. Changing a chemical formula by the narrowest degree possible can profoundly alter a compound. The relation of the diameter to the circumference of a circle is so "narrow" that man's mathematical vocabulary is not precise enough to define it, so it is approximated at 1 to 3.14159. The velocity required to place a satellite in orbit is precisely 17,500 miles per hour. Why should it seem strange, then, that entering eternal life should be any other way than by the "narrow gate"? The narrowness consists of the restrictions, discip, and requirements throughout the whole area of Christian living. Such things as self-denial, forgiveness of others, monogamy, meekness, renunciation of the pursuit of wealth as the chief end of life, and countless other basic scriptural principles are opposed to the natural man whose baser instincts propel him constantly in the direction of the wide gate and the broad way. Only those who are truly spiritual, who have set their minds upon the things in heaven, shall enter and negotiate the straitened way that leads to life; and yet, "Whosoever will may come!" Verse 15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. By their fruits ye shall know them.This warning naturally flows out of what Jesus had just said. The broad way will have its advocates, false teachers, who will attempt to widen the narrow way and breach the strait gate. This passage suggests the great apostasy which is elaborated in the following New Testament passages: Acts 20:29-31; 2 Corinthians 11:1-3; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12; 1 Timothy 4:1-5; 2 Timothy 3:1-8; 2 Timothy 4:1-5; 2 Peter 2:1-3; 2 Peter 3:1-7; and Revelation 17:1-18 and Revelation 18:1-24. It is essential that Christians recognize false teachers or prophets, as they are called here. By their fruits ye shall know them. To be effective in deceiving God's people, it is essential that false teachers be disguised, hence the "sheep's clothing." This means that the church itself shall be the theater of operations for these destructive teachers. They will appear as ministers, officers, and advocates of religion. The one sure test is their fruits. That which sows discord, divides, debilitates, hinders, or thwarts in any way the true spiritual family of God is to be rejected. The great test is the false teacher's attitude toward Christ. Those who question his authority or go beyond his word are clearly of the evil one. The only proper way in which this admonition can be heeded is for the Lord's sheep to know the Shepherd's voice, that is, they must know his word and doctrine. The remainder of the Sermon on the Mount is devoted to those things which will enable the child of God to distinguish between true and false teachers of religion. Verse 17 Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them.This teaching pertains primarily to the identification of false teachers whose true character is inevitably exposed by the results of their efforts. However cloaked with specious piety, however influential through personal charm, however marked by brilliant intellect or high educational attainment, or however distinguished in any other manner, false teachers are not to be trusted above the word of Christ. The teacher that divides and scatters the flock must be rejected. Evil fruits, or results, constitute certain and unmistakable identification with the "wolves" Jesus mentioned here. Verse 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven.False teachers are clearly religious persons, crying, "Lord, Lord." Their failure is not that of inactivity but indulgence in the wrong activity. They not only deceive but are themselves deceived, as appears in what follows. Their grand error is in doing their own will instead of Christ's. Verse 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works?The fact that "many" such persons exist identifies them as followers of the broad way. The religious nature of their errors is emphasized by their prophesying, casting out demons, and doing many mighty works in Christ's name. What was wrong with all this? They did those mighty works in Christ's name but without his authority or sanction. No one can doubt that this is exactly the situation with reference to the vast majority of religious actions today practiced in the world. They are done in Jesus' name, but not by his authority. This means, simply, that the things done were not commanded by Christ. What is the projected result of such conduct? See next verse. Verse 23 And they will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.In Matthew 7:22, above, "that day" obviously refers to the judgment; and in this verse Christ claims for himself the right to consign men to banishment from his holy presence. The entire tone and tenor of this sermon is predicated on the assumption that Christ is God. Language of the kind recorded here would be the utmost nonsense if this is not his claim. Biederwolf said, "A man who can read the New Testament and not see that Christ claims to be more than a man, can look all over the sky at high noon on a cloudless day and not see the sun."[10] This verse contains, without doubt, one of the most terrible thoughts in the Scriptures. Many souls shall diligently serve God and do many mighty things in his name, only to discover at last that they have never really served him at all. This blessed warning from Christ should stop every man short and suddenly until he is sure beyond all possibility of deception that he is truly doing Christ's will. The final and climactic paragraph of the Sermon on the Mount lays down the true guide for souls truly desirous of knowing what is the will of God. ENDNOTE:[10] Ibid., p. 50, from William E. Biederwolf. Verse 24 Every one therefore that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them, shall be likened unto a wise man, who built his house upon the rock.The key to everlasting life is in Jesus' saying, "these words of mine!" Throughout the New Testament, the final, ultimate and exclusive authority in true religion is the word spoken by Christ. Jesus commanded the church to teach "whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:20). He declared that the words he spoke would judge men at the last day (John 12:48). The true religion was "first spoken" by Christ (Hebrews 2:3). "Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God (2 John 1:1-9). Apostles warned that men ought to learn how "not to go beyond the things which are written" (1 Corinthians 4:6). "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly" (Colossians 3:16), Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:35). The most important fact to know with reference to Christianity is that it is "of Christ"! Not even the apostles were commissioned to go beyond the word of Christ. Even the reception of the Holy Spirit in their hearts was not for the purpose of imparting additional truth but for bringing to their remembrance the things Christ taught (John 14:26). The current notion that any man in whom the Holy Spirit is supposed to dwell may properly determine the true nature and content of Christian doctrine is emphatically denied in the affirmation of Christ that, even in the apostles, the Holy Spirit did not speak "of himself." "For he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak ... for he shall take of mine, and shall declare it unto you" (John 16:13-15). Wise man who built his house upon the rock. The "rock" is nothing more nor less than "these words of mine," namely, the words of Christ. Verse 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon the rock.Rains, floods, and winds, in this place, suggest oppositions from above, beneath, and all around. The stability of the wise man's house was due to the fact that it was built, not upon "a rock," but upon "THE rock"! Only the life founded upon and guided by the principles of Christ shall stand. His teaching is the rock; all else is shifting sand. Verse 26 And everyone that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them not, shalt be likened unto a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew, and smote upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall thereof.All this is a recapitulation, in the negative, of what was said immediately before. The focus of attention here should be upon the revelation of what the true rock actually is, namely, the words or teachings of Christ. This is the point so many seem to miss. Verse 28 And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these words, the multitudes were astonished at his teaching: for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.The significance of this great sermon was not lost upon those who first heard it. They understood, although probably not all of them believed, that Jesus in this magnificent discourse laid claim to authority surpassing that of: (1) the scribes, (2) the Decalogue, (3) Moses, (4) the Holy Scriptures, and (5) all earthly and human authorities. The truly perceptive must surely have detected the advance indications that here indeed was THE MESSIAH. J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Matthew Chapter SevenMiscellaneous Precepts, Matthew 7:1-12 Sermon on the Mount— Continued Against Judging, Matthew 7:1-51. Judge not.—The terms of this prohibition are universal; but in the paragraph below (16-20) which speaks of false prophets, we are authorized to judge men by their fruits. Limiting this paragraph by that, we conclude that only such judging as is not required by the actual conduct of men is here condemned. Ail judging from surmise, or from insufficient premises, or from ill-will, is prohibited. It is adverse judging, of course, that is referred to. 2. ye shall be judged.—God's judgment of us is always just, whether we judge others justly or unjustly; but men will usually judge us as we judge others. It is man, therefore, by whom we will be judged as we judge others, yet it is also true that God will judge without mercy those who show no mercy. (James 2:13.) 3-5. Thou hypocrite.—It is a very common thing that men who pronounce forbidden judgments on their brethren, possess themselves in a greater degree the fault which they condemn. They are satirized here by the figure of a man with a beam in his own eye officiously proposing to extract a mote from his neighbor's eye. This is hypocrisy, because it is assuming to be far better than we are. The command, "First cast the beam out of your own eye," must not be construed as requiring us to get rid of all faults before we attempt to correct others; for on this condition none would be qualified for the position of teachers; but it requires that we shall rid ourselves of a given fault preparatory to rebuking that fault in another. This lesson is especially important to public teachers, for they have power for good only as their conduct coincides with their teaching. A Caution, Matthew 7:66. unto the dogs.—In this precept there is an allusion to the holy meats connected with the service of the altar. Those parts of the victims which were not consumed on the altar, were eaten by the priests or by the people; but as they were holy, no unclean person, much less an unclean brute, was allowed to eat of them. What was left, after the clean persons had eaten, was not, as at the close of an ordinary meal, cast to the dogs, but it was burned with fire. (Leviticus 6:24-30 Leviticus 7:15-21.) To give holy things to dogs was to profane them: we are here forbidden, then, to use any religious office, work, or ordinance, in such a manner as to degrade or profane it. pearls before swine.—The thought here is slightly different from the preceding. If a herd of hungry and ferocious hogs are called up to be fed, and instead of grain you throw before them a basket of pearls, they will not only trample the pearls under their feet, but in their eagerness for the expected food they may rush upon you, pull you down, and tear you to pieces. Likewise, some men. when you, press the claims of truth on their attention, will not only despise the truth, but persecute you for annoying them with it. When such men are known they are to be avoided. Jesus acted on this principle in often refusing to answer the Pharisees, and the apostles did the same in turning to the Gentiles when their Jewish hearers would begin to contradict and blaspheme. (Comp. 15:2, 3; 21:23-27; Acts 13:46 Acts 19:9.) Prayer Encouraged, Matthew 7:7-117. Ask... seek... knock.—The two latter terms are figurative expressions of the same idea expressed literally by the first. Asking God for what we want is in the one compared to knocking at a door for admission; and in the other, to seeking for something which we wish to find. 8. for every one.—The universal declaration that every one who asks receives, is modified by the prescribed conditions of acceptable prayer. We have already seen that we need not ask for forgiveness unless we forgive (6:14, 15). We also learn that we must ask in faith (James 1:6-7); that we must not ask amiss to gratify our lusts (James 4:3); and that we must ask according to the will of God (1 John 5:14). Every one who asks according to these conditions, receives. 9-11. how much more.—Here is an argument from analogy. It is assumed that the paternal feeling which prompts us to give good things to our children exists in a still higher degree in God with reference to His children; and hence it is argued that he will much more give good things to those who ask him. As it is Jesus who assumes the likeness on which the argument rests, we may rely on the correctness of the reasoning; but we must be cautious how we derive arguments of our own from the analogy between God's attributes and the corresponding characteristics of man. We are in constant danger of fallacious reasoning here, because God's attributes are not sufficiently comprehended to make our deductions from them reliable. For example, this attribute of paternal feeling has been employed to disprove the reality of the eternal punishment with which God himself threatens the sinner, because the paternal feeling in man would prevent him from so punishing his own children. The fallacy of the argument consists in assuming that the feeling in question must work the same results in every particular in God that it does in man. But revelation teaches that such is not the case. Summary of the Moral Law, Matthew 7:1212. Therefore.—There is nothing in the preceding paragraph from which the precept in this verse is drawn as a conclusion. The conjunction rendered therefore (ὸυν) is not illative, but transitional. Instead of specifying other moral duties, Jesus here closes this division of his discourse with precept which includes them all. The title, Golden Rule, which has been attached to this precept, is a fitting expression of its value. all things.—Notwithstanding the universal form of this precept, it is obvious that one limitation must be understood. What 1 could rightly or reasonably wish another to do for me, our places being exchanged, is what I must do for him, no more. To understand the precept otherwise would be to make Jesus approve of unreasonable wishes, and erect them as the standard of right I must deal with my child, not altogether as I would wish were I the child and he the parent, but as I could rightly wish: and so in all the other relations of life. this is the law.—The statement, "this is the law and the prophets," means that in this is condensed all that is required by the law and the prophets as regards our duty to our fellow-men. It extends not to the ceremonial duties, or to the positive precepts of the law. Sermon on the Mount— ConcludedThe Way a Narrow One, Matthew 7:13-1413. at the strait gate.—Life and destruction— that is, eternal life and eternal destruction— are here represented by two walled cities: the one having a wide gate and a broad road leading to it; and the other, a strait gate approached by a narrow path. It is implied that care and precision are necessary in order to enter the latter; hence the few that find it: but that none is needed in order to enter the former; hence the many who go in thereat. It is to be hoped that in some future generation the preponderance will be reversed. How to Avoid Misguidance, Matthew 7:15-2015. false prophets.—The term prophets includes only those who ay claim to inspiration. Having the appearance of harmlessness, here represented by sheep's clothing, while secretly filled with mischievous purposes like those of a wolf in the sheepfold, the false prophets were well calculated to lead disciples out of the narrow way. What is true, in this particular, of false prophets, is also true of other false teachers, and consequently the precept is intended to guard us against all persons who by false teaching might lead us astray. 16-20. by their fruits.—As the false prophets appear in sheep's clothing, it must always be difficult to detect them. In judging them by their fruits we are doubtless to observe both their conduct as men and the effects of their teaching. If either is predominantly bad, the man is to be avoided. We say predominantly bad, because, as a good tree may have some specimens of bad fruit, so may a good teacher. 19. hewn down.—The hewing down of the bad trees and casting them into the lire indicate the final destruction of the false prophets. This verse contains a solemn warning against the personal ambition and the pride of opinion which are the chief incentives to false teaching. The true path to honor and usefulness lies in the most scrupulous restriction of our teaching to that which is true beyond all question. The Way not by Prayer or Miracles Alone, Matthew 7:21-2321. Lord, Lord.—To say, "Lord, Lord," is to call on the Lord in prayer. While it is almost impossible to overestimate the value of prayer when associated with a consistent life, it has been too common to attribute to it a virtue which it does not possess. The Pharisees were excessively devoted to prayer, and they led the people to believe that every prayerful man would be saved. The Mohammedans and the Romanists are subject to the same delusion, as may be seen in their punctilious observance of the forms of prayer while habitually neglecting many of the common rules of morality. It is here taught that prayer, unattended by doing the will of the Father in heaven, can not save us. doeth the will.—Doing the will of God must be understood, not in the sense of sinless obedience, but as including a compliance with the conditions on which sins are forgiven. Whether under the old covenant or the new, sinless obedience is an impossibility; but obedience to the extent of our ability amid the weaknesses of the flesh, accompanied by daily compliance with the conditions of pardon for our daily sins, has ever secured the favor of God. 22. Many will say to me.—In this verse many who have prophesied, cast out demons, and wrought other miracles, are represented as seeking admission into heaven, and as urging in proof of their fitness the miraculous powers which they had exercised. The context shows (verse 23) that the exercise of such powers is not conclusive proof of one's acceptance with God. It is proof of a commission from God, and, from the fact that God usually commissions good men, it establishes a presumption in favor of a man's goodness, the very presumption expressed in the text; but such gifts are no certain proof of good character. A bad man, as Balaam, might be selected for the exercise of such powers; and a good man, like Paul, after having exercised them, might at length become a castaway. (1 Corinthians 9:27.) 23. profess to them.—The Greek word here employed, ὸμολογέω, means to confess, not to profess. The appropriateness of the term is seen in the fact that while these men were working miracles in the name of the Lord, he appeared to be accepting them and approving their lives, but now he confesses that this appearance was not real; it arose from a misconception on their part and on that of others. never knew you.—Here the word knew, according to a Hebraistic usage, has the sense of approval, or of knowledge favorable to the person in question. We are warned in this paragraph against uncandid dealing with our own hearts, and partial estimates of our own characters. Unless we are well guarded at these two points we are in constant danger of self-deception, and of supposing that we are in the narrow way when we are actually walking in the broad road that leads to destruction. The Way Pointed Out, Matthew 7:24-2724-27. Therefore whosoever heareth.—In the preceding paragraph it was clearly intimated that the way of life consisted in doing the will of our Father in heaven (verse 21). In this the same lesson is taught and is made the leading thought of the paragraph. The difference between the two builders whose houses are used to illustrate the lesson, is only this, that one built on solid rock and the other on sand. Both represent men who hear the sayings of Jesus (24-26); the latter, those who hear and do not; the former, those who hear and do. The rock, then, is doing; and the sand is doing not. To enter by the narrow way through the strait gate, is to do the will of God; to fail of this doing is to travel the broad road. Compliance with the conditions of pardon must of course have its proper place in the doing. (See above on 21.) Effect of the Sermon, Matthew 7:28-2928, 29. as one having authority.— The most notable effect of the preceding sermon on the people who heard it, was the astonishment produced by a single feature of it, the authority with which Jesus taught. The authority assumed was absolute— the authority which belongs to God alone. It was not that of the scribes, who spake by the authority of Moses; nor that of Moses himself, whose expression was, "Thus saith the Lord;" but it was authority inherent in himself, enabling him to say, even when adding to the law of God itself, "I say unto you." Well might this astonish a people who, though they had learned to respect his goodness of character, were not yet believers in his divinity. Argument of the Sermon on the MountNo doubt Matthew's chief object in reporting this sermon was to put on record the lessons which it teaches; but his closing remark in which he states its effect on the people (Matthew 7:28-29) shows that he had not lost sight of the line of argument which pervades the other parts of his narrative. Having in previous sections exhibited Jesus as the actual Son of God, he here represents him as speaking with authority suited to his divine nature. If he was the Son of God, he could not properly speak with less authority; and if he was not, it was the extreme of madness and wickedness for him to speak as he did. The latter conclusion is inconsistent with the entire course of his life, and we are forced to the only alternative, that he was conscious of being the actual Son of the living God. Questionms by E.M. Zerr For Matthew 7 ( 1. Why should we not judge? 2. Otherwise, how will we be judged? 3. On what basis will it be measured to us ? 4. What should be considered before the mote ? 5. Failure to do so brands one as what ? 6. Are all entitled to favors? 7. How do swine show their lack of appreciation? 8. What previous verse does 7: 6 modify? 9. Tell the assurance for our asking. 10. What if we seek? 11. To whom does the Lord open? 12. With whom does Jesus make comparison? 13. State the use of bread and stone as illustrations. 14. What other illustration does he use? 15. Who are the ones here said to be evil ? 16. Yet what did they give ? 17. From this what conclusion is drawn? 18. Repeat the so-called rule. 19. Where was this principle taught previously? 20. We should enter what gate? 21. To what does the broad way lead? 22. How well is it patronized? 23. Describe the road to life. 24. What about the travelers? 25. Of whom beware ? 26. How are they clothed? 27. What are they in reality? 28. By what may they be known? 29. State the illustration with grapes and figs. 30.How is it applied to the good and corrupt tree. 31. What can a good tree not do? 32. Nor a corrupt tree? 33. State the fate of the corrupt tree. 34. What will some folks say in vain ? 35. State the class who will not say it in vain. 36. What will some claim about prophesying? 37. And about the devils? 38. Also had done what else? 39. What works claimed? 40. Does tjesus deny the claim? 41. What will he profess unto them ? 42. This makes them what kind of workers? 43. And what will they be told to do ? 44. On what does a wise man build? 45. What sayings compose such, a foundation ? 46. Provided one does what about them ? 47. Describe the test to be put on the house. 48. State the result. 49. How does the foolish man differ from the wise ? 50. State result of the test for him. 51. What is said of his fall? 52. How were people affected at doctrine of Christ ? 53. To whom was he superior as teacher? 54. In what did his superiority consist? 7:1 Judge not. These words are often quoted by people who resent being corrected for their wrong doing. Such persons fail to consider that the word has a very wide range of meaning and that they should learn the bearing of it in any particular place before applying it to themselves. Were they asked if they believe the Bible contradicts itself in any way they would say no, yet the same Greek word is used in John 7:24 where Jesus says for us to judge. But it may be replied that Jesus says to judge "righteous judgment." That is the very point, and hence our present verse simply means not to judge un-righteously. But if a judgment is according to the truth and facts in a case then it would be righteous judgment and not forbidden by this verse. 7:2 With the first verse explained this one should not be difficult. If a man passes unrighteous judgment upon another he lays himself open to condemnation. In other words, if a man condemns another without evidence, it will indicate that he is himself the guilty one and is trying to divert attention from himself to another. 7:3 The terms mote and beam are used figuratively to illustrate the inconsistency of a hypocrite. Two wrongs do not make one right, neither must a man profess to be "as pure as an angel" before he has the right to condemn sin in others. It should be noted that both these men were afflicted in the same manner (in the eye), only one was less than the other. The illustration pictures a man with a serious obstruction in his eye and wanting to operate on the eye of another who is much less affected. In practice it would be like a man condemning another for getting drunk every Saturday night when he was himself drinking every day. 7:4 This continues the thought of inconsistency just described. 7:5 A hypocrite is one who pretends to be what he knows he is not. This man pretends to have unaffected eyes, yet he knows better if he is able to recognize what is an affection in the other's eye. That is, he knows his own eye is not right if he can understand that a mote renders the other man's eye detective. Verse 6. Dog sometimes means a sodomite (Deuteronomy 23:18; Revelation 22:15) or other impure man, but it is here associated with literal swine and hence should be understood as meaning the brute creatures. Both animals were classed as impure and unclean under the law and hence are used to illustrate unworthy human beings. The lesson in the verse is that we should not bestow favors upon those who are not worthy. If a man spends money in unrighteous in-dulgencies, we should turn a deaf ear to him when be makes a cry of poverty and destitution. 7:7 The favors of God are offered to us on conditions. Thus the invitation to ask is restricted to the things that are "according to his will" (1 John 5:14). The promise of obtaining what we seek for is to be in harmony with chapter 6:33, and the same principle would apply to knocking, which is merely a sign that we wish to be admitted into the favor of God. 7:8 This is an assurance of fulfillment of the preceding verse, the key to it being in the words every one. Since God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34), it follows that all who meet the conditions set forth in the preceding verse will be favored of God without partiality as to who the individual is. 7:9 A humane father would not answer a son's request for bread with a stone. 7:10 Or will he substitute a fish with a serpent in his son's request. 7:11 Being evil is used as a contrast with God. The disciples would admit that they were sinful men and yet were humane in their treatment of their children. Certainly, then, a divine Father will be kind to his children. It is significant that He will give good things to them who ask him, not just anything they might think they needed. Even an earthly humane father might deny a request of his son if the thing asked for should not be the best thing for his welfare. 7:12 Therefore is from OUN and Thayer's over-all definition of it is as follows: "Then, therefore, accordingly, consequently, these things being so," and Robinson and Greenfield define it in virtually the same way. The conclusion is drawn from the facts and truths set forth in verse 7-11. God will not refuse to grant necessary favors to His children, and even sinful man will not refrain from granting like requests to a relative. Using this as an example, we should even not wait to be asked for a needed favor since we would not refuse the thing if requested, but should voluntarily advance the favor, such as we would expect from others under the same circumstances. This is the law and the prophets is equivalent to "on these hang all the law and the prophets" (chapter 22:40). If we love- our neighbor as ourselves we will do to him as we would expect him to do to us. We will not steal his property, or invade his home, or falsify on him, or seek to kill him, etc., because we would not want him to do so unto us. 7:13 A companion passage to this is Luke 13:23-30 where the connection shows the subject is eternal salvation after the judgment day. Enter ye in, therefore, means to enter into eternal life. Jesus first describes the way that leads to destruction. Gate and way are used figuratively, because there is no specific route established for the purpose of taking people to eternal death. It means that the opportunities for entering or starting on this evil way are many and the kind of life that will lead to death of the soul is so easy that it is compared to a wide or roomy one; that is the reason that many go that way. It is the universal practice of man to follow the course of least resistance in this life. Such is the way of sin because there are only a few people who will oppose a man who wishes to follow a life of sin. 7:14 Both Thayer and Robinson give "narrow" as one definition of the original for strait. Narrow is from THLIBO and is defined by Thayer, "A compressed way, 1. e. narrow, straitened, Matthew 7:14; figuratively to trouble, afflict, distress." From the definition we understand the road. to eternal life is one in which the traveler will be pressed with hardships and persecutions. It is also narrow in the ordinary sense of that word because the travelers go as individuals as far as responsibility is concerned, and just one man does not nted a wide path; the going is "single file." Find is from and Thayer's first definition is. "To come upon, hit upon, to meet with; to find a thing sought." Not many people are looking for a way of life that will bring them hardships and tribulation, hence Jesus says few there be that find it. 7:15 False prophets comes from which Thayer defines, "One who, acting the part of a divinely inspired prophet, utters falsehoods under the name of divine prophecies, a false prophet" The same author explains sheep's clothing to mean "the skins of sheep." A wolf having the skin of a sheep around him would be like these evil men who are posing as the prophets of God. 7:16 Know Mem by their fruits. The wolf would soon show his true character by his ravenous attack upon the unsuspecting sheep. A thorn bush or thistle will finally prove itself to be such by bearing thorns instead of fruit. 7-18 These verses are a direct statement of facts upon which the foregoing comparison was based. The statements are absolute and describe conditions that are normal, not those that may only seem to be. However, an evil tree without exception will be unable to bear good fruit If a tree that is or was naturally good appears to bear evil fruit it is because something has been done to it to interfere with its regular function and virtually turned it into an evil tree. We know that such a change is possible in the life of a man, for a good one may fall from his righteous course of life and become evil and henceforth bear evil fruit in his life. 7:19 In the literal field, a farmer will remove an evil tree to make room in his orchard for a good one, and will do away with the bad tree by burning it. The lesson is that if men do not bear good fruit, which means to practice good deeds while in this life, the great Owner of the garden will cast them into fire. 7:20 This verse is the conclusion of the important comparison of good and bad trees which applies to the lives of men in this world. 7:21 Lord is from KURIOS and means, "One who has control of a person, the master." The mere addressing one as a master without doing what he expects of his servant is inconsistent. Such empty professors will not be admitted into the kingdom of heaven, because there will be things that need to be done by its citizens. 7:22 Neither may a servant select his own type of activities according to what suits his preferences and expect to be rewarded for it. If that should be permitted there would be much necessary though less apparently glorious work neglected. The works described in this verse were possible in the days of miracles and Jesus does not deny the claims of these one-sided servants. 7:23 In spite of the ritualistic performances or works of display which these men did, there was something of the practical that was lacking. They did only what suited them and were content to construct a character that did not respect all the sayings of Christ. For this reason Jesus says he never knew you, which means he never recognized or endorsed them as being true servants. 7:24 No doubt the people described in the preceding verse lived a life that made a fair appearance to others because their deeds seemed out of the ordinary. Yet they were not well founded because they were not backed up by a program of practical obedience to the whole law of useful service. A house must not only be pleasing to the eye of an admirer in order to stand, but it must be founded on something solid. Hence Jesus compares the all-around and serviceable man to one who not only put some desirable things into the construction of his building, but who was careful to underlay it with a rock foundation. 7:25 The elements of the weather are used to illustrate the final test that will be put upon every man's life. The trials of this world will have their part to play in the great drama, but the final test will come when the Lord tries all mankind at the bar of the last judgment when Christ sits upon the throne of judgment. 7:26 The man who builds a house on the sand is like one who estimates his needs by present conditions only. In the absence of water and wind, sandy ground would seem about as firm as a rock, or at least enough so that it would appear firm and hard and suitable to hold up a house. Likewise, if no tests were made of a man's work in this life, either now or at the judgment, then one kind of spiritual structure might be as acceptable as another and hence he might as well do as he sees fit about it. 7:27 But the test is sure to come and the house on the sand will fall. Great will be the fall because it will be the loss of a soul. 7:28 The word for astonished is defined by "amazed" in the lexicon, which was caused by the doctrine or teaching of Jesus. People is from mums and that Greek word has been rendered by company 7 times, multi tude 79, number 1, people 82, press 5. It has a wide range of definitions in the lexicon such as, "a crowd; multitude of men who have flocked together in some place, a throng; the common people; a multitude." From chapter 5:1 and 8:1 we cannot conclude that it means all the people of the territory heard him in the mount, yet a considerable number did follow the Lord to that place as those desiring to learn of him. 7:29 Having authority, not as the scribes. The scribes were not inspired men neither were they in any official position. Their business was to copy the law and then quote it to the people for their information; they could only say "it is written." Jesus was the Son of God and could speak independent of all written documents, although he always respected what had been written by Moses and the prophets. Matthew 8 "THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Chapter Eight As Jesus’ ministry in Galilee continues, Matthew describes several miracles and related events. Coming down from the mount, Jesus cleansed a leper (Matthew 8:1-4). Entering Capernaum, He healed a centurion’ s servant (Matthew 8:5-13). Arriving at Peter’ s house, He healed his mother-in-law and many demon-possessed and all who were sick (Matthew 8:14-17). Before crossing the Sea of Galilee to escape large crowds, Jesus challenged two would-be disciples (Matthew 8:18-22). After calming the winds and waves of a great tempest (Matthew 8:23-27), He arrived on the other side of the sea where He healed two demon-possessed men (Matthew 8:28-34). POINTS TO PONDER * The nature and purpose of the miracles performed by Jesus * The cost of discipleship REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter? - Five miracles in the regions of Galilee and the Gergesenes - Matthew 8:1-17,23-34 - The cost of discipleship - Matthew 8:18-22 2) List the five miracles recorded in this chapter (Matthew 8:1-17; Matthew 8:23-27, 28-34) - Jesus cleanses a leper - Jesus heals a centurion’ s servant - Jesus heals Peter’ s mother-in-law (and many others) - Jesus calms the wind and the waves - Jesus heals two demon-possessed men 3) Before healing the centurion’ s servant, what impressed Jesus? (Matthew 8:10) - The great faith of the centurion who was a Gentile 4) Before healing the servant, what did Jesus foretell? (Matthew 8:11-12) - Gentiles would enter the kingdom, while many Israelites would not 5) In Peter’ s house, who did Jesus heal? What prophecy was fulfilled? (Matthew 8:14-17) - His mother-in-law, and all the sick that were brought to Him - "He Himself took our infirmities And bore our sicknesses" - Isaiah 53:4 6) What two lessons did Jesus teach about discipleship? (Matthew 8:19-22) - It can mean a life of poverty; it requires precedence over familial duties 7) What can we learn about fear and faith, before Jesus calmed the sea? (Matthew 8:25-26) - Fear comes from having little faith 8) Who did the demons acknowledge Jesus to be as He confronted them? (Matthew 8:29) - The Son of God Matthew 8:1-34 Verse 1 Mat 8:1-34 And when he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him. (Matthew 8:1)The first result of the Sermon on the Mount was to establish the popularity of Jesus on a vast scale. To be sure, it did not occur to the great multitudes that followed him that the strict principles he advocated would, in fact, be rejected by the vast majority of them who so eagerly followed. Verse 2 And behold, there came to him a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.Leprosy was, and is, a dreadful disease and was considered as a type of sin under the law of Moses; not that lepers were considered sinners, but the disease itself in its destructive course through the body bore remarkable suggestions of the similar ravages of sin in the soul. Elaborate rules were set up to isolate the leper and guard against his association with the community. Leviticus 13:49 and Leviticus 14:2 ff show the dread and revulsion associated with this malady. The leper believed in Christ but appeared to be uncertain of our Lord's willingness to heal him. Verse 3 And he stretched forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou made clean. And straightway his leprosy was cleansed.Touching the leper, Jesus again showed his power and authority over and beyond the law of Moses which forbade touching a leper (Leviticus 13:44-46). All who touched a leper were considered unclean themselves; and anyone, except Christ, touching a leper would have been defiled; but not only did Jesus' touch fail to defile him, it cleansed the leper! Christ often defied the "touch not" directives of the Law, as, for example, in the case of the bier of the widow's Son (Luke 7:14). The miracles of Jesus were usually instantaneous, complete, unquestionable, and attested by countless witnesses. The "lying miracles" (2 Thessalonians 2:9) of later times are never comparable in any of these particulars to the miracles of Christ. Verse 4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go, show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.Mark's account reveals that the leper disobeyed the Lord's command not to publish the matter (Mark 1:44-45). Christ, on several occasions, made similar requests to conceal such miracles. Examples of this are: the blind men (Matthew 9:30), many who were healed (Matthew 12:16), the disciples to whom he was revealed as the Messiah (Matthew 16:20), those healed by the seaside (Mark 3:12), those who saw the healing of the deaf-mute (Mark 7:36), those witnesses of the healing of the blind man of Bethsaida (Mark 8:26), and others. It may border on speculation to inquire why our Lord thus prohibited certain ones from telling it abroad, and yet on other occasions he even encouraged it. Trench has this: The injunction to one, that he should proclaim, to another that he should conceal, the great things which God had wrought for him, had far more probably a deeper motive, and grounded itself on the different moral conditions of the persons healed.[1] Trench also noted a practical reason in the case at hand. For the miracle to be properly attested, it was necessary that the appropriate gifts should be offered after Moses' commandment and that the priests should certify it. Until this was accomplished, he should hold his peace; lest, if a rumor of these things went before him, the priests at Jerusalem, out of envy, out of a desire to depreciate what the Lord had done, might deny that the man had ever been a leper, or else that he was now truly cleansed.[2] [1] Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Miracles (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1953), p. 237. [2] Ibid., p. 238. Verse 5 And when he was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him.This wonder is mentioned at greater length by Luke (Luke 7:1-10); and, of the so-called discrepancies, it may be said that there are none when proper allowance is made for the common practice of ascribing to one person the deeds he actually did through an agent, or the omission of details, or addition of details, by one narrator as compared with another. Such things are the only sure evidences of independent witnesses, casting no suspicion of inaccuracy, but rather corroborating and proving the validity of the account. Here, quite early in the New Testament, we are confronted with one of those persons called a , who appear in such a favorable light throughout the New Testament. A centurion was an officer in the Roman legions, having command of one hundred men, hence his title. Other centurions besides the honorable example before us include: (1) the one who said, "Truly, this was the Son of God" (Matthew 27:54), (2) the centurions who rescued Paul from the mob (Acts 21:32), (3) the centurion who bore Paul's message to the chiliarch (Acts 22:25), (4) Cornelius, the first Gentile convert (Acts 10:1), (5) Julius, who courteously treated Paul and saved his life on the voyage to Rome (Acts 27:3; Acts 27:43), and (6) the centurion who brought Paul's nephew to the chiliarch (Acts 23:17-18). Trench observed, "Probably, in the general wreck of the moral institutions of the heathen world, the Roman army was one of the few in which some of the old virtues survived."[3] Many of the Lord's most wonderful deeds were done in Capernaum. The miracle before us, the raising of the daughter of Jairus, ruler of the synagogue, and other outstanding demonstrations of his power and Godhead were exhibited there; and yet, in the final analysis, that city rejected him! ENDNOTE:[3] Ibid., footnote, p. 241. Verse 6 And saying, Lord, my servant lieth in the house sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.From Luke, it is plain that this officer came to Christ through the use of intermediaries who also brought testimony of the Jews in regard to the general favor in which this centurion was held by the citizens of Capernaum. This presents no difficulty, for every court of law still holds that what a man does through a duly-constituted agency, he himself actually and legally does. Thus, Christ himself was said to have made and baptized more people than John the Baptist, though he did not do so ! (John 4:1-2). The good character of this man is further certified by the fact that he was deeply concerned for the welfare of a slave, here called a servant. Verse 7 And he saith unto him, I will come and heal him. And the centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof; but only say the word, and may servant shall be healed.The term "servant" in this narrative actually means "bondservant," or slave. See the margin of the English Revised Version (1885). When word was relayed again to the centurion that Jesus would come and heal his servant, he took quick appraisal of the situation, and in a marvelous demonstration of true humility, confessed his own unworthiness that the Holy One should come into his house. Augustine said of the centurion that "Counting himself unworthy that Christ should enter his doors, he was counted worthy that Christ should enter into his heart."[4] The terminology of the King James Version still remains desirable in the case of "the word only," rather than "only say the word." It must be allowed that here indeed was great faith. Even today, there are those who suppose that Christ could do more on earth if he were personally present as in some millennial reign; but the centurion properly understood that the physical presence of the Lord was not necessary for the accomplishments of any of his wise designs. ENDNOTE:[4] Sermons by Augustine, 62:1. Verse 9 For I also am a man under authority, having under myself soldiers: and I say to this one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.This magnificent argument from the less to the greater is as fresh and original as it is grand. By implication, he recognized Christ as the Great Commander, the chief authority, not merely of earth but of heaven also, and having under his authority all things, even the things of the unseen creation. Verse 10 And when Jesus heard it, he marveled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.The centurion's faith contrasted sharply with the lack of it in the Jewish leaders who, although they should have been the first to recognize Christ and believe on him, were nevertheless his carping critics and sworn enemies. Jesus' first comment was directed toward that shameful and tragic condition. It was, then and there, announced by Jesus that the Gentiles would be received into the kingdom of God and that many "sons of the kingdom," that is, Jews, would not enter. Verse 11 And I say unto you that many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.In addition to the interest provoked by the projected entry of the Gentiles into Christ's kingdom, there is also the obvious intention of Jesus to declare that the patriarchs mentioned here are truly saved and that they make up a part of the great family of the redeemed. In view of the sins and shortcomings of those particular men, it seems that none in our own day should despair of winning the crown. This takes no light view of either their sins or ours, but is an overwhelming argument to the effect that "his grace is sufficient" (2 Corinthians 12:9). The fact that Luke does not record these words is no problem. All of the divine accounts are supplementary, each to the others. An example of this will be noted in detail on Matthew 27:37, which see. Verse 12 But the sons of the kingdom shall be cast forth into the outer darkness: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.This has the same prophetic import as Paul's words concerning the breaking off of the natural olive branches and the grafting in of the wild olive branches (Romans 11:17-24). The "outer darkness" is a reference to hell, or the place of final disposal of the wicked. It is interesting that Christ used various expressions descriptive of the final place of destiny for the wicked, referring to "unquenchable fire" (Matthew 3:12) in one place, and to "outer darkness" in another, The sons of the kingdom mentioned are the leaders of the Jewish nation who rejected Christ. Verse 13 And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And the servant was healed in that hour.Quite properly, there is no detailed account of the servant's illness. The only diagnosis is that given by the centurion; but the fact of the cure is emphatically declared. The details, which might have been very interesting, are overshadowed by the faith of the centurion and the resultant teachings of the Lord. Verse 14 And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother lying sick of a fever. And he touched her hand, and the fever left her; and she arose and ministered unto him.Matthew's status as an eye-witness of these wonderful deeds is unintentionally evident in his detailing of the very part of her body which the Master touched. No fabricator would have included a detail of this kind. Peter's being a married man is proof that celibacy was not a requirement of either disciples or apostles. Peter's mother-in-law attested the completeness of her healing by rising at once to minister to the Lord. No blessing of any kind, physical or spiritual, is intended solely for the benefit of the recipient. People are saved to save others. Those who were healed were healed to serve others! Verse 16 And when even was come, they brought unto him many possessed with demons: and he cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all that were sick.Demon possession is a problem for some. The sophisticated mind of this scientific age, as a usual thing, simply does not believe in such things as demon possession. It seems quite obvious that Christ did. It is the view here that Christ is divine, that his judgments were altogether true and accurate, and that, whether any such things exist today or not, they certainly EXISTED THEN. The fair and ordinary interpretation of many New Testament passages on this question leaves absolutely no alternative except to believe it. It is possible that Satan may have ceased this type of activity for the specific purpose of casting doubt upon the New Testament. However, if Satan has ceased such activity, a far more plausible reason is that there is sufficient knowledge of Christ among people today to make it impossible for Satan to operate unhampered. If one may believe the testimony of returning missionaries from the darker corners of the planet, even now there is much evidence that the same phenomena still exist. Until medical knowledge is much more complete than it is at present, it is far too early to write off the plain words of the New Testament and the overwhelming traditions of the whole human race reaching back to the dawn of history. John Pitt, in a remarkably perceptive book, Faith Healing, Fact or Fiction, quotes an eminent British scholar, R. J. Campbell, as follows: "If there is one thing almost beyond question to those who know the evidence in these days, it is that demon possession is not only a fact, but a fact of our times, as well as New Testament times."[5] Pitt also said, "The evidence is thus clear; our Lord did believe in demons as causative agents in some forms of sickness; he did not believe in a devil-infested world."[6] The verse before us inspired the following whose author is unknown: At even, when the sun was set, The sick, O Lord, around thee lay. O, in what divers pains they met, O, in what joy they went away! [5] Ibid., p. 37. [6] John Pitt, Faith Healing, Fact or Fiction (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1961), p. 38. Verse 17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet Isaiah, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our diseases.The passage quoted by Matthew is Isaiah 53:4. Matthew constantly appealed to the prophetic writers of the Old Testament, citing their long established and widely-known words as proof of Jesus' claim to be the Messiah. Verse 18 Now when Jesus saw great multitudes about him, he gave commandment to depart unto the other side. And there came a scribe, and said unto him, Teacher, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.Christ decided to go to the other side of Lake Galilee to escape the press of the multitudes; and, at this juncture in his ministry, there presented himself this scribe, probably the very first person of any importance, socially, to offer to become a disciple of Jesus. The Lord did not rush to accept him, recognizing, no doubt, that the scribe was carried away by our Lord's current popularity, and having utterly no understanding of the eventual sacrifices involved in becoming his disciple. The Saviour's very next words were pointed to the fact that Christ had no substantial emoluments available, either for himself or for any of his followers. Verse 20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the heaven have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.This shows the poverty of Jesus, from an earthly viewpoint; and yet we through his poverty are made rich (2 Corinthians 8:9). We are not told if the scribe followed Jesus after this, or not; but the strong implication is that he did not. Perhaps, like the rich young ruler, he found the conditions too rigorous. The title "Son of man," as applied by Jesus to himself, is one of deep interest. It was his favorite designation of himself, and he used it no less than forty times; but only once (in Acts 7:56) is it ever found on anyone's lips except his own. Some believe our Lord took this title from Psalms 8:4, "What is man, that thou art mindful of him; And the son of man, that thou visitest him?" In the New Testament, Christ is called: The Son of David .......................... Matthew 1:1 The Son of Abraham ........................ Matthew 1:1 The Son of God ............................ Matthew 16:16 The Son of Adam ........................... Luke 3:38 The Son of Joseph ......................... Luke 3:23 The Son of Mary ........................... Matthew 13:55 The Son of Man ............................ Matthew 8:20 Each one of these seven designations is true and proper in its own frame of reference. Why, then, did Jesus lean so heavily upon "Son of man" as a title for himself? First, it served to conceal his true identity during the period when he did not want it generally known that he was the Messiah, for there is every indication that the title was not recognized as a proper name for the Messiah until much later. Also, there is a universality in the title that does not pertain to any of the others. Thus, "the Son of David" indicated a legal relationship; "the Son of Abraham" had a racial limitation; "the Son of Joseph" and "the Son of Mary" stressed a family relationship; the Son of Adam identified him with the one who had brought ruin upon mankind; the Son of God during the early part of his ministry was premature. The choice of Son of man as his title removed all the limitations implicit in other titles and identified Jesus Christ, not as belonging to any race, family, nation, or kingdom exclusively, but to all the human race. Verse 21 And another of the disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus saith unto him, Follow me; and leave the dead to bury their own dead.The proposition set forth by the disciple mentioned here was not that his father was dead and that he desired to be excused to hold the funeral. Far from it. He was one of the group known as "wait a little" Pharisees who always proposed something else to do first. He meant that he was not free to be a disciple until after the death of his father but that he would be glad to follow Jesus after his father died. In a rejoinder which seems harsh if not understood in its true meaning, Jesus allowed no delay, encouraged no procrastination, and commanded that those spiritually dead should be left to bury their own dead. Furthermore, even if Christ had demanded that the disciple miss the funeral of his own father, such an urgency is fully in accord with the utmost importance of immediate, final, irrevocable and constant adherence to Christ as one's Lord and Master, regardless of cost or inconvenience. After all, in Sir Walter Scott's stirring from "Lady of the Lake," Roderick summoned his warriors to a far less noble rendezvous: "Leave the bride at the altar, the corpse uninterred!" Well did Jesus know that if this disciple returned home to the old ways, the old viewpoint, and the old habits, he would never more wish to follow his Lord. The admonition of Jesus, seen in this light, is therefore full of the utmost love and consideration for that unknown disciple's eternal welfare. Dr. Lotus Delta Coffman, president of the University of Minnesota until 1938, wrote many years ago in a syndicated column, "These words of Jesus, far from being unkind, were prompted by unbounded love and grounded in his infinite knowledge of what is best for man." Verse 23 And when he was entered into a boat, his disciples followed him.Why did not Matthew write merely that "they boarded a ship"? The significance is that the apostles observed the same protocol which from the most ancient times, and until this day, is observed by every ship on earth, especially the naval ships of all nations - those of highest rank enter and leave FIRST. Thus, the disciples already recognized Christ as Lord. Verse 24 And behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the boat was covered with the waves: but he was asleep.Many travelers to Palestine have commented on the violent storms which so often lash the Sea of Galilee, their intensity augmented by the steep mountain gorges that rim its shores, and by the greater density of the atmosphere so far below sea-level. Such storms are common, still; but that this was no ordinary storm is evident from the terror it struck into the hearts of these bold men who were so familiar with the usual character and intensity of such disturbances. Verse 25 And they came to him, and awoke him, saying, Save, Lord; we perish.The contrast between Jesus asleep in this storm and Jonah asleep in another is notable. Jonah's conscience was dead through sin and rebellion; Jesus' conscience was calm through innocence. Jonah was the source of danger on his vessel; Christ was the source of safety on his. The apostles' turning to Christ in this extremity is exactly what they should have done; but the lack of faith that prompted it is deplorable and was rebuked by the Master. Verse 26 And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.It is important to note the significance of the word "rebuked." Trench discussed this as follows: To regard this as mere oratorical personification would be absurd; rather there is here, a distinct tracing up of all the discords and disharmonies in the outward world to their source in a person, a referring them back to him, as to their ultimate ground; even as this person can be no other than Satan, the author of all disorders alike in the natural and in the physical world.[7] The great calm was matched only by the marvelous rest and confidence that came into the hearts of the disciples. Like the instantaneous miracles of healing, this wonder exhibits immediacy and completeness. The winds did not merely falter and die down; they ceased! ENDNOTE:[7] Richard C. Trench, op. cit., p. 156. Verse 27 And the men marveled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?It was then plain that every area of existence was totally under our Lord's authority. The spiritual world, the physical world, time, life, and death were, and are, utterly subject to his will. The force of this incident is multiplied when it is recalled that the rugged Galilean fishermen were perfectly capable of handling any ordinary turbulence with skill and efficiency. Verse 28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, there met him two possessed with demons, coming forth out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man could pass by that way.Gadara was one of the ten cities of Decapolis ("ten-cities"), all but one of which were east of the Jordan river. The ensuing wonder about to be performed upon the city's most notorious derelict was well calculated to provide a sensational witness of Christ's glory throughout the entire section. Mark and Luke mention only one of these persons, the principal one. Note that neither Mark nor Luke states that there was "only one" of these men. The fact of demon possession is plain here. These were possessed not merely with one, but with many, demons. The conversation the demons carried on with Christ, their entry into the swine, and many other factors make it impossible to reconcile this situation with one in which the victim was merely "sick." Given writes thus: When the Lord Jesus Christ had taken to himself a true body and a reasonable soul, when the word was made flesh and dwelt among men, Satan, by himself or by his servants, took possession of the bodies of men, cruelly torturing their flesh and agonizing their spirits. Nor are we prepared to say that demoniac possession has altogether ceased. We have seen men so act and heard men so speak and have been informed of such fiendish atrocity on their part, that we could account for their violent and outrageous conduct, or for their mischievous and diabolical acts, or for their horrid and blasphemous expressions, in no other way than that some demon, or the devil himself, had been permitted to take temporary possession of them.Mark 1:1-45, p. 234.">[8] ENDNOTE:Mark 1:1-45, p. 234.">[8] J. J. Given in the Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, Mark 1:1-45, p. 234. Verse 29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?The kingdom of evil, at this point, was fully aware of WHO Christ was (and is). If Satan had any doubt prior to this, Christ's rebuke of the winds and the sea removed it. These demons freely admitted and, in a sense, confessed Jesus as the Son of God, admitting that he had the power to torment them "before the time." This shows that the time of ultimate judgment and punishment of the condemned is set for future fulfillment and that the whole demonic world is fully aware of it. Verse 30 Now there was far off from them a herd of swine feeding.The unbelieving world, in a vain effort to fault the Son of God, has shown the desperate nature of its case by seizing on this incident as grounds for reproach of the Saviour. Will Durant wondered what the English wool-growers would have done to Jesus if he had sent a flock of their sheep to death as he had done with the Gadarene swine; they "would have made him swing for it," for English law made such an action a capital crime.[9] Over against English law, of the period mentioned by Durant, was the prior law of God which forbade swine to the Jews; and the implication is overwhelming that these swine were owned by Jews contrary to God's law; however, this cannot be proved. The true justification of Christ's actions here turns upon other principles. He did not destroy the swine; THE DEMONS DID! The argument that he permitted it may be applied with equal force to every disaster, physical or otherwise, that ever happened on earth. See more under Matthew 8:32. Note that Mark places the number of these animals at "about two thousand" (Mark 5:13). ENDNOTE:[9] Will and Ariel Durant, The Age of Voltaire (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1965), p. 120. Verse 31 And the demons besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, send us away into the herd of swine.This shows that the emissaries of Satan are restricted and may not enter even a herd of swine without the Lord's permission. Other restrictions of Satan are given in 1 Corinthians 10:13 and Matthew 13:25. This request of the demons is a prayer of sorts and indicates that God may indeed answer any prayer that is in harmony with His will, regardless of the wickedness of the petitioner. Thus, he permitted Satan to "sift" Peter. Also, Satan's request with reference to Job was also granted. This is a warning that it is surely a mistake to make the answer to someone's prayer "prima facie" evidence of pardon or forgiveness of sins. How unhappy must be the state of demons which cannot rest except when engaged in tormenting or destroying other beings in God's creation; and, even then, there is no suggestion that they are in any true sense actually happy, except in a relative or accommodative sense. Verse 32 And he said unto them, Go. And they came out, and went into the swine: and behold, the whole herd rushed down the steep into the sea, and perished in the waters.Note the quick and destructive results which followed the entry of the demons into the swine. Perhaps it was precisely for the purpose of showing what always follows when Satan has control that Jesus permitted this incident to happen. Satan entered the heart of Judas; and one has merely to turn a few pages to read the total destruction of Judas, physically and spiritually. Satan's character as the destroyer is revealed by the action here; and, in view of the overriding importance of this knowledge to all mankind, the loss of the herd of swine was a trifling incidental. As soon as the demons had their way, the swine perished. This is always the case when Satan has his way. Judas permitted Satan in his heart (Luke 22:3), and very soon afterwards, he went out and hanged himself (Matthew 27:5). If God is to be charged with all that is permitted, He would then be guilty in the case of floods, earthquakes, wars, pestilence, and indeed for all the unfortunate and destructive things that ever happened on earth. There is another weighty consideration, namely, the relative value of the two whose lives were saved by Jesus as a result of casting out the demons and permitting them to enter the swine. We do not know if this was the only way in which Jesus could have saved those lives, but we may surely believe that it was the best way. Would Mr. Durant, and other atheists, have preferred that two human sufferers should have been left in their awful state rather than permit the loss of an illegal herd of hogs? Our society today does not flinch at any cost, however great, if a life can be saved. When a child contracts poliomyelitis, a $25,000.00 iron lung is made available at once if needed. Who would spare the cost? Let infidels champion the economic interests of swineherds if they will, Jesus gave the verdict in favor of human life! Verse 33 And they that fed them fled, and went away into the city, and told everything, and what was befallen to them that were possessed with demons.From the other synoptics, it is learned that the demoniacs were clothed, in their right minds, and sitting at the feet of the Master. How strange it is that such a scene did not endear the people to Jesus. Surely, for such a wonderful recovery, the city fathers of Gadara should have been happy to make up the loss to the owners of the swine, if, indeed, they were legally held. But no, there had been a property loss, and every human value was lost in that consideration. For men of a materialistic and secular nature, a question of property overrides all others. There was the business of those 2,000 missing swine! Verse 34 And behold, all the city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw him, they besought him that he would depart from their borders.What about all the sick, infirmed, diseased, bedridden sufferers of Gadara? What about all the other demon-possessed in that city? Was no thought whatever given to the advantage that had come to the miserable sufferers of Gadara in the sudden appearance before their gates of the Great Physician? All, no! They judged themselves by their reaction to this marvelous opportunity. It was punishment enough for that wicked and unfortunate city that Jesus honored their request. All of their their blind, deaf, mute, palsied, and lepers were disinherited forever by the rash request that the Light of all nations should depart from their borders, and this says nothing of those immeasurably greater benefits of the gift of eternal life which were all renounced by this tragic rejection of the Son of God. There is no record that Jesus ever went near the place again, which shows how far-reaching are the consequences flowing out of one wrong decision. J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Matthew Chapter EightA Leper Cleansed, Matthew 8:1-4. (Mark 1:40-45; Luke 5:12-16)1. great multitudes.—The great multitudes that now followed Jesus are mentioned not only to show his popularity at this time, but also to emphasize the fact that the miracles about to be described were performed in the presence of many witnesses. 2. and worshiped him.—The Greek word rendered worship (προσκυνέω) is used both for the mere obeisance paid to a man of superior rank, and the supreme homage paid to God. Here it is used in the lower sense; for the leper, being a Jew, and having no adequate conception of the divinity of Jesus, would not pay to him the homage due to God. if thou wilt.—Convinced by the previous miracles which he had either witnessed or heard of, that Jesus could make him clean, the only question in the man's mind was, Will he do it? hence the words, "If thou wilt, thou canst." 3. and touched him.—The touch of a leper rendered a person legally unclean, and put him to the inconvenience of a legal cleansing. That Jesus touched this man in healing him was therefore an additional proof of his compassion. 4. tell no man.—This is the first mention of a prohibition which we will meet with frequently as we proceed with Matthew's narrative. It is accounted for by the necessity of guarding against such undue excitement among the people as might have provoked an interference from the military authorities, and such as would have rendered the people incapable of calm thought in reference to the teachings of Jesus. (Comp. Mark 1:45.) Sometimes, as occasion required, he reversed his course, and commanded men to go and tell what he had done for them. (See Mark 5:19-20.) For other remarks on this miracle, see the parallel in Mark 1:44. Healing a Centurion's Servant, Matthew 8:5-13. (Luke 8:1-10)5. a centurion.—An officer of the Roman army, called a centurion from centum, a hundred, because he commanded one hundred men. This centurion was a foreigner (10), and was probably connected with a garrison which kept the town of Capernaum. 8. I am not worthy.—The centurion knew that it was considered unlawful for a Jew to go into the house of a Gentile, and that this was on account of the sanctity which they desired to maintain. Whatever he may have thought of this as regards the Pharisees, he attributed to Jesus so high a degree of sanctity that he thought the doctrine certainly true in reference to him. 9. under authority.—There is peculiar force in the expression under authority. If the centurion, who was under authority to his superior officers, could still say to those under him, "Go," and "Come," much more could Jesus, who appeared to be under no authority, command the powers of life and death to go and come at his bidding. The man reasoned well. 10. so great faith.—The greatness of his faith was shown partly in his belief that Jesus could heal the servant by a word without going into the house; but chiefly in his lofty conception of the dignity of Jesus as compared with himself. Men of no faith regard Jesus and his religion as unworthy of them; faith reverses the scales of judgment, and the greater one's faith in Jesus, the less his comparative estimate of himself— he goes down as Jesus goes up. he marveled.—Jesus had all the feelings which are common to men, and consequently he was capable, like other men, of being astonished. If this seems to conflict with any theory concerning his nature, we should remember that it is one of the facts to be considered in forming our theory. The cause of astonishment was not merely the greatness of the man's faith, but that it was such faith as he had not found, "no, not in Israel." That an Israelite, educated under the law and the prophets, and prepared for the Lord by the preaching of John, should have ready faith in Jesus, was to be expected; but this man, with the greatest faith yet exhibited, was a Gentile, reared in hereditary heathenism. The remark of Jesus was a severe rebuke to the Jews. We may observe, incidentally, that the surprise of Jesus is inconsistent with the theory that he had himself, by a direct operation of the Spirit, wrought this great faith in the centurion; if he had he could not have marveled. 11. from the east and west.—This verse contains a prediction of the conversion of the Gentiles, and was very naturally suggested by the great faith of the Gentile centurion. 12. children of the kingdom.—The Jews were "children of the kingdom" in the sense that they were children and heirs of those to whom the kingdom was originally promised. To them it was first offered, and it was because they rejected it that they were to be "cast out into outer darkness." No doubt this prediction of Jesus was quite unwelcome to his hearers. outer darkness.—The kingdom of heaven in which many Gentiles were to sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (verse 11), must be the kingdom in its final state of glory; for these patriarchs lived too soon to sit down in the earthly kingdom. The outer darkness, then, which is contrasted with it, and into which those are to be cast out who are not admitted into the kingdom, must represent the final punishment of the wicked. Weeping and gnashing of teeth are expressive of sorrow and of anguish. 13. as thou hast believed.—The centurion believed that Jesus could heal his servant by speaking the word without going into the house, and as he believed it came to pass; he returned into the house and found the servant well. Cures at Peter's House, Matthew 8:14-17. (Mark 1:29-34; Luke 4:38-41) 14. Peter's house,—Peter's home was originally in Bethsaida, which was a suburb of Capernaum, and it may still have been there at this time. (See John 1:45, and note on Mark 1:29.) his wife's mother.—The text shows that Peter was a married man and keeping house, and that his mother-in-law was living with him. His brother Andrew also lived in the same house. What provision was made for his family when he left all to follow Jesus, we are not informed; but at a late period of apostolic history, he was still "leading about a sister wife." (1 Corinthians 9:5.) 15. the fever left her.—The fever was so high that the patient was prostrated and bedfast; yet at the touch of Jesus "she arose and ministered to them," being instantly restored to both health and strength. It was impossible for the witnesses to doubt that the cure was miraculous. 16. When the even was come.—See note on Mark 1:32. possessed with devils.—Properly, with demons. There is only one devil, and he is never designated in the Greek by the word (δαιμων) here translated devils. This term was applied by the Greeks to their inferior deities, some of whom were the offspring of the gods, and some the deified spirits of dead men. On this account Paul says that "The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice unto demons and not to God." (1 Corinthians 10:20.) He also said to the Athenians, "I perceive that you are (δεισιδαιμονεστέρους) very much given to demon-worship." (Acts 17:22.) Some of the same Athenians had just concluded that Paul was himself a proclaimer of foreign demons (ξένωνδαιμονιων), because he spoke of Jesus and the resurrection— that is, of Jesus as one who had died and risen again. (Acts 17:18.) Governed by the same conception, Festus, when he learned that the dispute between Paul and the Jews was about "one Jesus who was dead and whom Paul affirmed to be alive," concluded that it was a question about their (δεισιδαιμονίας) demon-worship. (Acts 25:19.) In the Jewish usage of the term it is applied exclusively to the departed spirits of wicked men. (See Josephus, Wars, B. VIII. ch. vi. § 3.) This usage was adopted by Jesus and the apostles, and consequently all that is said of demons in the New Testament agrees with it. In what way these wicked spirits gained possession of men; under what condition of mind or body a person was exposed to the possession; what degree of natural consciousness was still retained by the demoniac; and at what periods of history this strange phenomenon began and ended, are questions which remain as yet unanswered. That the phenomenon was, however, as it is represented on the sacred page, an actual possession of a person's faculties and powers by a foreign spirit, and not the mere effect of disease superstitiously regarded an demon-possession, is proved by the manner in which Jesus dealt with the demons, and by the superior intelligence which the demons displayed. (See the notes on 27:18; Mark 5:15-18 Mark 7:32.) Similar diseases of the body, and mental aberrations similar to those produced by the demons, occurred then from natural causes, as they occur now; but all such examples are distinguished from demon-possession by the absence of marks of intelligence and will in the causes of the affliction. 17. took our infirmities.—Took away our infirmities and "bore our sicknesses," by healing them. The connection (16) shows that this is the meaning. This is not a literal quotation from Isaiah (Isaiah 53:4), but it expresses, without exhausting the prophet's meaning. The prophet referred, not merely to the cure of bodily and mental diseases by Jesus, but also and chiefly to the final sufferings of Jesus by which our spiritual maladies may be healed. Stilling the Tempest, Matthew 8:18-27. (Mark 4:35-41; Luke 8:22-25 Luke 9:57-62.) 18. saw great multitudes.—When the multitudes about Jesus became too great he withdrew from them for the same reason which led him to forbid certain persons to speak of his cures. (Comp. verse 4.) To cross the lake was an easy method of escape, and it was frequently adopted. 19, 20. I will follow thee.—The scribe who proposed this was a disciple (comp. 21), but not one of those whom Jesus had commanded to forsake all and follow him. He seems to have desired to go as a guest, but Jesus gently declines his company by telling him that, unlike the beasts and the birds, he has no place of shelter, and can not, therefore, entertain his friends. We thus incidentally learn that Jesus was now without a home, and that for food and lodging he was dependent on the hospitality of the people. We find him frequently eating by invitation in the houses of his enemies, but sleeping in those of his friends. 21, 22. another of the disciples.—This man was doubtless one of the twelve, and it has been conjectured with a good degree of probability that he was James or John, Zebedee being the father who was to be buried. Comp. 20:20, where Salome is called "the mother of Zebedee's children," instead of Zebedee's wife, implying that Zebedee was no longer living. In the answer of Jesus there is a play on the term dead. It was a man physically dead who was to be buried: but those who were to bury him were dead in another sense, in a sense in which the disciple was not dead; that is, they were dead to Jesus. Under ordinary circumstances it is proper for a disciple not only to assist in paying respect to the dead, but to be foremost in it; but the call on this disciple came into direct conflict with the command of Jesus, "Follow me;" and he was taught that even the most solemn and tender duties of social life must give way to a command of Jesus. The case is an extreme one, and on this account the lesson it teaches has greater emphasis. It should be noted, as partly illustrative of the case, that to assist at a funeral made a man unclean, and that not less than seven days were requisite for his purification. This would require a considerable delay on the part of the disciple. (See Numbers 19:11-22.) We have in this incident a striking exhibition of the extremes which met in Jesus. Here is authority as exacting as that of an eastern autocrat, combined with poverty as extreme as that of an eastern beggar. The poverty is confessed without a blush, and the authority is asserted without an apology. In any other than the Son of God these two extremes could not have met without the most ludicrous absurdity. 23, 24. he was asleep.—The deep sleep into which Jesus fell during the short voyage, a sleep so profound that the noise of the terrific storm and the rolling of the vessel failed to awake him, is accounted for by the fatigue and the nervous exhaustion consequent on his preaching to the great multitude. He was the only one asleep on the vessel. 25, 26. O ye of little faith.—The terror of the disciples would have been excusable but for the presence of Jesus. With him in the vessel it argued weakness of faith, because the many miracles which he had wrought should have convinced them that he had power over the winds and the waves. Notice, here, that fear and faith stand in opposition to each other. 27. the men marveled.—Their astonishment when Jesus calmed the tempest by his word is another evidence of weak faith. Had they realized the fullness of his divine power, they would have been surprised at nothing he did. It is well, however, that he adapted himself to the weakness of human faith, by working so great a variety of miracles as to leave even the weakest disciple no room to doubt that with him all things are possible. Demons Cast Out, Matthew 8:28-34. (Mark 5:1-20; Luke 8:26-40) For comments on this miracle see the notes on Mark 5:1-20, where all the details here given are repeated, and others of importance are added. Questions by E.M. Zerr For Matthew 81. What attention was shown Jesus? 2. Who came to him? 3. Tell what he did. 4. Repeat his request. 5. What was Jesus* reply? 6. How soon was he cured? 7. What was he told not to do ? 8. To whom was he to show himself? 9. On what law was this based ? 10. What offering was he to make? 11. Tell what purpose was this to serve? 12. Into what city did Jesus enter? 13. Who came to him? 14. What was his official position? 15. For whose sake had he come to Jesus? 16. What was the matter with him ? 17. State the proposal of Jesus. 18. Why did the centurion protest? 19. What did he think was necessary only? 20. Give his reasoning on the subject. 21. How was he both under and over? 22. State the estimate Jesus gave of him. 23. From where would many come ? 24. With whom would they sit down? 25. Where would they thus sit? 26. What will happen to the children? 27. Who are they ? 28. State the condition when cast out. 29. When will this be done? 30. What was said to the centurion ? 31. Tell the progress of his servant’ s case. 32. Into whose house did Jesus next enter? 33. What did he see there? 34. Tell what he did. 35. State the result. 36. What evidence that she was healed ? 37. At even who were brought to Jesus? 38. By what did he cast out the devils ? 39. What was done for the sick? 40. Whose prophecy was fulfilled by this? 41. What prompted Jesus’ command to depart 42. Who came to him? 43. State what he professed to Jesus. 44. What shows Jesus understood his motive? 45. Did Jesus ever want for a place to rest? 46. Why did he not have it to give to others ? 47. State the excuse a disciple made. 48. And the reply of Jesus. 49. How could one dead man bury another? 50. Is it wrong to help bury the dead ? 51. What must be considered more important! 52. Into what did Jesus next enter? 53. Who followed him? 54. What came up over the sea? 55. Tell what Jesus was doing. 56. State the activities of the disciples. 57. What did Jesus do to the disciples? 58. Tell what else he rebuked. 59. With what result? 60. State effect this had on the men. 61. What country was on the “ other side” ? 62. Who met Jesus at that place? 63. State the kind of dwelling they had. 64. Describe their condition. 65. What recognition did they give Jesus? 66. State the question they asked him. 67. Before what time did they mean ? 68. What creatures were some distance away? 69. State the request of the devils. 70. Was it granted? 71. What perished, the swine or the devils? 72. How did this affect the keepers? 73. What did they do about it? 74. Who came out to meet Jesus ? 75. State their request. 8:1 The multitudes evidently were the ones Jesus left behind in chapter 5:1 when he went up into the mount. Their interest did not seem to be strong enough to take them up the place where they would have to climb. Nov that he is again on the lower level they are ready to go along after him. Followed him refers to their bodily movement in walking with him and not to any particular attitude of mind toward his teaching. 8:2 The leper worshiped Jesus which would mean only that he assumed a position of respect. See the long definition of the word at chapter 2:2. The law of Moses required a leper to maintain a safe distance from others (Leviticus 13:45-46), hence the conduct of this man could be only one of courtesy. Leprosy was incurable except by miraculous power, and Jesus had previously proved his ability to cure bodily ailments by his miraculous power (Matthew 4:23-24). 8:3 Jesus was willing to heal the leper and did so both by physical contact and word of mouth. The healing was immediate and not like the pretended working of miracles today where the patient is exhorted to "hold out with faith and finally be cured." 8:4 There was no medical cure for leprosy known to the ancients but sometimes a leper was cured miraculously. And after the physical cure had been accomplished, a ceremonial cleansing was required under the law .which included certain sacrifices. (See Leviticus 14) The Mosaic law was in force in the time of Christ, hence he commanded this man to comply with that ordinance pertaining to leprosy. For a testimony unto them. When the former leper presented himself before the priest to perform this service, it was proof that a miraculous cure had been done and hence another bit of evidence would be furnished of the power of Jesus. 8:5 The Funk and Wagnalls New Standard Bible Dictionary defines a centurion as follows: "The commander of a 'century,' i. e., a hundred men, the sixtieth part of a legion, in the Roman army." This man was a Gentile, being an official in the Roman military forces. But the fame of Jesus had reached the ears of all classes, and they believed that the benefit of his mercy was to be enjoyed by any who were afflicted. 8:6 The word Lord in the original has several shades of meaning, one of which is "sovereign, prince, chief." This centurion had not become a disciple of Jesus and hence he did not address him as Lord from that standpoint. But he had learned enough about his great work to believe him to be be a superior person in wisdom and power. He therefore appealed to him on behalf of his servant who was sick of the palsy which was a form of paralysis that retained a considerable amount of feeling in the parts. 8:7 Jesus was able to give "absent treatment" as effectively as otherwise. However, the proposal to come to the home of the centurion drew from him an expression of complete faith. He had not even requested that Jesus come, but only appealed to him in the attitude of a simple trust in his power and willingness to do something for him. 8:8 This verse gives us one reason why the centurion had not askel Jesus to come to his home; he did not feel worthy of such a guest. He therefore was to be satisfied with the favor to his servant though absent, and expressed his belief thus. 8:9 This verse indicates that the good things the centurion said in the preceding verse did not come out of a desire to use empty flattery, because he gave a logical reason for his statement. Under authority . . . under me is a very significant line of argument. The centurion had the power to give commands to servants who were under him, even though he was himself under another. Jesus, on the other hand, was under no one (as the centurion thought) and hence should be able to exercise unrestricted authority. This was in line with one definition for Lord which is: "One who has control of a person, the master." 8:10 A meaning of marvel Is "to admire." Jesus could not be surprised or impressed as if by some unexpected occurrence for his wisdom was divine. Therefore we are to understand this to mean he was filled with admiration for this unusual exhibition of faith. So great faith, no, not in Israel. The centurion was not a member of the nation of Israel but belonged to the idolatrous Gentiles. Yet he showed more faith than the people who were supposed to possess great confidence in the seed of Abraham. 8:11 East and west is used figuratively to mean the earth or world in general, not merely the land of the Jews that was virtually restricted to the land of Palestine. Kingdom of heaven means the "everlasting kingdom" that is promised in 2 Peter 1:11 to the faithful. To sit down means to become a guest and admitted to the hospitality of a home. It is used in this place to refer to the favors that will be given to the faithful in the Eternal Home after this life on earth is over. 8:12 Children is from Hums and Thayer's definition at this place is, "those for whom a thing is destined." It does not necessarily mean those who had actually become members of the kingdom, but those who would logically have been expected to be foremost in entering it as were the Jews. The fathers of that nation, Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, had lived faithfully under the system that was in force over them (the Patriarchal Dispensation), but their descendants of the later centuries in the time of Christ rejected the teaching of their great seed and will be rejected in the day of judgment. Paul set forth this same thought in his speech at Antioch (Acts 13:46). 8:13 Having concluded his speech to the hardened Jews, Jesus gave his final attention to the centurion by promising him the favor he requested. As thou host believed means that the centurion would receive the favor he believed he would, namely, the healing of his servant at once by the simple word of Christ. -Hence the statement that the servant was healed in the selfsame hour is given in direct connection. 8:14 One-observation we should make here is that Peter had a wife, contrary to the dogma of the church of Rome. Laid means she was prostrated with the fever as if thrown down by the force of the disease. 8:15 In this case Jesus saw fit to make bodily contact. We are not told here whether he said anything, but in Luke 4:39 it says he "rebuked the fever." This healing also was immediate and complete for the woman was able to perform the work of administering to them. 8:16 Thayer defines even in this passage to mean, "from our three to six o'clock P. M." That accounts for the many things that seem to have been done yet on that same day. Possessed with devils will be explained at verse 28, but it should be noted here that healing the sick was distinguished from casting out devils. It is also stated that Jesus did both with his word. 8:17 That it might be fulfilled does not always mean that a certain thing was done just so a particular prophecy might be fulfilled, although it will sometimes mean that. Whichever the case may be, it will be well to consider it in the light of saying, "and in so doing the prophecy was fulfilled which," etc. The prophecy cited here is in Isaiah 53:4. 8:18 Sometimes the multitudes were so great that it interfered with the work of Jesus (Mark 2:4; Mark 3:9; Luke 8:19). That was the case here and hence Jesus gave orders for them to depart unto the other side (of the Sea of Galilee). 8:19 A full description of the work and character of the scribes will be given at chapter 13:52, but I will state now that they were a very important group of men among the Jews. They made great pretentions of learning and wished to be recognized as an indispensable class. This scribe came to Jesus with an air of one who was deeply concerned in the work of the new teacher who was gaining so much fame among the people. But Jesus knew his heart as he always did all other men, and knew that he had mixed motives in his apparent devotional attitude. 8:20 To follow Jesus at that time meant to go bodily over the country with him and with no certain arrangement for personal comfort. The foxes and birds had fixed places of abode and always knew where they would lodge. However, we should not take the saying of Jesus to mean that he would be like a friendless wayfarer with no chance of accommodations at night. We are sure that he had friends (such as the family of Lazarus) who gladly opened their homes for him. But he did not hold possession of any such a place so that he could provide the comforts of temporal life for his followers, hence there was no object in following him with such luxuries in view. There is no ground for saying this verse is a statement to show how "poor" Jesus became as a popular notion claims for it. 8:21 It is unreasonable to suppose that this man's father was actually dead at this time, for had that been the case he would not have been away from home. The necessary conclusion is, then, that the father was aged and likely to pass away almost any time, and the son presented this family duty as an excuse for not going abroad over the country with Jesus. 8:22 As the father was not yet dead, and this man professed to be a disciple of Jesus and hence alive spiritually, he should leave the temporal work of a burial to those who were dead spiritually. The general lesson in the case is that even as important a circumstance as a funeral should not be allowed to interfere with the spiritual services we owe to Christ. 8:23 The disciples were that part of the crowd that professed to be the followers of Jesus in belief as well as wanting to go along with him in the traveling. We would naturally conclude that the multitude could not enter the ship. 8:24 In the Scriptures as in any other literature, we should deal with figurative language according to reason. We know that had the ship been literally covered with the water , the disciples would have already perished and would not have been able to speak. The meaning of the passage is, therefore, that the ship was filling and that unless it was stopped they would perish. 5-26 The disciples had been with Jesus and had seen his power over great obstacles. They should have had such confidence in him that as long as he was with them no harm could come. Their failure to take that view of it was the reason for charging them with "little faith." Jesus then did what they should have confidently expected him to do; he stilled the tempest. 8:27 Each new miracle seemed to fill the disciples with astonishment. The distinguishing feature of this event would lie in the fact that it was inanimate things that Jesus controlled. That is indicated by their word obey, which ordinarily would require intelligent response which the storm could not do. 8:28 Gergesenes (also called Gadarenes) was situated near the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee. The tombs were caves in the rocks that were used for the burial of the dead. They were generally open so that persons could enter and leave them as occasion suggested. It was in this kind of a place that the Lord met the two afflicted men. Possessed with devils all comes from the Greek word . Another Greek word that is always (with one exception) rendered by "devil in the Authorized Version is . These two Greek words are so frequently related that I shall consider them both in the comments at this verse. I shall quote from both Thayer and Robinson as they discuss the words in their lexicons. Because of the important history that they give in connection with their specific definitions, I think it will be well to give the reader the benefit of this authentic information. It will be so necessary in various places in our study of the New Testament, that I urge the reader to make it convenient to consult it carefully any time it is referred to. First will be Thayer on : "In the N. T. are persons afflicted with especially severe diseases, either bodily or mental (such as paralysis, blindness, deafness, loss of speech, epilepsy, melancholy, etc.), whose bodies in the opinion of the Jews demons had entered, and so held possession of them as not only to afflict them with ills, but also to dethrone the reason and take its place themselves; accordingly the possessed were wont to express the mind and consciousness of the demons dwelling in them; and their cure was thought to require the expulsion of the demon." Next is Thayer on "1. the divine Power, deity, divinity . . . 2. a spirit, a being inferior to God, superior to men . . . evil spirits or the messengers and ministers of the devil . . . to have a demon, be possessed by a demon, is said of those who either suffer from some ex ceptionally severe disease, Luke 4:33; Luke 8:27; or act and speak as though they were mad, Matthew 11:18; Luke 7:33; John 7:20; John 8:48. . . . According to a Jewish opinion which passed over to Christians, the demons are the gods of the Gentiles and the authors of idolatry. . . . The apostle Paul, though teaching that the gods of the Gentiles are a fiction (1 Corinthians 8:4; 1 Corinthians 10:19), thinks that the conception of them has been put into the minds of men by demons, who appropriate to their own use and honor the sacrifices offered to idols." Next will be Robinson on : "In New Testament, to have a demon or devil, to be a demoniac, to be possessed, afflicted, with an evil spirit; found only in the Gospels." Next is Robinson on the Greek word dai-monion: "1. generally a deity, a god, spoken of heathen gods, Acts 17:18. 2. specifically a demon. In the New Testament, a demon, devil, an evil spirit, an unclean spirit. These spirits are represented as fallen angels, 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6; and are now subject to Satan as their prince, Matthew 9:34; Matthew 25:41; 2 Corinthians 12:7; Revelation 12:9. They were held to have the power of working miracles, but not for good, Revelation 16:14; to be hostile to mankind, John 8:44; to utter the heathen responses and oracles, Acts 16:17; and to lurk in the idols of the heathen, which are hence called daimonia, devils, 1 Corinthians 10:20. . . . They are likewise represented as the authors of evil to mankind, both moral and physical." 8:29 These devils were fallen angels (see note on preceding verse), and had been in the place of torment in Hades (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6) where they 'would have remained until the time of judgment for which they were being reserved. They had been enjoying a short relief from that torment by being in these human creatures. They knew they would be doomed eternally at the last judgment, but if they could remain on earth until that day they would escape that much torment. But now if Jesus sends them back to their place in Hades, they will again be tormented before the time of the great judgment day that is awaiting all intelligent beings. 0-31 Rather than go back to their previous place in Hades, these devils preferred to inhabit the swine because then (as they thought) they would get to remain on the earth until the judgment of the last day. 8:32 Their request was granted but it did not benefit them very long. The possession of devils sometimes caused great physical derangement in men, and here it produced a madness in the swine that caused them to plunge into the water and perish. 8:33 Such an event was so unusual that the keepers fled into the city and reported the whole thing to the people. 8:34 The people came out to where Jesus was and requested him to leave the community. That could not have been on account of the one afflicted with the devils for in Mark's account (Mark 5:19-20) he was benefited and became a preacher of Jesus. The only conclusion possible is they feared others might lose some of their stock. Matthew 9 "THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Chapter Nine Back in Capernaum, Jesus’ ministry in Galilee continued with both forgiving and healing a paralytic (Matthew 9:1-8). Matthew the tax collector was called to be a disciple, who invited Jesus to his home where He was questioned by the Pharisees and disciples of John (Matthew 9:9-17). Asked by a ruler to go and raise his dead daughter, Jesus did so, healing a woman with a flow along the way (Matthew 9:18-26). Afterward Jesus healed two blind men and a man who was both mute and demon-possessed (Matthew 9:27-34). He then went about the region, teaching and healing, moved with compassion for the multitudes that came to Him (Matthew 9:35-38). POINTS TO PONDER * Jesus’ power to forgive sins * His willingness to eat with sinners * His compassion for the lost REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter? - Five miracles in Capernaum of Galilee - Matthew 9:1-8; Matthew 9:18-34- The call of Matthew and the questions at his house - Matthew 9:9-17- The itinerant teaching and healing in cities and villages - Matthew 9:35-38 2) List the five miracles recorded in this chapter (Matthew 9:1-8; Matthew 9:18-34) - Jesus forgives and heals a paralytic - Jesus heals a woman with a flow of blood - Jesus restores a ruler’ s daughter to life - Jesus heals two blind men - Jesus heals a man mute and demon-possessed 3) How did Jesus demonstrate His power to forgive sins? (Matthew 9:6) - By healing a paralytic 4) Who was called to be a disciple and then gave a feast at his house? (Matthew 9:9-10) - Matthew, also known as Levi, author of this gospel (cf. Luke 5:27-29) 5) What two groups confronted Jesus regarding what two issues? (Matthew 9:11-17) - The Pharisees, concerning eating with sinners - The disciples of John, concerning fasting 6) What explanation did Pharisees give for Jesus’ ability to exorcise demons? (Matthew 9:34) - "He casts out demons by the ruler of the demons." 7) What moved Jesus to call for prayer for more laborers? (Matthew 9:36-38) - Compassion for the multitudes who were like sheep without a shepherd Matthew 9:1-38 Verse 1 Mat 9:1-38 And he entered into a boat, and crossed over, and came into his own city. (Matthew 9:1)Christ simply and immediately complied with the request of the citizens of Gadara and shipped immediately to his own city, Capernaum, directly across the lake. This body of water, some 12 or 13 miles in length and only about six miles wide, did not require long to cross. Deductions from this abrupt departure of Jesus are significant: (1) Christ will not force his gospel upon any man or upon any community. (2) The fact that Jesus never returned to Gadara shows how a single decision may have the most extensive consequences. (3) The future history of this area was determined in a single day, even in an hour, when these hapless citizens, ignoring the fantastic blessing which had come to two of their number, and thinking only about the loss of the swine, requested the Saviour of the world to leave their shores. Foolish and irrevocable as their decision was, it does not stand by itself, because countless souls are continually making decisions just as tragic. Verse 2 And behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, be of good cheer; thy sins are forgiven.This is one of those "mighty works" mentioned by Jesus in his reproach of Capernaum (Matthew 11:23). Important details are mentioned in Mark 2:1-12 and Luke 5:17-26 which are not contained in Matthew. Mark tells that he was carried by four men, and Luke relates the breaking up of the roof to let him down to Jesus. Seeing their faith refers not merely to the faith of the four but of the man with the palsy as well. He could not have permitted or encouraged such activity on his behalf if he had not truly believed in Jesus. What a reward he received, "Thy sins be forgiven!" Christ dealt with the sin problem first, for it was most important. Also, there is the possibility that in his case sin was the cause of his illness. Christ's announcing the forgiveness of this man's sins was clearly the assertion of the prerogatives of deity. "Who can forgive sins, but one, even God" (Mark 2:7). Verse 3 And behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.The thinking of the scribes that only God could forgive sins was altogether correct. Moreover, if Christ was not God, as he claimed to be, they were correct in attributing blasphemy to Jesus. Christ himself accepted both these assumptions and demonstrated his divinity in the miracle that followed. The Scriptures relate in this place what the scribes said "within themselves!" This is one thing which no other literature except the Bible can relate, that is, what people say "within themselves." Verse 4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?Two things are plainly apparent in this verse: (1) that Christ knew people's thoughts, an ability only God could have, and (2) the Scriptural "heart" is the part that THINKS, thus equating it with the mind, or the seat of the intelligence. Verse 5 For which is easier, to say, Thy sins are forgiven; or to say, Arise and walk?Of course, one of these is as easily "said" as the other; but the overwhelming impact of this lies in the plain truth, presented here by Christ, that a person who cannot do BOTH can do NEITHER! Those of every age who dare to say, "I absolve thee," should prove their power really to do it by demonstrating the other side of the same power, performing miracles. Christ consented to do this, and "the servant is not above his master" (Matthew 10:24). Inability to do the miracle is proof that the pretender is also unable to forgive sins. Verse 6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive sins (then saith he to the sick of the palsy), Arise, and take up thy bed, and go unto thy house.But that ye may know ... is equivalent to saying men could NOT KNOW Jesus' power to forgive sins without such a demonstration of his power. Now, if it is allowed that the Christ himself could not cause people to know of his power to forgive sins without the accompanying power to heal the body, how much more is it certain that people should never expect to have their claims to powers of absolution accepted without a similar demonstration on their part? Jesus' handling of this entire case shows that the power to forgive sins pertains to God alone and that only divine power can accomplish it. Here Christ places the absolution of sins on parity with performing a miracle, affirming in fact that one is as easily done as the other. What sophistry, then, must be attributed to those who "pretend" to do one but cannot even pretend to do the other! A clear understanding of these words of Christ would prohibit the unwarranted assumption of authority by those who make it their business to forgive the sins of other people! Verse 7 And he arose, and departed to his house.Thus, another mighty wonder performed by the Master followed the usual pattern: (1) It was complete. (2) It was immediate. (3) It was accomplished by a mere word. (4) There were no incantations. (5) There was no agonizing. (6) There were no loud prayers. (7) It was totally accomplished with the utmost ease in the presence of his enemies, without prior staging, and without any props. Verse 8 But when the multitudes saw it, they: were afraid, and glorified God, who had given such authority unto men.The fear of the multitude is proof that they saw in this great miracle nothing but the power of God in a dramatic display of authority over sin and disease. God's power, even in nature, is always awe-inspiring; and it is much more so when seen in those areas of the soul itself which are concerned with man's spiritual health. The words "unto men" are at first surprising, Why is it said, "unto men," whereas men simply cannot do the things mentioned here? Trench explained it thus: "They felt truly that what was given to one man, to him who had just set himself forth under the title of `the Son of man,' was given for the sake of all, and given ultimately to ALL, that thus it was indeed given `unto men'."[1] Also, Jesus did appoint plenipotentiaries with full authority to announce men's forgiveness, namely, apostles, with authority to bind and loose on earth with equal consequences in heaven. (See Matthew 16:19). Those who profess to see in this spontaneous comment from the rabble positive sanction of THEIR authority to forgive sins certainly see far more than is in it. ENDNOTE:[1] Richard H. Trench, Notes on the Miracles (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1953), p. 227. Verse 9 And as Jesus passed by from thence, he saw a man, called Matthew, sitting at the place of toll: and, he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.How many of Jesus' mighty deeds were done "as he passed by"? (John 9:1; Matthew 4:18; Matthew 9:27; Mark 11:20, etc.). He seized the golden chances as they came. Whatever came to hand, that he did to the glory of God. Note that he saw "a man." Some would have seen only a tax collector, but Jesus saw the scholarly student of the prophecies, the human heart that beat beneath the tax-taker's shirt. Disciples in this generation would do well to follow his example. How often men's eyes are blinded by prejudice, social bias, or self-interest, and they fail to see "the man." They see instead a banker, a policeman, a farmer, a negro, a doorman, a taxi driver, a soldier, a grocer, etc. How comforting is the thought that the Saviour always saw (and sees) the man, whatever the outward circumstances that may disguise him from his fellows! One wonders if this call of Matthew was as spontaneous as it seems from this brief account of it. Very probably, Matthew, like the four fishermen, already had some knowledge of Christ and his teachings when the call occurred. The brevity of this account shows the humility and modesty which characterized this ancient publican who rose to such heights in the service of the Lord. Matthew's call was a challenge to the Pharisees and other snobbish groups of that day. A publican was a social outcast. Nothing good was expected of such a person; and, in this call, Jesus showed that the church has a mission to the downtrodden as well as to others. Adam Clarke makes this feast to occur in the house of Matthew, as indicated in Luke 5:29.[2] Publicans were renters of the Roman taxes, an occupation particularly odious to the Jews, and the more so on the part of one of their own race who was thus leagued with the despised oppressors of the land. and SINNERS were synonymous terms in the culture of that day. That the Messiah would attend a feast with such a man and even name him to the apostleship was a fact which few people of that day, especially the rulers, could accept with any degree of tolerance. Their bitterness toward the despised and socially unacceptable masses was the prime reason for their failure to recognize Jesus as their Lord. Snobbishness is still a reality in many hearts, and its effect of spiritual blindness are just as real and fatal now as then. ENDNOTE:[2] Adam Clarke, Commentary (New York: T. Mason and G. Lane, 1837), Vol. V, p. 109. Verse 10 And it came to pass as he sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with Jesus and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Teacher with the publicans and sinners? But when he heard it, he said, They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick.Regarding the place and make-up of the company that attended the feast mentioned here, see final paragraph under Matthew 9:9 above. Note that the Pharisees, by directing their questions to Jesus' disciples instead of to him, were attempting to open a wedge between them and were trying to inoculate the disciples with their own blind prejudice. Jesus' rejoinder to the effect that the sick, not the whole. require a physician, was rich in irony. It passed over the fact, known to all, that spiritually the Pharisees themselves were about the sickest people of that generation. Whether the Pharisees got the point or not is not revealed; but it may safely be assumed that if they did not, others did. The whole population was fully acquainted with the greed, cunning, duplicity, and general wickedness of those evil men who sat in Moses' seat. Jesus' remark might well have been the occasion for a roar of laughter. Verse 13 But go ye and learn what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice: for I came not to call the righteous but sinners.Both here and in Matthew 12:7, Christ quoted from Hosea 6:6. The context in that passage shows that Christ was here comparing the Pharisees with the reprobate priesthood of Hosea's times. In that same paragraph, Hosea charged, "And as the troops of robbers wait for a man, so the company of priests murder in the way by consent; for they commit lewdness" (Hosea 6:6-9). This, of course, must have infuriated the Pharisees who, as subsequent events would prove, were every whit as wicked as the Lord indicated. His words continued to be ironical when he said, "I came not to call the righteous"; for of course he did call the truly righteous, and, for that matter, even the Pharisees; but they would not be called. Verse 14 Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?At this point, the disciples of John were already beginning to be jealous of the rising popularity of Christ (John 4:1-3). The use of the participle "were fasting" in Mark 2:18, show that this feast in the home of Matthew probably took place on a Monday or Thursday, when the Pharisees and disciples of John the Baptist were observing their customary feasts. The appearance of John's disciples at that moment shows that the Pharisees had not overlooked any occasion for making trouble. They had obviously tried, with some success, to maneuver a breach between the followers of Christ and those of the Baptist. How could Jesus defend the conduct of his disciples without drawing a rebuke from John whose public endorsement of Jesus had, in effect, launched our Saviour's ministry? In an answer as diplomatic, and devastating, as the famous reply on the tribute money, Jesus gave three parables, the last of which is given only by Luke, in which he fully defends both his own and John's respective views. These parables are: (1) new cloth on old garments, (2) new wine in old wineskins, and (3) the person familiar with old wine does not desire new. The reference to the relaxation of rules during a wedding, however, was the most devastating of all. Verse 15 And Jesus said unto them, Can the sons of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then will they fast.This was an answer calculated to convince John's disciples, because John had already identified Jesus as the bridegroom, saying, "He that hath the bride is the bridegroom" (John 3:29). There is heavenly genius in this answer of Christ. The habit of the Pharisees of indulging every appetite, to the point of gluttony and drunkenness, at a wedding, makes this a center shot. Since Christ is the bridegroom, THIS IS A WEDDING (in a spiritual sense)! It is likely that this reply was greeted with howls of laughter. Yet there is a tragic note here also. The holy bridegroom will be "taken away from them," that is, by these same pious hypocrites who were so solicitous about the strict observances of their petty fasts. Verse 16 And no man putteth a piece of undressed cloth upon an old garment; for that which should fill it up taketh from the garment, and a worse rent is made.The illustration in this place is simply that of trying to patch an old garment with a piece of new, that is, unshrunken, cloth which, if attempted, would prove unavailing as soon as the garment was washed. The shrinkage of the new piece would tear itself out and the rent be made worse. The application is that Jesus did not come to apply Christianity as a new patch upon the old garment of Judaism. Christianity was not designed as an addition to Judaism, not as a patch upon an old system, but as an excitingly new and different religion altogether. Verse 17 Neither do men put new wine into old wineskins: else the skins burst, and the wine is lost, and the skins perish: but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved.This illustration refers to the custom of putting wine into the bladders and skins of animals. Only new wineskins could serve for unfermented or new wine. After fermentation, the skins hardened and became brittle, thus becoming entirely unsuitable for new wine, yet continuing to serve well enough as containers for old wine. The application was that Christ did not pour the new wine of his teaching into the old wineskins (John's disciples) but into new wineskins (his disciples). It is noteworthy that none of Jesus' disciples had previously been followers of John. The reason is explained in this passage. It took new hearts, fresh viewpoints, unaccustomed to the practices and prejudices of old ways, to contain the marvelous new teachings of Christ. Verse 18 While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a ruler and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.This miracle of raising Jairus' daughter from the dead is the first resurrection recorded in the New Testament. There were three such wonders, forming a sequence: (1) Jairus' daughter had been dead only a very short time. (2) The son of the widow of Nain had been dead longer and was being carried to the tomb. (3) Lazarus had been dead and buried for four days (Luke 7:12; John 11:1-57). Christ considered raising the dead a part of his ministry (Matthew 11:5; Luke 7:22), and he delegated the power to the apostles (Matthew 10:8). Peter raised Dorcas from the dead, acting under this commission (Acts 9:40). Regarding Jairus' daughter, the quibble is raised that she might not have been dead but had merely swooned; however, the statement of the damsel's father, the presence of the hired mourners, and their laughing Jesus to scorn, knowing her to be dead, remove any thought that only a swoon had occurred. Such quibbles are grounded on false premises, namely, that one type of miracle was more difficult than another for Jesus to perform. Actually, there is no difference in raising a person from the dead who has been dead only a few minutes, and raising one who has been dead a thousand years. Furthermore, such miracles as cleansing lepers, healing the blind, deaf, mute, palsied, etc. were in no sense either easier or more difficult than raising the dead. All such wonders were done effortlessly by the Son of God. Jairus was the ruler of the synagogue, and was among the most respected and honored citizens of Capernaum. It is strange that after so much was done by Jesus for so many, including wonders worked on behalf of the city's leading citizens, that Capernaum rejected him. Verse 19 And Jesus arose and followed him, and so did his disciples.From the other accounts, it is learned that only Peter, James, and John accompanied him into the inner chamber where this great deed was wrought. The other disciples, however, were doubtless not far away. Verse 20 And behold, a woman, who had an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the border of his garment.This remarkable case was mentioned by Eusebius, whose remarks quoted by Dummelow are: She was a heathen living at Caesarea Philippi, near the sources of the Jordan. Her house is shown in the city ... and at the gates of which, on an elevated stone stands a brazen statue of a woman on her bended knee, with her hands stretched out before her like one entreating. Opposite to this is another statue of a man, erect, of the same materials, decently clad in a mantle, and stretching out his hand to the woman. This statue, they said, was a likeness of Jesus Christ.[3] The so-called Report of the Procurator Concerning Our Lord Jesus Christ contains this: And a woman that had an issue of blood for many years, and whose joints and veins were drained by the flowing of the blood, so that she did not present the appearance of a human being, but was like a corpse, and was speechless every day, so that all the physicians of the district could not cure her (was in such a condition) that there was not any hope of life left to her. And when Jesus passed by, she mysteriously received strength through his overshadowing her; and she took hold of his fringe behind; and, immediately in the same hour, power filled up what was in her empty, so that, no longer suffering any pain, she began to run swiftly to her own city Kepharnaum, so as to accomplish the journey in six days.[4] Perhaps these ancient quotations have little value, but they serve to focus a little further attention on this wonderful deed which came as a parenthesis in the more important miracle of the raising of Jairus' daughter. [3] J. R. Dummelow, One Volume Commentary (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 659. [4] Pontius Pilate, quoted in ancient writings, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), Vol. VIII, p. 460. Verse 21 For she said within herself, If I do but touch his garment, I shall be made whole.Here again is noted that characteristic of the Scriptures which reveal what people said within themselves. In this chapter is recorded what the Pharisees said within themselves, and here is related what this woman said within herself. Other examples are those of the unjust steward and the prodigal son (Luke 15:17; Luke 16:3). The surmise of this woman that only a touch was required to heal her was altogether correct. One of the profoundest statements in Holy Writ is Mark 6:56. "As many as touched him were made whole." If with all our striving, we may but TOUCH HIM, we shall be made perfectly whole. Verse 22 But Jesus turning and seeing her said, Daughter, be of good cheer; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour. It is plain from this that Jesus rejected whatever of superstition there may have been in the woman's act. A suspicion that some element of superstition might have motivated her comes from the fact that she touched a particular part of his garment supposed to be especially holy. That was the tuft, Matthew 9:22 (Brooklyn, New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society), p. 38."[5] or tassel, which, according to Numbers 15:37, every Jew wore on the four corners of his cloak to remind him of God's commands, and which was considered the holiest part of his apparel. Jesus' action, as more fully given in Mark 5:25-34, and his plain words made it clear to the woman that he, of his own will, had healed her; and that she had not merely taken advantage of some supernatural influence radiating from his person. ENDNOTE:Matthew 9:22 (Brooklyn, New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society), p. 38.">[5] Emphatic Diaglott, Matthew 9:22 (Brooklyn, New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society), p. 38. Verse 23 And when Jesus came into the ruler's house, and saw the flute-players, and the crowd making a tumult.The flute-players were the hired mourners who took part in every funeral of that day. The large crowd and the general tumult were due to the prominence of the family in which this tragedy had occurred. The very suggestion that a prominent ruler of the Jews, such as Jairus, had gone so far as to hire public mourners for a daughter who was merely sick or had swooned, is ridiculous. Are there any examples, even in modern times, when a funeral was actually planned and under way for a person who was not actually deceased? Verse 24 He said, Give place: for the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn.Here, in the words of Jesus, of course, are the grounds for cavil; but it should be remembered that Christ said the same concerning Lazarus who had been dead and buried for four days (John 11:11). The actuality of death is not the point in either case, but the nature of death. IT IS A SLEEP. In death, as in sleep: (1) there is a loss of consciousness; (2) both are terminated, sleep by awakening, and death in the resurrection; (3) there is a rejuvenation or rebuilding of powers during the period of waiting; or, more properly, both are followed by an state of the person; (4) there is no total destruction and loss of the person in either case; (5) and there is no loss of personality or identity. Jesus thus gave an utterly new concept of death; and from that came the custom, universally observed among Christians, of writing "asleep in Jesus" upon the tombs of the departed. The words "And they laughed him to scorn" should be read in close connection with what immediately followed and is recorded in the next verse. Verse 25 But when the crowd was put forth, he entered in, and took her by the hand; and the damsel arose.They scorned him, but it resulted in their being put out of the room. Then, as in all ages, scorners proved witnesses only against themselves. What an opportunity they denied themselves! Ever afterwards, it must have been a source of remorse to some of that company that their conduct had made it impossible for them to witness one of the great wonders of all time, and to see that remarkable outflashing of the glory from the Majesty on high. Mark recorded the actual words Jesus spoke to the maiden, "Talitha Cumi," an Aramaic expression meaning "Damsel, I say unto thee, Arise!" There was no strain or pressure on Christ. This astounding deed was done as easily as he spoke the words, and with no more exertion on his part. Christ was delayed, due to the incident concerning the woman with the issue of blood, in reaching the home of Jairus. Thus, it might be said that Jairus' prayer for our Saviour's aid was answered after delay. Prayers are often answered, not at once, but after delay; and the child of faith should not despair during the interval when it appears that no answer is forthcoming. God in his own time will bless those who call upon Him in faith. Verse 26 And the fame hereof went forth into all the land.Mark mentions Jesus' request that the deed should not be publicized; but, in this case, there was no possible way to prevent its being widely known. Breaking up a funeral already in progress would be an event almost impossible to conceal. From this, it is supposed that Jesus merely meant that Jairus should conceal the truth until Jesus and his disciples could have safe passage through the throng of people. Mark also noted that Jesus commanded that the damsel should be given something to eat (Mark 5:43). Verse 27 And as Jesus passed by from thence, two blind men followed him, crying out, and saying, Have mercy on us, thou Son of David. As Jesus passed by ... (See under Matthew 9:9). The symbolism of this incident is magnificent. Although the learned Pharisees and doctors of religion could not see Christ as the Messiah, or Son of David, these blind people COULD! Even a blind man knew that the Messiah had indeed appeared in the person of Jesus Christ. Matthew alone recorded this incident. From various Old Testament passages, it is clear that blindness is a type of sin (See Deuteronomy 28:29; Isaiah 59:10; Job 12:25; Zephaniah 1:17; Isaiah 29:8; also Ephesians 5:8; and Matthew 15:14). A number of examples of Jesus' restoring sight to the blind are recorded and were prophetically included as a positive mark of the Messiah's power when he should be revealed. Isaiah said of the Messiah and his times, "Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened" (Isaiah 35:5). The expression "Have mercy on us, thou Son of David" has seven words as do so many forceful expressions in Scripture. See other examples in Matthew 6:7; Matthew 6:11; Matthew 6:20; Matthew 6:28; Matthew 6:24 - all in a single chapter. Countless others may be noted in both the Old and New Testaments. Verse 28 And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him: and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? They say unto him, Yea, Lord.Christ tested the faith of the two men by waiting until he had entered the house and they had followed, and also by asking them if they believed he was able to do it. They passed the test, and Jesus healed them. Verse 29 Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it done unto you.Jesus often touched the person of the ones he healed. In this case, he touched their eyes. In a sense, Christ's words to those ancient blind men are applicable to all in every age who seek his blessing. "According to your faith be it done unto you." Verse 30 And their eyes were opened. And Jesus strictly charged them, saying, See that no man know it. But they went forth, and spread abroad his fame in all the land.The Greek term in this place translated "strictly" is actually "sternly," as a glance at the English Revised Version (1885) margin will show. It must follow, then, that those recipients of the Lord's healing grace were most reprehensible in their violation of his orders not to tell it. Trench noted that most Catholic commentators on this place, "applaud rather than condemn these men for not adhering strictly to Christ's command (which) conduct should be regarded, not as a fault, but a merit."[6] On the other hand, interpreters of the Reformed Church see in this "a blemish in the perfectness of their faith who thus disobeyed; a fault which remained a fault, even while they recognize it as one which only grateful hearts could have committed."[7] This profound difference of the views of expositors is ascribed by Trench to the desire of the reformers to "take God's word as absolute rule of law, and to worship him not with self-advised services, but after the pattern which he has shown ... that obedience is better than sacrifice, even though the sacrifice be intended for God's special honor."[8] We say the same and can only wonder at the disobedience of those who had been so signally honored and healed by the Saviour. [6]Richard C. Trench, op. cit., p. 215. [7] Ibid. [8] Ibid. Verse 32 And as they went forth, behold, there was brought to him a dumb man possessed with a demon.On demon possession, see under Matthew 8:28 ff. Verse 33 And when the demon was cast out, the dumb man spake: and the multitudes marveled, saying, It was never so seen in Israel. But the Pharisees said, By the prince of the demons casteth he out demons.See under Matthew 12:24 ff for more on the prince of demons. The Pharisees were absolutely unwilling to admit any good thing in Jesus. When they were unable to deny his wonderful deeds, they questioned the source of his power. In addition to accusing Christ of being in league with the devil, they made a big issue of the cures wrought on the sabbath day; and, it may be assumed, they denied, whenever practical, that any good deed had been done. There is an implicit admission of this in their words, "A notable miracle hath been wrought through them ... and we cannot deny it" (Acts 4:16). This is very nearly the equivalent of their saying that they would have denied the miracle of the apostles performed at the Beautiful Gate of the temple, if they could have done so with any prospect of being believed. Verse 35 And Jesus went about all the cities and the villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of disease and all manner of sickness.The total number of Jesus' miracles must have been truly fantastic. There were mighty deeds in all the cities and villages and upon all kinds of sicknesses and diseases, as well as upon demoniacs. What significance, in the light of this, must be in the words of John who said: Many, other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name (John 20:30-31). Verse 36 But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion for them, because they were distressed and scattered, as sheep not having a shepherd.This records Jesus' own reaction to the extensive tour of Galilee mentioned in the preceding verse, in which the opposition of the Pharisees had been so evident, with the consequent confusion and distress of the people. Christ viewed the situation with profound pity for the multitudes and proposed, at once, to correct it by sending out his disciples as missionaries to bear widespread testimony to the truth. The word "compassion" in this place gives an insight into the benevolent and gracious heart of Christ. It indicated a combination of love, pity, concern, and deep emotional feeling for the "lost sheep" of the house of Israel. Verse 37 Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest indeed is plenteous, but the laborers are few. Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he send forth laborers into his harvest.Christ here asked his disciples to pray for that which he himself was about to initiate, namely, the sending forth of more witnesses to the truth of the kingdom. The sending forth of the Twelve was Jesus' own response to the marvelous opportunity for reaping a great harvest of souls. Significantly, Christ asked the disciples to pray about it; and he himself continued all night in prayer before naming the Twelve (Luke 6:12-13). In view of this, should Christ's disciples today undertake any project without prayer for guidance and blessing? If Jesus leaned so heavily upon the arm of prayer, how much more should his disciples ask, and seek, and knock to obtain that providential support, without which every human endeavor must inevitably come to naught? McGarvey Commentary For Matthew Chapter NineHealing the Paralytic, in Capernaum, Matthew 9:1-8. (Mark 2:1-12; Luke 5:17-26) 1. his own city.—At the beginning of his ministry in Galilee Jesus left Nazareth and came and dwelt in Capernaum (Matthew 4:12-13), and the latter was thenceforward "his own city." 2. thy sins be forgiven.—As the terms of pardon prescribed in the law were yet in full force, this speech of Jesus was a surprising assertion of authority. It was also exceptional in the ministry of Jesus; for only on three recorded occasions did he thus forgive sins. (See Luke 7:48 Luke 23:43.) Being exceptional, and not the established method of pardon, it must have been designed for a special purpose. The purpose is plainly declared in verse 6 below. 3. This man blasphemeth.—The scribes were right in charging him with blasphemy if he was not the Son of God. He doubtless made the remark for the purpose of forming this issue, and thereby preparing his hearers for the demonstration which followed. 4. think ye evil.—The thought of the scribes was evil, not because it was illogically drawn from their premises, but because their premises were wrong in that they denied the divinity of Jesus. 5. whether is easier.—This use of whether is now obsolete, having been supplanted by which. The scribes could not deny that it was as easy to say with effect to the man, "Thy sins are forgiven;" as to say, "Arise and walk." The power to work miracles does not in itself imply the authority to forgive sins; but it does when the authority is asserted and the miracles are wrought in proof of it. 6. that ye may know.—Assuming the only possible answer to his question as granted, he now demonstrates his power to forgive sins by commanding the man who was paralyzed to arise from his bed, and take it up, and go home. He had been brought there on his bed, perfectly helpless; he returns, carrying the bed in his arms. The proof was demonstrative, showing that Jesus was in the highest sense a Savior, because he could save men from their sins as well as from the diseases of the body, the stormy elements of the sea, and the power of demons. 8. they were afraid.—Here it the same fear that was exhibited by the Gergesenes (8:34); but instead of asking Jesus to leave their country, the people "glorified God who had given such power to men." Notice here Matthew's peculiar use of the plural. It was to the man, Jesus, that the power was given, and to men only as he was contemplated as one of the race. For remarks on the faith displayed by the friends of the paralytic, see the note on Mark 2:5, where the details are more fully stated. Matthew's Call and Feast, Matthew 9:9-13. (Mark 2:15-17; Luke 5:29-32) 9. the receipt of custom.—The Greek word (τελνιον) here rendered "receipt of custom," means "the office of publican," or, "a collector's office." Matthew was a publican (Matthew 10:3), and was receiving the taxes assessed by the Roman government. (Comp. notes on Matthew 5:46-47.) he arose and followed him.—That Matthew promptly obeyed when Jesus said "Follow me," is proof that he was already a disciple. He now becomes one of the immediate personal attendants of the Lord, preparatory to being appointed one of the twelve. We are not to conclude, from the apparent abruptness of his movement, that he neglected to settle the accounts of his office. An honest settlement of accounts was indispensable to a good name in the future. 10. at meat in the house.—From Mark 2:15, and Luke 5:29, we learn that this feast was in Matthew's own house. It was a kind of farewell feast, preparatory to leaving all and following Jesus. The publicans and sinners who made up the company were his old associates, and the only persons, except Jesus and his companions, who would honor Matthew's invitation. 11. with publicans and sinners.—The publicans and other sinners habitually neglected the law and the traditions in regard to legal purifications, and therefore the Pharisees regarded it as incompatible with religious purity to associate with them. 12, 13. he said.—Had Jesus been unable to vindicate himself in reference to these associations, his cause would have been damaged in the estimation of many good persons. But he here presents three brief arguments which are so conclusive, and so tersely expressed, that they must have taken his accusers by surprise. First, his office being analogous to that of a physician who visits the sick and not the well, sinners are the very persons whom he should visit. Second, God himself had said in the Scriptures, "I will have mercy and not sacrifice"— a Hebraism, which means, "I will have mercy in preference to sacrifice." (Hosea 6:6.) The mercy shown to these publicans and sinners by mingling with them for their good, was more acceptable to God than the sacrifices of the altar. (See the context in Hosea.) Third, "I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners." His call was a call to repentance, and therefore sinners alone were those to whom he should go; and the greater the sinners, the greater the need that he should be among them. It is impossible to conceive a more complete vindication, or one more happily expressed. It should be observed, before we dismiss this incident, that neither the example nor the arguments of Jesus justify us in keeping company with bad people, except for the purpose of doing them good— the purpose for which the physician visits the sick. Question about Fasting, Matthew 9:14-17 (Mark 2:18-22; Luke 5:33-39) 14. the disciples of John.—The fact that the question about fasting was propounded by the disciples of John should not be overlooked. It shows that the question was not intended as a captious objection, but as an honest inquiry: for although the disciples of John were not, as yet, identical with those of Jesus, we can not class them among the enemies of Jesus. Fast ing twice in the week was regarded by the Pharisees as a mark of superior piety (Luke 18:12), and the disciples of John seem to have agreed in this matter with the Pharisees. Indeed, John himself practiced what may be regarded as a continual fast, eating only locusts and wild honey, and this was well calculated to impress his disciples with great respect for fasting. It appeared to them, therefore, as a serious defect in the religious life of Jesus and his disciples, that they paid no respect to the regular fast days. The feast at Matthew's house, which occurred on a fast day (see note on Mark 2:18), very naturally brought the matter up for consideration, because it shocked the sensibility of the objectors. 15-17. Jesus said unto them.—Jesus reduces the objection to an absurdity by three arguments from analogy. First, he refers to the wedding customs of the day, and demands, "Can the children of the bridechamber"— that is, the invited guests at a wedding— "mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them?" While he remained with his disciples, they were enjoying a wedding feast, and it would be absurd to fast as if they were mourning. But when he should leave them they would fast, because that would be a time of sorrow. Secondly, he draws an argument from the absurdity of putting a patch of new (properly rendered unfulled) cloth on an old garment. The unfulled piece, never having been shrunk, would shrink the first time it got wet, and would tear open the rent still wider. Thirdly, it would be equally absurd to put new wine into old bottles. The bottles being made of goat skins, an old one had little strength and no elasticity, and therefore the fermentation of new wine would burst it. The argument drawn from these two examples is not, as some have supposed, that it would be absurd to patch the old Jewish garment with the unfulled cloth of the gospel, or to put the new wine of the gospel into the old Jewish bottles; for the question at issue was not one concerning the proper relation of the gospel dispensation to the Jewish law, but one concerning the propriety of fasting on a certain occasion. Moreover, in Luke's report of this answer we find the additional argument, "No man, having drunk old wine, straightway desireth new; for he says the old is better." (Luke 5:39.) To carry out the interpretation just named, would make Jesus here argue that the old dispensation was better than the new But the argument is the same as in the first example. It shows that it would have been absurdly inappropriate to the occasion for his disciples to fast, as much so as to mourn at a wedding, to patch an old garment with unfulled cloth, or to put new wine into old bottles. The arguments not only vindicated his disciples, but taught John's disciples that fasting has value only when it is demanded by a suitable occasion. The Ruler's Daughter and the Bloody Issue, Matthew 9:18-26. (Mark 5:22-43; Luke 8:41-56.) 18. a certain ruler.— Ruler of a synagogue. (Mark 5:22.) Even men of this class were ready to honor Jesus when they were in distress and wanted his aid. So it is with sinners generally. even now dead.—On this expression see note on Mark 5:23. 20-22.—See for remarks on the cure of the bloody issue the notes on Mark 5:25-34, where the account is more elaborate than here. Matthew mentions it briefly as an instance of the cure of a chronic disease by merely touching the hem of the Savior's garment. 23. saw the minstrels.—Minstrels in a house of mourning would be incongruous according to western taste. But among the Jews it had been customary for ages to call to their service, on funeral occasions, certain women who were professional mourners, and who, by continual wailing and plaintive instrumental music, intensified the grief of the family and friends of the deceased. (Comp. Jeremiah 9:17-18; Amos 5:16; and see Smith's Dictionary, Art. Mourning.) 24. not dead but sleepeth.—The maid was actually dead (Luke 8:53), but not, as the company thought, permanently so. She was about to be revived, and her death would then be more like sleep than death. The remark of Jesus was easily understood by the Jews after he had raised her to life, but before he did so it appeared so absurd that "they laughed him to scorn," or derided him. This is the only instance given by Matthew of raising the dead. The account is singularly free from suspicion as to its authenticity. If it were a pretended death and revival, we would expect to see an anxiety on the part of Jesus to make it appear that the girl was dead, and a disposition on the part of the unbelievers present to question this fact. But the reverse is true: it is the unbelievers who insist that the girl is dead, while Jesus alone raises a question about it. Perhaps the chief object of the remark, "She is not dead, but sleepeth," was to bring forth from the inmates of the house, who had the best opportunity to know the fact, a more emphatic affirmation that she was certainly dead. For a more elaborate discussion of the details of this miracle, see the notes on Mark 5:22-43. Two Blind Men Healed, Matthew 9:27-3127. Thou son of David.—By thus addressing Jesus, the blind men acknowledged him to be the Christ; for it was understood by all the Jews that the Christ was to be a son of David. (See 22:42.) 28. Believe ye.—Being blind, the two men could not see the miracles for themselves; hence the pertinency of the question, "Believe ye that I am able to do this?" That they believed with so little opportunity to know the evidence, being necessarily dependent on the testimony of others, shows, on the one hand, the abundance of the evidence, and, on the other, the obduracy of those who could see and still would not believe. Jesus questions them in order to draw attention to this consideration. He had also paid no attention to their cries until after they followed him into the house, in order that they might show their faith by their perseverance. 30, 31. See that no man know it.—The cure of the woman with the issue of blood, immediately followed by the resurrection of the ruler's daughter, and this by the cure of the blind men, had probably thrown the people into an ecstasy which once more required repression by the injunction of silence. (Comp. 8:4.) Mark tells us that Jesus gave the same injunction to the parents of the girl just mentioned. The two blind men, however, were too much exhilarated by the recovery of their eyesight, to heed the command of Jesus, or, perhaps, to believe that he meant what he said. They were too full to hold in; so "they spread abroad his fame throughout all that country." The Dumb Demoniac, Matthew 9:32-3532. a dumb man.—He was dumb in consequence of the demon-possession, as appears from the fact that he spoke as soon as the demon left him. (Matthew 9:33.) Demon-possession had different effects on different persons. Some it deprived of reason, as in case of the man in the land of the Gergesenes (Mark 5:15); some it deprived of one or more of the senses, as in the present case; and some it threw into convulsions or distortions. (See Mark 9:18; Luke 13:11 Luke 13:16.) 33. the multitude marveled.—With every new variety of miracles there came fresh surprise among the people. After seeing a few sick persons cured, they naturally ceased being surprised at cures of sickness; but when they saw this dumb man restored to speech, they were almost as much surprised as if they had seen no previous miracle. The range of fresh miracles, however, necessarily had a limit, and therefore miracle working, as a means of impressing men, had to be of temporary duration. A permanent continuance of miracles would have robbed them of their value by making them common. 34. through the prince of the devils.—It seems that when the Pharisees now accused Jesus of casting out demons by the prince of the demons, he made no reply, but waited till a subsequent occasion when they repeated the charge, and then he replied exhaustively. (See Matthew 12:22-30.) 35. Jesus went about.—In this verse Matthew groups together in a general statement a multitude of miracles and discourses, of which those in the section which is here brought to a close are specimens. Argument of Section 6The obvious purpose of Matthew in the preceding section is to present miraculous proofs of the claims of Jesus. The fact that his word was attended by divine power is proof that he spoke by divine authority. He is represented as making this argument himself in the case of the paralytic (Matthew 9:5-6), and it is Matthew's argument throughout the section. The demonstration is manifold, including the miraculous cure of six diseases— leprosy, paralysis, fever, chronic female hemorrhage, blindness, and dumbness. It includes also the expulsion of demons, the stilling of a tempest at sea, and the raising of the dead. All the ills to which humanity is exposed— the diseases of the flesh, the dangers of land and sea, the dominion of demons, and the power of death— are proved to be alike under the control of Jesus, and they are all controlled for the good of man. The benevolent purpose of his mission is demonstrated at the same time with its divine origin. Occasion of the Commission, Matthew 9:36-3836. moved with compassion.—The masses of the people in Galilee had now been deeply stirred by the teaching and miracles of Jesus, but they knew not as yet what direction was to be given to this popular movement. Jesus very aptly compares them, in their bewildered state, to a flock of sheep without a shepherd, scattered over the hills, and faint from fright and running. He has compassion on them, and is moved by this to provide for their relief by appointing twelve men who shall assist him in teaching them now, and shall be shepherds to them hereafter. Men are still like sheep— they must have shepherds to lead them. 37. The harvest.—The figure is here changed from that of a flock to that of a harvest. The condition of the people, as represented in the previous comparison, rendered them like an abundant harvest ready to be gathered in for the master's use. But as Jesus contemplates it, he laments the absence of laborers, as he has lamented the want of a shepherd. Shepherds to gather them into the fold, and laborers to reap an abundant harvest, are two figures to represent the one want of the unhappy people. 38. pray ye.—When any want is realized, the first impulse of a worshiping soul, and rightly so, is to pray. Jesus here teaches us to pray for more laborers to reap the world's great harvest, and so long as the laborers continue to remain few in proportion to the harvest, the disciples must continue to offer this prayer. Our compassion should be moved, like his, toward a scattered and distracted world. Like him, too, we must not be content with praying, but we must act. Having told his disciples to pray that laborers be sent, he proceeded in the same discourse to command them to go. (10:5-7.) It is in vain that we pray God to send laborers unless we go ourselves, or co-operate in finding and sending those whom God makes willing to go. Questions by E.M. Zerr For Matthew 91. Jesus entered into what? 2. He passed over what ? 3. To what city did he come? 4. Who was brought to him ? 5. How helpless was he? 6. Whose faith did Jesus consider? 7. To whom did he speak ? 8. Tell what favor he gave them. 9. What accusation did the scribes make ? 10. In what manner did they make it? 11. What did Jesus know? 12. Repeat his question. 13. Which do you say is easier? 14. What did Jesus then bid the man do? 15. Tell what this was to test. 16. How did the test end? 17. State its effect upon the multitude. 18. For what did they glorify God? 19. What important man is now introduced? 20. State his business. 21. What was the reputation of this class? 22. Tell what Jesus told this man to do. 23. Who sat at meat with Jesus and his disciples 24. Who objected? 25. To whom did they make their objection? 26. Who heard it? 27. From what did he draw an illustration? 28. What scripture did he quote? 29. State what class needs repentance. 30. Who next came to Jesus? 31. What was their inquiry? 32. In the illustration who is the bridegroom ? 33. What was going to happen to him ? 34. State lesson of appropriateness from the garment. 35. And from wine bottles. 36. While speaking who came to Jesus? 37. What did he do? 38. And what did he announce ? 39. How did he express his faith? 40. Did Jesus respond favorably to him ? 41. On the way who contacted him? 42. How long had she been afflicted? 43. What showed their faith ? 44. State what Jesus said to her. 45. How soon did she improve ? 46. Whose house did Jesus now enter? 47. What did he see there? 48. State his remark to them. 49. How was it received? 50. What did Jesus do for the maid? 51. How did this affect his fame ? 52. Leaving this place, who followed him? 53. Whose son did they call him? 54. Were they correct? 55. What was their request? 56. How far did they follow Jesus? 57. State the question he asked them. 58. And their answer. 59. On what did Jesus base their recovery ? 60. State the outcome. 61. What did he charge them? 62. How well did they obey ? 63. What unfortunate was next brought? 64. Which was dumb, the man or the devil? 65. When did the dumb speak? 66. State the remark of the multitude. 67. Who opposed the work? 68. What was their remark ? 69. Where did Jesus go teaching? 70. Tell the object of his preaching. 71. What did he also do for the people? 72. How was his compassion moved ? 73. What did he say of the harvest? 74. And of the laborers? 75. For what were they to pray? 9:1 Having been requested to leave the country of the Gergesenes, .Jesus took passage in a ship and recrossed the Sea of Galilee. His own city means Capernaum as may be learned in chapter 4:13 where he changed his residence. 9:2 The palsy was a form of paralysis and rendered a man helpless. Jesus knew the hearts of all men and hence the words seeing their faith does not mean that what he saw was what gave him the information. The conclusion must be that what Jesus saw was an outward indication of faith. But the palsied man was not doing anything, hence as far as the direct evidence shows, the men carrying the bed were the only ones who had faith. Thus we have no positive authority for saying that the patient had any faith, notwithstanding which, the Lord gave him forgiveness for his sins. We also have no evidence that such a favor was being sought when they brought him to Jesus, but rather that they merely wished to have the afflicted man cured. Son is from TEKNON and Thayer renders it in this place, "affectionate address, such as patrons, helpers, teachers, and the like, employ." 9:3 Blaspheme is from a Greek word of virtually the same form, BLAS-PHEMEO, and Thayer defines it, "To speak reproachfully, rail at, revile, calumniate [accuse falsely]." In his own comments on the word he says it means, "Specifically of those who by contemptuous speech intentionally [emphasis mine, E. M. Z.] come short of the reverence due to God or to sacred things." Thus we see they accused Jesus of showing disrespect for God in claiming authority to forgive. In Mark's account of the same event they make that item the basis of their accusation (Mark 2:7). 9:4 The scribes were afraid to make their accusation so that others could hear it, but Jesus knew their thoughts and exposed them. 9:5 The thing Jesus declared to be done was invisible and thus open to question. He then proposed to make another declaration that would be visible if accomplished. Whether it is easier means that if he has the authority to do the one he also has it to do the other, for one would be no harder to do than the other for one endowed with divine power as he claimed to be. 9:6 Jesus then proposed to prove his power (from EXOUSIA meaning authority) to perform the invisible by doing the visible. Addressing the palsied man, Jesus told him not only to arise, but to take up his bed and go home. This evidently was the bed on which he was lying when the men came to carry him to Jesus. 9:7 It would require something more than imaginative "mind over matter" to enable a helpless paralytic to walk and carry a piece of furniture. 9:8 The aforesaid logic was suggested to the minds of the multitude and they expressed themselves to that effect. Nothing is said about the attitude of the accusers, and they doubtless hung their heads in shame. Glorify is from DOXAZO and Thayer defines it in this place, "to praise, extol, magnify, celebrate." Given such power unto men. The last word is from AN-THROPOS, and its universal meaning as given by Thayer is, "A human being, whether male or female," and hence the distinction is made between the brute creation and human beings. We are not told how much this multitude knew about the dual character of the person of Christ, but the outstanding appearance was that he was a man. That is why they marveled at his authority and might which could be accounted for only by giving the credit to God. 9:9 Receipt of custom is from one Greek word that means "tax office." The man who had charge of the taxes was called a publican, and that subject will be explained in detail in the next verse. Matthew was connected with that work when Jesus came along, and he was called to follow which he did. He was baptized by John since Jesus "came unto his own" who were the ones whom John baptized and prepared for him. It was in keeping with his instruction from John, therefore, for him to quit his secular employment and follow at the call of him for whom he had been made ready. 9:10 All men are sinners to some extent, but they are named as a class in this passage which means they were unrighteous in their life as a whole and hence regarded as an unworthy group. They are also classed with the publicans which shows they also were regarded as an unworthy group. They are referred to frequently in the New Testament, and I shall quote from the works of reference for the information of the reader. "The class designated by this word [publican] in the New Testament were employed as collectors of the Roman revenue. The Roman senate farmed the direct taxes and the customs to capitalists who undertook to pay a given sum into the treasury, and so received the name of publicani. Contracts of this kind fell naturally into the hands of the equites [military orders], as the richest class of Romans. They appointed managers, under whom were the portitores, the actual custom-house officers, who examined each bale of goods, exported or imported, assessed its value more or less arbitrarily, wrote out the ticket, and enforced payment. The latter were commonly natives of the province in which they were stationed, as being brought daily into contact with all classes of the population. The name publicani was used popularly, and in the New Testament exclusively, of the portitores. The system was essentially a vicious one. The portitores were encouraged in the most vexatious or fraudulent exactions, and a remedy was all but impossible. They overcharged whenever they had an opportunity, Luke 3:13; they brought false charges of smuggling in the hope of extorting hush-money, Luke 19:8; they detained and opened letters on mere suspicion. It was the basest of all livelihoods. All this was enough to bring the class into ill favor everywhere. In Judea and Galilee there were special circumstances of aggravation. The employment brought out all the besetting vices of the Jewish character. The strong feeling of many Jews as to the absolute unlawfulness of paying tribute at all made matters worse. The scribes who discussed the question, Matthew 22:15, for the most part answered it in the negative. In addition to their other faults, accordingly, the publicans of the New Testament were regarded as traitors and apostates, defiled by their frequent intercourse with the heathen, willing tools of the oppressor. The class thus practically excommunicated furnished some of the earliest disciples both of the Baptist and of our Lord. The position of Zacchaeus as a "chief among the publicans," Luke 19:2, implies a gradation of some kind among the persons employed." Smith's Bible Dictionary, article, Publican. "TELONES, 1. a renter or farmer of taxes; among the Romans usually a man of equestrian [one who rides on horseback] rank. 2. a tax-gatherer, collector of taxes or tolls, one employed by a publican or farmer-general in collecting the taxes. The tax-collectors were, as a class, detested not only by the Jews but by other nations also, both on account of their employment and of the harshness, greed, and deception, with which they prosecuted it."--Thayer. "TELONES, a farmer of the taxes or customs, one who pays to the government a certain sum for the privilege of collecting the taxes and customs of a district. . . . Whence in the English Version, a publican. The public revenues of the Greeks and Romans were usually thus farmed out; and among the latter the purchasers were persons of wealth and rank, and in the later periods chiefly of the equestrian order. . . . The farmers-general had also sub-contractors, or employed agents, who collected the taxes and customs at the gates of cities, in seaports, on public ways, bridges, and the like. . . . In the New Testament in the later sense, a toll-gatherer, collector of customs, publican, the object of bitter hatred and scorn to the Jews, and often coupled with the most depraved classes of society." Robinson's Greek Lexicon. This long note will not be copied again, hence it will be important that the reader make careful note of its location for reference as occasion requires. 9:11 The information given with the comments on the preceding verse shows the Moral and social standing of the publicans and sinners. The significance of eating with others was different in ancient times from what it is now. I shall quote from Funk and Wagnalls Standard Bible Dictionary on this subject: "The moral aspects of eating are taken account of in a series of prescriptions and prohibitions on the manner, time, and articles to be eaten. 'Eating together' was a sign of community of life, and symbolized either adoption into the household, or entrance into irrevocable [unbreakable] covenant (Jeremiah 41:1). This conception underlies the sacrificial meal in which God is taken as a participant. It was the worst form of treason, therefore, to break a covenant entered into through the ceremony of eating together." The Pharisees who pretended to be very righteous, wanted to appear shocked that a righteous teacher like Jesus would defile himself by associating with these low characters, especially on such an intimate occasion as eating a meal together. 6. This verse is one of the passages that are perverted into meaning just the opposite of their real teaching. The woman had grown worse in spite of her being treated by physicians. The fact is used by many "drugless healers" to prove that physicians are useless, even though Jesus said in Matthew 9:12 that the sick need a physician. But the very statement that this woman had not been benefited by the physicians is proof that others had been helped by them. 9:13 Learn what that meaneth. Learn the meaning of the statement, I will have mercy and not sacrifice. I request the reader to "learn" its meaning by consulting Isaiah 58:3; Ezekiel 34:1-4; Hosea 6:6; Joe 2:13; Micah 6:6-8. By these passages it will be learned that the self-righteous Jewish leaders in former times imposed on the poor and common people, then tried to get things even before the Lord by offering big material sacrifices. Under those circumstances the Lord would want these leaders to leave off their sacrifices until they had showed mercy to the unfortunate populace. Jesus wanted these same pretentious Jewish leaders before him to get this lesson so they would cease their selfish attitude toward the "sinners." A physician does not make calls at homes where all are in good health, and on that principle Jesus came to call on the sinners of the earth because they are the ones who are spiritually sick. If the Pharisees were as righteous as they professed to be, they should not expect Jesus to pay much attention to them. 9:14 Fasting was never commanded as a regular practice but was voluntarily done in times of grief or anxiety. At the time of this conversation John the Baptist had been slain, which is recorded later in this book, and his disciples were fasting in honor of his memory. Not that they were doing so just at the time they came to Jesus, but had been doing so oft or at intervals since his death. 9:15 Jesus represents himself as a bridegroom who is still present with the children which is used in the sense of friends. These friends would have no occasion to fast or mourn for their bridegroom because he was still with them. Fasting under these circumstances would be inappropriate. Days will come refers to the time when he would be taken from them and when that time happens they will mourn (Mark 16:10). 6-17 I have made one paragraph of the two verses because they are on the same subject, and whatever comments I wish to make will have a common application to both verses. But I shall first explain the literal meaning of the terms used, after which I shall offer my comments on the application. When fabric is old it is shrunk, and also weakened with age and easily torn. If a hole in it is repaired with new and unshrunk cloth, it will pull loose in shrinking and tear the old cloth. Bottles were made of the skins of animals, being closed tightly around the mouth somewhat like a leathern pouch. While these pouches are new they are moist and capable of expanding without bursting. New wine has to expand as it ferments, and if it is put into old pouches that have become dry, the expansion of the liquid will burst these vessels. The usual explanation of these illustrations is that it represents the folly of trying to mix the new religion that Jesus was introducing with the old one that Moses gave to the people of God. I do not believe that is the purpose of the illustrations and will give the reasons for my statement. It would be an abrupt change of subject from anything that had been said for several chapters. Nothing in the conversation between Jesus and the audience would call for the injection of a highly figurative argument concerning the comparative merits of the Old and New Testaments. On the other hand, the importance of the work of John and Christ, and of the truth that the first was to be replaced by the second, would justify some further teaching from Jesus on it. If the old garment and old bottles represent the old law, on which and into which the new law should not be put, then what constitutes the old cloth and old wine that is to be attached to it? I believe the whole point is simply a lesson on the subject of appropriateness. The disciples of John could fittingly mourn because he had been taken from them. Jesus was still with his disciples and they could not appropriately mourn. It will be well to recall the words of Solomon in Ecclesiastes 3:4, "A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance." 9:18 The word for ruler is defined by Thayer, "A ruler, commander, chief, leader." The word could hence be applied to various persons, but in this verse it means, "of the officers presiding over the synagogues." For a description of these synagogues and their uses see the comments at Mat-they 4:23. This man was a Jew and had learned enough about the work of Jesus to have the faith that he expressed. He was consistent in his attitude, for if a person has the power to perform other miracles he also can raise the dead. Modern professed miracle workers betray their fradulent practices by refusing even to try raising the dead, because they know they have no miraculous power. 9:19 Jesus had previously showed his ability to work miracles by "absent treatment" (chapter 8:13). He therefore had some special reason for going to the ruler's house. 9:20 On the way to the ruler's house an afflicted woman sought relief from a chronic case of hemorrhage of blood of twelve years' standing. Her only contact with Jesus was that of touching the hem of his garment. There was no literal curative properties in the clothing of the Lord, but the woman thought there was and her faith was manifested by touching it which induced him to favor her. 9:21 The woman expressed her faith in words only to herself. 9:22 Jesus could read the thoughts of mankind and knew the woman said within herself. Turning, he made no mention of her touching his garment, but granted her the cure because of her faith. As usual, the recovery from her disease was immediate. 9:23 By this time Jesus had reached the ruler's house. As he entered he saw the minstrels (musicians) and the people making a noise. These words are from which Thayer defines at this place, "to wail tumultuously." The instruments that such minstrels used were flutes and they could be made to produce a turbulent "noise." 9:24 Not dead but sleepeth. The Bible as well as secular compositions uses both figurative and literal language, and the distinction should always be remembered or confusion may result. I shall quote Webster on the two words: "figurative, 2. Expressing one thing in terms normally denoting another with which it may be regarded as analogous [similar]; as figurative language, sense. Literal, 4. Of senses of words, conveying the primary meaning, opposed to figurative." With this authentic information we may form a convenient and correct formula as follows: "Figurative language is that based on appearances regardless of the facts; literal language is that based on the facts regardless of appearances." Jesus used the figurative because when a person is dead he "appears" to be asleep. The people did not recognize the figure but thought he was speaking literally and hence they laughed him to scorn. The last word is not in the original and the statment should merely say that they laughed at him. The same kind of circumstance as to language occurred in the case of Lazarus in John 11:11; John 11:14, except that Jesus used both figurative and literal language for his disciples. 9:25 This is another instance where Jesus saw fit to make bodily contact in performing the miracle. However, that would not account for it as far as any physical cause was concerned, for the same procedure would not raise the dead if performed by another without the possession of supernatural power. 9:26 Fame is from the Greek word PHEME and one word in Thayer's definition is, "report." The idea means to express the fact of the extent of the news about the deed, not so much the thought of Jesus from the standpoint of notoriety. 9:27 These blind men must have heard this report referred to in the preceding verse. Son of David means he was descended from David in the blood line. Many people in. Palestine were familiar with the prediction in the law that the Messiah was to come through that line. Their addressing him with this title not only acknowledged him to be possessed with miraculous power (others had possessed that), but that he was the fulfiller of the law and the prophets. 9:28 The blind men did not lose heart but followed Jesus until he had entered another house, and there they came to him for relief. Jesus knew all hearts and was aware of the faith in the minds of these men, but a public profession of faith is one of the acts that puts a man in favorable light before the Lord. 9:29 According to your faith is said on the same principle as that said to the centurion in chapter 8:13, "as thou past believed." 9:30 Eyes were opened. Thayer explains the last word to mean, "to restore one's sight," hence the passage does not mean their eyelids had been closed. 9:32 Dumb, possessed with a devil. The reader should consult the long quotation from the lexicons that is given at chapter 8:28. It will there be seen that being possessed with a devil did not always produce the same effect on the people. In the case of our present verse it produced dumbness in the man. 9:35 Jesus taught in the syna gogues because he could meet the Jews assembled there to hear the reading of the Scriptures. Gospel of the kingdom means the good news that the kingdom of heaven was near. Healing every sickness and disease is significant. Modern professed miracle workers will select such ailments that are not apparent so that their failure to effect a cure cannot be known. 9:36 The multitudes were worn out by foot travel in their quest for the favors they hoped to get from Jesus. Their condition caused him to be moved with pity, which fulfilled the many predictions that he was to be a man who could "be touched with the feeling of our infirmities" (Hebrews 4:15). 9:37 There were so many people who needed help that neither Jesus nor any other man could be bodily present with all of them. That is what he meant by harvest plenteous, laborers few. 9:38 The prayer intimated in this verse will call for something definite to be done. Jesus will himself bring about a fulfillment in the next chapter. Matthew 10 "THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Chapter Ten Following His own call for prayer for more laborers (Matthew 9:37-38), Jesus selected twelve disciples to be His apostles and gave them power to cast out demons and heal all kinds of disease (Matthew 10:1-4). He then sent them to preach and heal throughout the cities of Israel with specific instructions in what has come to be called "The Limited Commission" (Matthew 10:5-42). POINTS TO PONDER * The twelve men selected to be Jesus’ apostles * Evangelistic principles utilized by Jesus REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter? - The appointment of the twelve apostles - Matthew 10:1-4- Instructions for the twelve for the limited commission - Matthew 10:5-42 2) List the names of the twelve apostles (Matthew 10:2-4) - Peter and Andrew, James and John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Labbaeus surnamed Thaddaeus, Simon the Cananite, Judas Iscariot 3) What was to be the range of their preaching? Their message? (Matthew 10:5-7) - Only to the house of Israel; "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" 4) What miracles were they to perform as they preached? At what charge? (Matthew 10:8) - Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons - No charge for their services ("Freely you have received, freely give") 5) How were they to be supported? (Matthew 10:9-11) - By people willing to receive them into their homes 6) What were they to do if they were not received by a house or city? (Matthew 10:14-15) - Depart, shaking the dust from their feet 7) What did Jesus prepare them to expect? (Matthew 10:16-26) - Persecution 8) What were they to fear more than persecution? (Matthew 10:28; Matthew 10:33) - Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell; being denied by the Lord 9) What did Jesus acknowledge His teachings might do? (Matthew 10:34-36) - Separate members of the same family 10) What blessings would befall those who assisted the apostles? (Matthew 10:41-42) - The same reward for their service Matthew 10:1-42 Verse 1Mat 10:1-42THE CALLING AND OF THE TWELVEAnd he called unto him his twelve disciples, and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of disease, and all manner of sickness. (Matthew 10:1)The difference between a disciple and an apostle is a matter of authority. The disciples became apostles upon their reception of authority from the Lord. Verse 2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.There are four listings of the Twelve in the New Testament, always occurring in groups of four, with positions 1,5, and 9 always listing Peter, Philip, and James the son of Alphaeus in that order. See Mark 3:13; Luke 6:12; Acts 1:13. From this, it is conjectured that Peter, Philip, and James the son of Alphaeus were the respective leaders in each of their groups of four. The other names do not always follow a given order, but they do not occur outside the group of four. Oddly, there are two Simons, two Jameses, and two Judases. Thaddaeus was also named Judas the brother of James, or son of James, the Greek word meaning either "son" or "brother." The twelve apostles have a rank and dignity in the kingdom of heaven beyond that of all others. The number twelve is suggestive of the twelve tribes of Israel; and just as the patriarchs were the foundation of all that came afterwards for Israel, just so the Twelve are the foundation, in one sense, for the church of our Lord (Ephesians 2:20). Even Paul confessed that he was not of the Twelve (1 Corinthians 15:5), and that he was not worthy to be accounted an apostle, because he "persecuted the church of God" (1 Corinthians 15:9). Their names, including, no doubt, that of Matthias instead of Judas, are inscribed upon the twelve foundations of the Eternal City (Revelation 21:14). They are ruling now upon twelve thrones, with Jesus Christ in his kingdom, that is, during the "times of the regeneration (or `new birth')" (Matthew 19:28). It is specifically declared that God set some in the church, "FIRST, apostles" (1 Corinthians 12:28). These men were not princes of the blood, but fishermen, a tax collector, and followers of other ordinary occupations. They were industrious, more than ordinarily successful in business, keen of mind, sensitive of soul, honest, perceptive, and courageous. They were ambitious, hard-working men, an excellent lot indeed; but apparently they possessed no skills or talents of an extraordinary nature. They were men most remarkably like the best men of any stable community anywhere on earth, peculiarly fitted to be the chosen representatives of all mankind, and eminently qualified for the possession of that power and dignity to which the Master called and elevated them. Verse 5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and charged them, saying, Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the Samaritans.These words prove that the commission Jesus here gave the Twelve pertained only to them and that special mission and is far different from the commission later given to the entire church (Matthew 28:18-20). Therefore, requirements Jesus made of the Twelve on that occasion should not be construed as mandatory upon God's ministers today. The church is commanded to preach to "all nations"; the apostles were not sent to Gentiles or Samaritans. This view has prevailed in the church from the very earliest times. Tertullian said, "We maintain that this belongs specially to the persons of the apostles, and to their times and circumstances."[1] The purpose of their going forth was to counteract the poisonous campaign of the Pharisees and to arouse Israel to the acknowledgment and reception of their true King. ENDNOTE:[1] Tertullian, De Fuge in Persecutione in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), Vol. IV, p. 119. Verse 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.Conditions in Israel at that time were dark and discouraging. The leaders were notoriously corrupt. The King had appeared, but his enemies were determined to prevent his acceptance on the part of the people. And yet the people were entitled to their chance. Verse 7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.The kingdom would soon be set up. Mark 9:1 reveals that Christ promised it to be done during the lives of some of the apostles; but, since both the Master and the traitor were to die before the kingdom was set up (on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ), Mark's words of record present a precisely technical accuracy: "There are SOME here, of them that stand by, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power." Verse 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons; freely ye received, freely give.There is no suggestion here that Judas was in any manner excluded from the power and ability conveyed by this commission, if Judas was, even at this hour, a servant of Satan, it would lend color to the charge of the Pharisees that Jesus cast out demons by the prince of demons. Of course, no such thing occurred. Therefore, this is proof that at the time of the commissioning of the Twelve, Judas was not yet fallen from his apostleship, for he did FALL (Acts 1:25). Verse 9 Get you no gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses.Considering the countless miracles of the most astounding nature that these men were then empowered to perform, this admonition partook of that wisdom from God himself. Covetousness is a sin that eventually claimed Judas, and seeds of it are in all people. If the apostles had been free to take money, they would have returned rich in silver and gold, but poor in those virtues Christ came to establish. Verse 10 No wallet for your journey, neither two coats, nor shoes, nor staff: for the laborer is worthy of his food.The mission of the Twelve was totally spiritual. Christ took temptations out of their way by forbidding them even to take a wallet! Barefooted, without staff, and with only one coat, they went forth as the embodiment of the Lord's premise, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." The laborer is worthy of his food ... is the Saviour's first utterance of the principle that his ministers are entitled to their support. More on this subject is found in 1 Corinthians 9:14,1 Timothy 5:17-18. Verse 11 And into whatsoever city or village ye shall enter, search out who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go forth.Among the Israelites, there were many, perhaps, in that day, like aged Simeon, who were looking for "the consolation of Israel"; and it was into such homes that the apostles were to go. The prohibition on going from house to house was strongly in their best interests and would prevent their being caught up in a round of dinners, entertainment, and social activities, which, although innocent in themselves, would have seriously hampered their work. In our own times, many a gospel meeting has been hindered by the constant shuttling of the messenger from place to place, three or four times a day, to eat here, to eat there, or to visit yonder, and to be entertained. Verse 12 And as ye enter into the house, salute it. And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.Not the house, but the family were to be saluted. The Emphatic Diaglott gives the place thus, "When you enter the house, salute the family." This conveys the idea that the apostles were to pronounce a benediction or blessing upon the homes they entered, or at least to make some expression of good will on behalf of every member of the home into which they came. No curse or malediction was to be uttered, ever. Retributions belong to God alone. Not even the Twelve were to pronounce judgments or exact or assign penalties. See more on this under Matthew 7:1. Verse 14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, as ye go forth out of that house or that city, shake off the dust of your feet.The Jewish rabbis taught that the dust of heathen cities defiled, and the symbolical action of shaking off the dust of the feet indicated that any person or city rejecting the apostles' words was no better than the heathen. Paul and Barnabas, on their first missionary journey, were rejected by the Jews and certain women of honorable estate, "But they shook off the dust of their feet against them, and came unto Iconium" (Acts 13:51). This shows that the custom here initiated by Jesus was continued after the church was established. Verse 15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.Why were the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah less reprehensible than the sins of cities and villages that rejected the apostles? Simply because they sinned in ignorance, whereas the cities of Jesus' day sinned against the light. The day of judgment is an expression often used by Christ and refers to the final reckoning of all mankind before the Great White Throne. See more under Matthew 12:41. Verse 16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.The serpent was considered a symbol of wisdom among the ancients, especially the python. The maid at Philippi who followed Paul and Silas was said to have had a "spirit of divination" (Acts 16:16), but the Greek word denotes that she had a PYTHON! Genesis declares that "The serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field" (Genesis 3:1). The dove as a symbol of harmlessness and innocence derived significance from Noah's use of it as a messenger in the ark. See more on the dove under Matthew 3:16. The brutal and vicious dangers to which the apostles would be exposed were not concealed by the Lord. Their mission was dangerous and fraught with countless perils. The figure "sheep in the midst of wolves" is peculiarly apt and expressive. One wolf in a flock of sheep is a source of incredible slaughter and destruction. Ask any herdsman upon the far slopes of the Rockies how sickening is such a sight! Far worse, even than that, would be a few sheep in the "midst of wolves"! Verse 17 But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to councils, and in their synagogues will scourge you.The mention of synagogues identifies the enemies mentioned a moment before. Opposition to Christ and his holy religion, at first, came almost exclusively from the Jews. Verse 18 Yea, and before governors and kings shall ye be brought for my sake, for a testimony to them and to the Gentiles.This prophecy was fulfilled when the apostles were arraigned before Herod (Acts 5:18; Acts 12:1), before the Sanhedrin, and perhaps before other authorities. Verse 19 But when they deliver you up, be not anxious how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.This is one of the strongest statements in the New Testament of that inspiration which guided the apostles into all truth. It is surprising that this text is not more often cited in that connection. From the epistles of Cyprian comes this statement "And ought not the same texts to be more faithfully accepted in explaining the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures? Language could hardly be stronger. `It is not ye that speak'."[2] God's ministers NOW must study. Paul commanded even Timothy to study (2 Timothy 2:15). Paul himself studied diligently and placed a very high priority upon his books, "especially the parchments" (2 Timothy 4:13). ENDNOTE:[2] Cyprian, Elucidations, No. 22in Ibid., Vol. V, p. 420. Verse 21 And brother shall deliver up brother to death, and the father his child: and children shall rise up against parents, and cause them to be put to death.Tertullian referred this verse to others than the Twelve, writing: He has clearly announced with reference to the others, that they would be subjected to this form of unrighteous conduct, which we do not find exemplified in the case of the apostles. For none of them had experience of a father or a brother as a betrayer, which very many of us have.[3] In spite of Tertullian's opinion, one may not set aside the possibility that such things actually did happen to the apostles. Tradition teaches that all of the Twelve were martyred; and yet the details are known in only a couple of cases; and Christ's words in the verse before us strongly support the probability, if not indeed proving, that the apostles did meet such a fate. Aside from that, Jesus' words are surely indicative of the bitter hatred that would prevail in the hearts of so many against his church; and, certainly, the beginnings of that hatred were borne by the apostles. ENDNOTE:[3] Tertullian, Scorpiace in Ibid., Vol. III, p. 641. Verse 22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end, the same shalt be saved.The diabolical hatred that was vented against the Twelve still exists. In the Jefferson Room of the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., one may see in PRAVDA and caricatures and slanders of every kind against Christ and the apostles. There was a report in PRAVDA of a farmer who named his asses after the Twelve and called a sow "The Virgin Mary"! He that endureth to the end ... This is the principal admonition in all times and places to apostles, disciples, servants, and followers of Christ. Unless one endures to the end, all is lost. On this, Cyprian wrote, Confession is the beginning of glory, not the full desert of the crown, nor does it perfect our praise, but it initiates our dignity. ... But after confession, his peril is greater because the adversary is more provoked. ... For this cause, he ought the more to stand on the side of the Lord's gospel.[4] Other Scriptures enjoining endurance and continuity to the end are: Matthew 24:13; Mark 13:13; 1 Corinthians 13:7; Revelation 3:11, etc. ENDNOTE:[4] Cyprian, Treatise in Ibid., Vol. V, p. 428. Verse 23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee into the next: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone through the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.Origen in quoting this passage wrote: Jesus, in teaching his disciples not to be guilty of rashness, gave them (this) precept. He added the example of a consistent life, acting so as not to expose himself to danger, rashly, or unreasonably, or without good grounds.[5] Likewise, Clement of Alexandria said: He also who presents himself before the judgment seat becomes guilty of his (own) death. And such is also the case with him who does not avoid persecution, but, out of daring, presents himself for capture.[6] It is plain that Christ desired that his disciples should avoid bringing against themselves any persecutions due to unwise, rash, or improper conduct; and they were cautioned to avoid animosities by flight whenever possible. The words "till the Son of man come" do not refer to the final judgment but to the coming of Christ in his kingdom. [5] Origen, Against Celsus in Ibid., Vol. IV, p. 425. [6] Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata in Ibid., Vol. II, p. 423. Verse 24 A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his lord.Christ's followers shall receive the same type of opposition, hatred, and persecution that he received. The same expression is also used in John 15:20. Christ also used it to mean that the disciples of the Pharisees were as blind as their leaders (Luke 6:40) and that, as Christ humbly washed the feet of others, so should his disciples (John 13:16). Tertullian used the words of the verse to teach that no disciple may advocate a doctrine contrary to Christ's teaching, saying, "If Marcion be even a disciple, he is not yet `above his master'."[7] ENDNOTE:[7] Tertullian, Against Marcion in Ibid., Vol. III. p. 349. Verse 25 It is enough for the disciple that he be as his teacher, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more them of his household?On this place, Adam Clarke pointedly wrote, Can any man who pretends to be a scholar or disciple of Jesus Christ expect to be treated well by the world? Will not the world love its own? and them only? Why then so much impatience under suffering, such an excessive sense of injuries, such delicacy? Can you expect anything from the world better than you receive?[8] Beelzebub is actually "Beelzebul" in the Greek (English Revised Version (1885) margin); and Clarke details the meaning thus, "Baal," the old god of the Canaanites, was coupled with [~zebul] which means "dunghill"! By this, they called the old god of their ancient enemies "the dunghill god"! Their unqualified hatred of Christ is seen in their employment of this vile word as a name for him. ENDNOTE:[8] Adam Clarke, Commentary (New York: T. Mason and G. Lane, 1837), Vol. V, p. 122. Verse 26 Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.This meant that the persecution and opposition of the Pharisees would not succeed in hiding the truth but would result in its being published. Persecution actually provided then, as always, the following benefits for the thing, doctrine, or person persecuted: (1) it intensifies the zeal of the persecuted party; (2) arouses sympathy for the underdog; (3) if intense enough, multiplies centers of dissemination for the hated truth. All these results were clearly observable in the history of the early church. Verse 27 What I tell you in the darkness, speak ye in the light; and what ye hear in the ear, proclaim upon the housetops.The mystery which had been kept in silence through times eternal (Romans 16:25) was at that time, by the apostles, to be made known unto all people. God's great secret of redemption was about to be published! Clement of Alexandria construed the words as "Bidding them receive the secret traditions of the true knowledge and expound them aloft conspicuously."[9] ENDNOTE:[9] Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II, p. 313. Verse 28 And be not afraid of them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.Tertullian wrote of this: Here we have a recognition of the natural immortality of the soul, which cannot be killed by men; and of the mortality of the body which may be killed: whence we learn that the resurrection of the dead is a resurrection of the flesh; for, unless it were raised again, it would be impossible for the flesh to be "killed in hell."[10] The question of hell, that is, "Gehenna," will be examined more fully under Matthew 25:41, which see. Suffice it here to note that Gehenna, or the Valley of Hinnon, was used by Christ as a metaphor to describe the place of eternal punishment of the wicked. Whatever metaphor was employed, Christ left no doubt of the reality and dreadful nature of that punishment. ENDNOTE:[10] Tertullian, On the Resurrection in Ibid., Vol. III, p. 570. Verse 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? and not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father.See more on God's providence under Matthew 6:25-30. The proof that God does actually watch over the tiniest citizens in his universe is seen in the fact that the sparrows one sees now are the descendants of sparrows which have lived upon earth for uncounted thousands of years. Verse 30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows.The message of this passage is simply that of God's providential care for his children. Reference to numbering the hairs of the head suggests the infinite detail and solicitude of that loving care lavished by the Father upon his human creation. Some of the ancients made deductions from this passage which appear quite astonishing to Christians today. For example, Clement of Alexandria came up with this: It is therefore impious to desecrate the symbol of manhood, hairiness. But the embellishment of smoothing (I am warned by the Word), if it is to attract men is the act of an effeminate person, ... if to attract women, is the act of an adulterer; and both must be driven as far as possible from our society. "But the very hairs of your head are all numbered," says the Lord; and those on the chin too are numbered, and those on the whole body. There must, therefore, be no plucking out, contrary to God's appointment, which has counted them in according to his will.[11] This view still prevails among some religious groups; but their error, if it is an error, is due to pressing more than was intended, certainly more than was said, into an utterance of our Lord which is equally revered by all believers. ENDNOTE:[11] Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor in Ibid., Vol. II, p. 276. Verse 32 Every one therefore who shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father who is in heaven.The notable promise, made here for the first time by Christ, is that he will confess those who confess him. The usual limitation on these words is that if one confesses Christ AND REMAINS UNTIL DEATH then, in the judgment, Christ will confess him! However, there is the strongest indication that something much more immediate is meant. True, Jesus did not say WHEN he would confess those who confess him; but he gave an example of it the very first time a man confessed him. THAT is in the case of the apostle Peter (Matthew 16:17-18) whom Jesus confessed then and there. From this it would appear that when any person confesses Christ and is buried with him in baptism (the two actions being considered together in such passages as Ephesians 5:26 (Goodspeed's translation)), Christ confesses those who have been born again in the presence of God and the angels. It is possible that such is precisely the occasion when the redeemed have their names written in the "Lamb's book of life" (Revelation 20:15; Revelation 21:27). Inscriptions in the book of life do not wait upon the judgment, nor even upon the death or proved fidelity of the persons thus honored; but their names are written there while they still live and work on earth (Philippians 4:3). Confession of faith in Jesus Christ as God's only begotten Son is a basic requirement of the Christian religion (Romans 10:10). Paul called it "the good confession" twice in a single utterance (1 Timothy 6:12-13); and the following reasons may be cited for calling it the "good" confession: (1) Jesus made it under oath and was condemned to death for doing so (John 19:7; Mark 14:62); (2) God made it from heaven on three different occasions (Matthew 3:17; Matthew 17:5; John 12:28); (3) all people must make it eventually (Philippians 2:11); (4) it is "unto salvation" (Romans 10:10), being made thereby a part of the plan of salvation; (5) Christ will confess those who make it (Matthew 10:32); (6) it has been made by the saints of all ages; and (7) it constitutes, actually a concise summary of all Christian doctrine, namely, that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God! Verse 33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father who is in heaven.This is the negative of the proposition stated in the preceding verse; but it is not likely that denial of Christ is limited to any formal, blasphemous remark but pertains to all godlessness, or failure to confess him. People may deny Christ by their works as well as by their words (Titus 1:16). Note how frequently Jesus refers to "MY Father." Disciples were taught to pray "OUR" Father; but throughout the gospel narratives, Jesus is continually represented as saying "MY" Father, indicating the unique relationship between Christ and Almighty God. This fine distinction is too scrupulously observed by the sacred writers to be accounted accidental or irrelevant. In view of this, the common, profane exclamation, "My God," is a double sin, being idle and profane in the first place, and, secondly, claiming a relationship to God which none of the apostles ever used in addressing deity, and which was constantly used by Christ as an affirmation of his divinity. True, Paul said, "I thank my God ..." (Philippians 1:3); but even so, it is not used as direct address and does not carry the same connotation as Jesus' expression, "My Father." It is freely admitted that this viewpoint is subject to challenge. Verse 34 Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace but a sword.That a sword should be identified with Christ in any sense is a warning of the severity which is one characteristic of his glorious nature. "Behold the goodness and severity of God" (Romans 11:22). One who obeys Christ despite filial or parental opposition feels the edge of that sword. A young woman who maintains her ideals and purity in an office where low standards prevail soon feels that sword in her heart. All who live for Christ and bleed inwardly when his name is profaned or his word denied have felt it. A similar thought is contained in the voice from heaven that commanded John to eat the little book. "Take it and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but in thy mouth it shall be as sweet as honey" (Revelation 10:9). The sword of Christ is: (1) a sword of separation, (2) the word of God (Ephesians 6:17; Hebrews 4:12), (3) the sword of authority (Romans 13:1-8), (4) the sword of judgment (Genesis 3:24), (5) the sword of correction (Revelation 2:16), and (6) the sword of victory (Revelation 19:13). Even Mary, the mother of Jesus, was acquainted with that sword. "Yea, and a sword shall pierce thine own soul" (Luke 2:35). Verse 35 For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. of cleavage between Christ's followers and the world cut sharply through the dearest and most intimate relationships on earth. In every church, almost in every household, there are scars caused by this sword. Verse 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.It was a "faithful" servant who betrayed William Tyndale to his death. It was the trusted disciple, Judas, who sold his Lord. The long and tragic history of the inquisitions, massacres, and bloody disturbances which have attended the efforts of the faithful to honor and serve the Christ afford countless examples fulfilling the Saviour's words. Even in modern times, every form of discrimination, partiality, bias, preferment, and rejection have been exercised against Christians, not merely by the world of strangers but by closest friends, relatives, and members of the family. Verse 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.This is one of the "hard sayings" of Christ. Luke's account phrases it even more bluntly: "If any man cometh unto me, and hateth not his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26). Actually, these accounts (Matthew's and Luke's) have identical meanings; and, by comparison, it is learned that "hate" as used in this context actually means "to love less," and does not imply malice or vicious hatred in the ordinary meaning of the word "hate." An Old Testament example is Jacob's "hatred" of Leah (Genesis 29:31), which can only mean that he loved her less than Rachel. The teaching in this place is simply that Christ must be FIRST in the lives of those who would truly follow him. Verse 38 And he that doth not take his cross and follow after me, is not worthy of me.How does one take his cross? Cross bearing is the assumption of a burden, a task, or an obligation, which one has the power to refuse, but which is willingly received, carried forward, and discharged because of the good to be accomplished and the glory believed to accrue to the name of Christ. The cross, as set forth here, is not a mere ornament nor some unavoidable burden like sickness, old age, or taxes. There are orphans to be fed, schools to be built, endowed, and maintained. There are churches to be built, and countless good works of all descriptions; and when people willingly, not through compulsion, provide support and encouragement for these and many other endeavors, they "take up the cross," provided always that they do so through love for Christ and in his service. Verse 39 He that findeth his life shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.This verse emphatically states the law of true spiritual living. Note the qualification, "for my sake." Whatever good one does, or whatever sacrifice is made, if such is not undertaken for the glory of Christ, it may not claim the reward promised here. Practically all the Ante-Nicene writers hail this verse as the sacred talisman of the martyrs who approached the flame, or the wild beasts, or the burning sands, with this verse in their hearts and on their lips. This blessed meaning of these holy words is freely allowed; but there is a message here, not merely for martyrs but for every member of God's family in every generation. That person who gives his life without reservation in the pursuit of God's will is also losing his life in the sense of this verse. To submerge one's own life and will in those of Christ, so that he may say with Paul, "It is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me" (Galatians 2:20), is to lose one's life, and also to find it. This is the great antidote for selfishness. Verse 40 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward: and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward. And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only, in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you he shall in no wise lose his reward.These words conclude the charge of Jesus to the Twelve as they were about to depart on this mission. The principle taught here is that receiving the apostles is equivalent to receiving Christ, and that receiving Christ is equivalent to receiving God. The importance of the apostolic mission is underscored by these words. It is "through their word" (John 17:20) and "through your apostles" (2 Peter 3:2) that all the benefits of the Christian faith may be acquired. Note also the limitation, "in the name of a disciple," equivalent to "for my sake" in Matthew 10:39. All spiritual blessings are of and through Christ; and unless related to him, the best of good works must fail of any heavenly reward. On the other hand, the least of good works, even a cup of cold water, "in his name," is sure of eternal acceptance and credit. This was the forerunner of the doctrine of "binding and loosing" set forth in Matthew 16:19. The utmost heavenly concern for the apostles and their message is seen in the fact that even a single cup of cold water given to them shall not lose its reward. These little ones is a term of endearment spoken by Christ of the Twelve. One may suppose that the principle of heavenly recognition for any favor extended to a disciple still holds, and that in heaven all such generous actions shall certainly be rewarded. The departure of the Twelve on their mission took place about five weeks before the second Passover of Jesus' ministry. They were gone about a month during which Jesus taught in both Galilee and Jerusalem, where he went to keep the feast of Purim at the beginning of March (John 5:1). The Twelve rejoined him before the Passover (John 6:4); and, shortly after that, Christ fed the five thousand (Luke 9:10). Matthew does not chronicle the events in chronological sequence and does not mention the return of the Twelve, picking them up in the narrative, without mention of their absence, at the beginning of Matthew 12. J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Matthew Chapter TenNames and Endowment of the Twelve, Matthew 10:1-4. (Mark 3:14-19 Mark 6:7; Luke 6:12-19 Luke 9:1) 1. his twelve disciples.—This does not mean that the twelve were his only disciples; for we learn from Luke (6:13) that "he called to him his disciples, and of them he chose twelve." They are here called his twelve disciples because of their subsequent conspicuity as the twelve apostles. he gave them power.—The object of the miraculous powers now bestowed on the apostles, was to enable them to prove the divine authority of their mission, and, in doing so, to prove the divine authority of Jesus, by whom these powers were bestowed. 2. The first.—The term "first" is not used in the sense of preeminent, but it is employed numerically to indicate that here the enumeration of the twelve begins. Peter's conspicuity is indicated, however, by the fact that his name is numerically the first in all the catalogues of their names, and it was doubtless placed first on account of the preeminence which he subsequently attained. (See Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:13; and comp. Matthew 16:19.) 3. Matthew the publican.—Notwithstanding the reproach attached to the name publican, and the long period since Matthew had ceased to be a publican when his narrative was written, he still writes himself, "Matthew the publican." It is probable that the old name still adhered to him in popular speech, and that this led to its perpetuation in his narrative. He does not attach the term fishermen to the names of the first four. Lebbaeus.—On this name, see note on Mark 3:18. 4. Simon the Canaanite.—The form in which the term Canaanite is spelt, has led many English readers to suppose that Simon was either a descendant of the original Canaanites, or a citizen of the town of Cana; neither of which suppositions is true. The original is the Syro-Chaldaic name of a sect among the Jews, who took into their own hands, without process of law, the punishment of flagrant offenses. They acted the same part in Jewish society that those bands of men sometimes called "Regulators" perform in American society at the present day; and they justified their conduct by the example of Phinehas, who, in the time of general corruption about Baal-peor, executed summary vengeance on Zimri and Cozbi. (See Numbers 25:1-18.) Luke translates the name into Greek, and calls this apostle Simon Zelotes, or Simon the Zealot. (6:15.) Judas Iscariot.—Iscariot designates Judas by his former place of residence It means a man of Kerioth, a town in the tribe of Judah. (Joshua 15:25.) The Commission Given, Matthew 10:5-85. Gentiles... Samaritans.—There are two good reasons why the apostles under this first commission should be prohibited from going among Gentiles or Samaritans, and be restricted to the Jews. In the first place, the Jews alone were prepared for that which was to be preached— the speedy coming of the kingdom of heaven. It was proper that the laborers be sent only into that part of the harvest which was ready for the sickle. Again, the time was limited, and not even the entire land of Israel could be traversed ere the mission would end. (Verse 23.) 6. to the lost sheep.—Jesus still has in mind the simile with which the discourse was introduced (9:36), and as the people are like sheep without a shepherd, he sends the twelve as shepherds to hunt up the lost sheep. 7. preach, saying.—Observe, they were not to preach Jesus now, but they were to preach, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand;" thus echoing the words of John and of Jesus. 8. freely.— Without price (δωρεν). It applies not to their labor as a whole, for they were to receive wages for this (verse 10); but to their miracle working. The power to heal the sick, to cleanse lepers, and to cast out demons, might have been made a source of great gain, had the apostles been allowed so to employ it; but this would have robbed the power of its dignity and turned it into an article of merchandise; hence in no age of the world did the true prophets of God accept fees for the exercise of their miraculous powers. Their Means of Support, Matthew 10:9-10. (Mark 6:8-9; Luke 9:3) 9, 10. Provide neither.—The prohibition is against procuring the articles mentioned before starting, and at their own expense. They were to thus procure neither money to pay expenses; nor a scrip (provision bag) which would enable them to carry cold provisions; nor two coats, nor two pairs of shoes, so that one might replace the other when worn out; nor were they to carry more than one staff, seeing that a second one which was used only for carrying a pack across the shoulder, would be superfluous. The reason for the prohibition is not that they would have no need for the articles mentioned, but that "the workman is worthy of his meat," and they were to depend on the people for whose benefit they labored, to furnish what they might need. This passage is alluded to by Paul when he says, "The Lord ordained that they who preach the gospel shall live of the gospel." (1 Corinthians 9:14.) The prohibition in the text was removed preparatory to the second commission (Luke 22:35-36), because under it the apostles would go out among the Gentiles, who Bad not learned, like the Jews, to provide for the wants of religious teachers, and they would often be compelled to provide for themselves. Their Mode of Dealing with the People, Matthew 10:11-15. (Mark 6:10-11; Luke 9:4-5) 11. who in it is worthy.—That is, worthy to entertain a preacher of the gospel. The house at which a strange preacher lodges, on entering a town or city, has often much to do with his influence and success. and there abide.—An unnecessary change of one's lodging-place, while temporarily laboring in a town or city, is attended with many slight disadvantages, as every experienced evangelist can testify, and the Savior exhibited a wise foresight in forbidding it during this hurried mission of the twelve. 12, 13. let your peace return.—The form of salutation on entering a house was, "Peace to this house." The apostles are told to salute each house, and are assured that the peace prayed for shall return to them it the house is not worthy; that is, they shall receive, in this case, the blessing they pronounce on the house. 14. shake off the dust.—According to Mark 6:11, shaking off the dust from the feet was intended as "a testimony against" those who would not receive the preachers. It testified that they were rejected by Him whose messengers had been rejected by them. It is twice recorded of Paul that he complied with this precept. (Acts 13:51 Acts 18:6.) 15. more tolerable.—It is a fixed principle in the divine government that men shall be judged with reference to their opportunities. Though the sin of these Jews in rejecting the apostles was not of so gross a character as the sins of Sodom and Gomorrha, it was more inexcusable on account of their superior opportunities. Persecutions Predicted, Matthew 10:16-23 16. as sheep in the midst of wolves.—At this point in the discourse, Jesus passes from the first to the second mission of the apostles; for all of the persecutions enumerated were encountered under the latter. They were to be like sheep in the midst of wolves, because they were to be visited with cruelties, and they were to bear these without resistance. Under these circumstances they were to be as wise as serpents, whose only wisdom is displayed in escaping from danger (comp. note on 23), and as blameless (ἀκέραιοι) as doves. Being blameless, they would encounter no merited severity; and, being wise as serpents, they would escape all danger that could be avoided without dereliction of duty. 17. councils... synagogues.—The councils (συνέδρια) and synagogues here mentioned were Jewish powers. It seems from this verse that synagogue rulers exercised the power of scourging men for minor offenses. (See also 23:34; Acts 22:19 Acts 26:11, 18. governors and kings.—These are Gentile powers. This appears both from the fact that even the governors and kings who ruled in Judea were appointees of the Roman government, and from the statement of the text that the apostles were to be brought before these "for a testimony against them and the Gentiles." Paul's arraignment before such men as Lysias, Felix, Festus, Agrippa, and Nero, was in fulfillment of this prediction, and it resulted in testimony against them because they rejected the gospel which was thus providentially forced upon their attention. 19. take no thought.—Here we have the same word in the Greek, as in Matthew 6:25, and the meaning is the same, "be not anxious". We learn from Mark (13:11) that they were not, under such circumstances, even to "premeditate;" and the promise, "It shall be given you, in that same hour, what you shall speak," saved them from both premeditation and anxiety. 20. not you that speak.—Of course, the physical act of speaking was theirs, but it was not theirs to determine how or what they should speak (verse 19). Both the manner and the matter were to be supplied by the Spirit of God. There could not be a more explicit declaration of the complete verbal inspiration of the apostles on such occasions. 21. shall deliver up.—The statement is not that brother shall put brother to death; but that he shall deliver him up to death; that is, deliver him up to those who would put him to death. This was done by giving testimony, and acting the part of an informer. 22. hated of all men.—The apostles always had some friends; hence we are to understand that the term all here is used hyperbolically. to the end.—To the end of life: for it is persecution unto death (21) that is to be endured. 23. flee ye into another.—This is a specification under the more general precept, "Be ye wise as serpents (verse 16); and the special reason for fleeing so promptly from a city where they were persecuted, is, "Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of man be come." What coming of the Son of man is meant, has been a matter of dispute. But it is a coming which was to take place before all the cities of Israel should be evangelized, and hence the reference must be, we think, to the providential coming to destroy the Jewish nationality. The apostles were to make no delay, even under their first commission, in cities that would not receive them, and were to promptly flee when, under the second commission, they should be violently persecuted; because by their labors under both combined they would not evangelize all the Jewish cities before the time set for their desolation. Motives to Endurance, Matthew 10:24-3324, 25. enough for the disciple.—The argument here is, that the disciple should expect exemption from no hardship endured by his teacher (master here means teacher), nor the servant from any endured by his lord. As Jesus, then, was to suffer, his disciples and servants must not expect to fare better than he, but it is enough for them to escape with no more than he suffered. When a disciple suffers and feels like complaining of his hard lot, let him think, Who am I, to complain of suffering, when my Lord and Master suffered so much more than this for me! 26, 27. that shall not be revealed.—Here is another motive to endurance. Disciples often suffer from injustice that is so covered up from the eyes of the world as to appear like justice, and there is nothing more disheartening than this. But Jesus assures them that no hidden or covered up iniquity shall escape exposure, and urges that no truth shall be allowed to remain in obscurity through fear of danger in proclaiming it: hence they are to preach "on the housetops" all that they hear from him, even what he had whispered in their ears. 28. fear not them who kill.—The fear of men who would kill them, as previously predicted, was calculated to deter the apostles from the mission on which they were about to be sent. Should they yield to this fear they are reminded that they must, as an alternative, encounter "Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Let the danger, then, of going be as great as it might be, the danger of refusing to go, or of turning back, is still greater. As a mere choice of evils, the most cruel persecution is to be patiently endured in preference to neglect of duty to God. destroy.—Materialists are wont to catch at the word destroy in this place, as proof that the soul can be annihilated. But in doing so they ascribe to the term destroy a sense which it does not bear, and they overlook the fact that this passage utterly refutes the doctrine that the soul dies with the body. Jesus Bays, "Fear not them who kill the body, but can not kill the soul;" but if the soul dies with the body, then he who kills the body kills the soul too, and can not avoid killing it. To destroy, is not to annihilate, but to bring to ruin; and the soul and body are brought to ruin when they are cast into hell. in hell.—As the body and soul both are to be destroyed in hell, hell (γεἑννα) can not belong to the intermediate state, but to that state which follows the reunion of body and soul at the resurrection. Hell, then, lies beyond the final judgment. 29-31. ye are of more value.—Another motive to endurance— the tender protection which God extends to those who endure. If a sparrow, of so little value that two of them are sold for a farthing (σσαριον = 1½ cts), does not fall without your Father, and if all the hairs of your head are numbered, why should you, who are of more value than many sparrows, be afraid to serve God rather than man? Here is an incidental affirmation of special providence in its most minute manifestations, and an assurance that even if we fall by the hand of man, God is with us in the fall, and this makes it a blessing instead of a calamity. 32, 33. shall confess... shall deny.—Here is the fifth and last motive to endurance. The time was coming when the disciples would often be questioned concerning their faith, and when life or death would depend on the answer. They are encouraged to confess Jesus on these and all occasions, by the assurance that if they do so he will confess them before the Father in heaven, and that if they deny him he will deny them. The confession before the Father in heaven is doubtless an approving recognition of the person as a faithful disciple, and the denying is the reverse of this. A denial like Peter's, followed by immediate repentance, is not here included. The confession of Jesus which is made at the beginning of the Christian life is not directly alluded to, but what is true of this is true of the later confessions more especially the subject of remark, seeing that there is the same temptation to be overcome, and often the same danger to be encountered. Persecutions Intended as a Test, Matthew 10:34-3934. not to send peace.—In one sense Jesus came to send peace— peace among those who would receive him, and between them and God. So sang the angels at the time of his birth. (Luke 2:14.) But between his friends and those who would persist in being his foes, he came to send not peace, but a sword. He knew that the existence and activities of the Church would cause the sword of persecution to be drawn, and in ordering the establishment of the Church he assumed the responsibility of indirectly sending that sword into the world. 35, 38. at variance against his father.—In nearly all quarrels, except those about religion, the members of the same family stand together, but in religious feuds the family circle is often broken, and its parts arrayed against each other. When a man abandons the religion of his ancestors his own kindred feel more keenly than others the shame which the world attaches to the act, and are exasperated against the supposed apostate in a degree proportionate to their nearness to him. Jesus came to set a man thus at variance with his kindred, because this evil is unavoidable in saving some. 37. He that loveth father.—In this verse is clearly indicated the providential purpose of these family alienations: they would put the disciple to the test by showing whether he loves earthly relatives more than he loves Jesus, and whether, therefore, he is worthy of Jesus. 38. taketh not his cross.—The cross, on account of its use in the execution of the basest criminals, was a symbol of dishonor. The dishonor attached to being a disciple of Jesus is here graphically symbolized by taking a cross on one's shoulder and following Jesus. Perhaps there is also, as Alford suggests, an allusion to his death on the cross— an allusion which, at the time, must have escaped the notice of his disciples, because it preceded all of his predictions on that subject. 39. findeth his life shall lose it.—Here is a play on the word life, which is used alternately for temporal life and eternal life. He that finds it is he who saves his present life by shrinking from duty: he shall lose the eternal life. He who loses the present life for the sake of Jesus, finds life eternal. Kind Treatment of Disciple's to be Rewarded, Matthew 10:40-4240. He that receiveth.—By a very natural transition Jesus now passes from the persecutions awaiting his disciples to the kind treatment which they would receive from the hands of others, and he encourages such treatment by the assurance that he will accept it as if extended to himself. 41, 42. in the name.—"In the name of a prophet" is a Hebraism for "because he is a prophet." (Alford.) He who receives a prophet because he is a prophet, or a righteous man because he is a righteous man, or who gives a drink of water to a disciple because he is a disciple, distinctly recognizes the person's relation to God as the ground of the act; and to that extent God is honored by the act. Not so, however, with him who performs a similar act in the name of humanity, or because the recipient is a man. a prophet's reward.—A prophet's reward is not synonymous with final salvation; for while it is true that in heaven we will have full reward for all the good we do on earth, we will have infinitely more than this, and our admission into heaven is a matter of grace, and not of reward. So, then, the promise of the text does not imply the salvation of all that receive a prophet, etc., but simply that he shall be rewarded. If he be a pardoned man, he may receive his reward in heaven; if not, he will receive it only on earth. Argument of Section 7In this section, Matthew has exhibited the compassion of Jesus as the moving cause which led to the first mission of the twelve; he has furnished the names and stated the miraculous endowments of the twelve; and he has shown the foreknowledge of Jesus by his predictions concerning the disciples, and his honesty by his fair dealing with them in reference to their own future. In this last particular, there is a contrast between Jesus and the originators of earthly enterprises, whether secular or religious. It is the custom of the latter to paint in glowing colors the brighter prospects of the causes they plead, and to conceal from both themselves and others the darker side of the picture. But Jesus presents faithfully before his disciples all of the hardships and sufferings which await them, not omitting death itself— and death, it may be, on the cross. The foreknowledge displayed is proof of his divinity, while the compassion and the candor which accompany it are such as we would expect in the Son of God. It is worthy of note, as indicating Matthew's peculiar method as a historian, that he closes this section on the first mission of the twelve with oat a word about the labors of the apostles under this commission. Mark mentions the latter subject, though but briefly. (Mark 6:12-13.) Questions by E.M. Zerr For Matthew 101. Whom did Jesus call? 2. What did he give them? 3. How far could they go in healing? 4. How many apostles? 5. Which was the first one called ? 6. How many pairs of brothers in the list? 7. What distinction did Matthew have? 8. What is said prospectively of Judas Iscariot? 9. Tell what Jesues did with the twelve. 10. Give the restrictions. 11. Why Gentiles distinguished from the Samaritans? 12. To whom were they to go? 13. What were they to preach? 14. State what works they were to do. 15. Why freely give? 16. State restrictions as to provisions. 17. What reason is given? 18. State inquiry upon entering a city. 19. How long abide there? 20. What do on entering a house? 21. On what condition give it peace? 22. Why should they shake off the dust ? 23. Compare that city with Sodom and Gomorrha. 24. Who were as sheep among wolves? 25. How were they to be like serpents? 26. And how like doves? 27. Of what must they beware? 28. To what would they deliver up the apostles? 29. How treat thejn in the synagogues? 30. Before whom would they be brought? 31. For whose sake would it be? 32. This will act as what against the Gentiles? 33. When delivered up what thought is unnecessary? 34. How will it be supplied? 35. When will it be given them? 36. How will brothers treat each other? 37. Who else will thus mistreat each, other? 38. Of whom will the apstles be hated? 39. What class will be saved? 40. Is it right to flee from persecution? 41. What cities were the disciples to flee unto? 42. Tell what was to make their time limited. 43. Compare disciple and servant with master and lord. 44. With what should the former be content? 45. What had the master been called? 46. This should lead the disciples to expect what? 47. Why should they not fear? 48. State the teaching as to publicity ? 49. What killer is not to be feared ? 50. Who is meant by the other destroyer? 51. What shows God’ s care for little things? 52. How does he regard our body? 53. Whom will Jesus acknowledge before God? 54. How about others? 55. What did Jesus come to send on earth? 56. How will it affect father and son? 57. Where will a man’ s foes be found? 58. When is love to parents offensive to Christ ? 59. What must we bear to be worthy of Christ ? 60. Tell what loss results in a gain. 61. What three cannot be received separately? 62. How may a prophet’ s reward be obtained? 63. What reward for receiving a righteous man? 64. Gift of drink of water will assure what? 65. This is on what condition?condition? 10:1 His twelve disoiples. Jesus had many disciples, but he selected twelve out of the group to be his apostles. In Mark 3:14 it is stated that these men were designated as the ones who should "be with him." This was to be one of the qualifications required of the original apostles. These men were to be "laborers" sent forth into the harvest as was asked by the Lord in the preceding chapter. Since they were to be separated at least at short intervals from him, they would need to be qualified to back up their work by miracles of various kinds. Power is from EXOUSIA which also means "authority." With the appointment that Jesus made they were given the right and ability to execute the mission :2-4 There are three accounts or lists of the twelve apostles; here, in Mark and in Luke. The men are the same ones but the names of some of them are not the same, and the three accounts do not give them in the same order. For the purpose of identification I shall number the list as given by Matthew from 1 to 12 consecutively, using it as a schedule for the other two. The list given by Mark 3:16-19 should be numbered as follows to correspond with these in Matthew as 1, 3, 4, 2, 5, 6, 8, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12. Number the list in Luke 6:14-16 as follows==> 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 7, 9, 11, 10, 12. All of the men with the same number are the same regardless of the name. Who also betrayed him is said to distinguish the traitor from the brother of James who has the same name in one list, although the betrayal had not taken place when this was written. 10:5 This and the following verses through 5 constitute what is familiarly known as the first commission. It was limited as to the territory or people to whom they were to go. All people who were not full blooded Jews were regarded as Gentiles. Samaritans were distinguished from the Gentiles because they were a mixed race, part Jew and part Gentile, both in their blood and in their religion. This history of their origin is recorded in 2 Kings chapter 17, and explained in volume 2 of this Commentary. 10:6 Lost sheep. The Jewish nation had been imposed upon and neglected by the leaders for generations, hence they were compared to sheep who were lost in the wilderness, deserted by their shepherd. That is why Jesus had compassion on them and thought of them as being "scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd" (Matthew 9:36). 10:7 At this time the kingdom of heaven was at hand, which shows it was near but not yet in existence as a fact. Hence we know that John the Baptist (who was then dead) did not set up the kingdom as some people teach today. 10:8 These apostles were able to perform the same kind of miracles that Jesus did, and that included the power to raise the dead. Pretended miracle workers today refuse even trying to raise the dead on the ground that the early disciples were restricted to miracles on the living. The present passage disproves their doctrine and exposes their hypocrisy. Freely received, freely give. The aspostles received all their power from Jesus--it was not a natural trait--hence they should pass its benefits to others. 10:9 These metals refer to the coins used in those days. The reason they were not to provide themselves with them will be explained in the next verse. 0:10 A scrip was a provision bag, used in the same manner as the modern lunch basket. They were also told not to take any extra clothing besides what they wore as they started. The reason given is that the workman is worthy of his meat. They were to be supported by the people among whom they labored. Since those people were Jews, and hence already disposed somewhat in their favor, it would be reasonable to expect some returns for their work. Later, when they were to go among the heathen, and especially as they would be without the immediate support of Jesus, they were to "look out" somewhat for themselves. (See Luke 22:35-38.) 0:11 Inquire is from EXETAZO which Thayer defines, "To search out; to examine strictly, inquire." This would require the apostles not merely to ask some person whom they might meet as to what house it would be well to enter, but they were to take whatever means would be necessary to obtain reliable information. After finding a house worthy of their visit they were to confine their work in that town to that house. The reason for this restriction is shown in verse 23. 0:12 The inquiry mentioned above would include the added information they would receive through the attitude manifested by the residents of a house upon entering it. A house might be selected temporarily because of some apparently favorable indications, and the test would be concluded after meeting the people on the inside. This would be introduced by an act of courtesy in the form of saluta- tion. That word is from and Thayer defines it at this place, "To salute, greet, wish well to." 0:13 After the investigation has been completed, if the house is found to be worthy, their peace or good wishes was to be bestowed upon it. That would be accompanied with their delivering of a message of good news of the kingdom. If the house was found to be unworthy, their peace was to return to them, and that means their good wishes would be recalled. 0:14 A group of citizens that were such as to be regarded as unworthy, would be the kind that would reject the offered blessings of the apostles. Shake off the dust of your feet. People traveled on foot and thus picked up the particles of soil on the way. This act was purely a symbolic one, for there would be no contamination in the dust due to the character of the people. It meant that all responsibility for their fate was to be left at their own door, seeing they would not receive the favors offered them by their good visitors. 0:15 Be more tolerable in popular language would mean to "stand a better chance." Sodom and Gomorrha were very wicked cities, yet their opportunities for knowing better were far less than those of the cities to be visited by the apostles. These conditions made them less responsible and hence less to answer for. It should be noted that the difference was to be made in the day of judgment. That is, in making up the verdict as to the eternal fate of people, the Judge will consider these facts as to their opportunities. After the day of judgment nothing is said about any difference. 0:16 If a sheep had to be put into the midst of wolves he would not escape being attacked but by the best kind of behavior. He should not make any unnecessary movement toward one of these beasts for that would attract his attention. Instead, he should go about his search for food or whatever he was seeking, using his good judgment and not doing any harm to the interests of the beasts. The simple lesson was that the apostles were to be discreet in their dealings with the people they met. 0:17 The councils were the san-hedrins, the highest courts the Jews were permitted to have at that time, and the synagogues were the buildings where they met for religious purposes. (See the description of them at Matthew 4:23.) The object in forcing the apostles into these places was to persecute them from both the secular and religious standpoints as far as their authority permitted. 0:18 Not being satisfied with what they could accomplish in their own assemblies, the Jews would drag the apostles before the rulers of the Roman Empire where they would hope to obtain some decrees against them. For a testimony does not mean the persecutors would hail the apostles into those courts for the purpose of hearing the testimony against themselves. Jesus meant that such a circumstance would give them an opportunity thus to speak against them and all the sinful men of the nations. 0:19 This verse is in line with the comments on the preceding one, that the calling of the apostles before the various courts was to be turned into an opportunity for speaking the truth. They were not to be worried as to what kind of speeches they were to **lake, for they would be furnished with the necessary material for the speech. In that same hour indicates that the subject matter would be adapted to the circumstances of the occasion when it arrived. 0:20 This verse states the means by which the apostles were to speak, that they would be guided by the Spirit of their Father. 0:21 The same oposition to truth that would bring the apostles into the courts, will also divide between the members of families. This prediction is made specifically in Luke 12:53 where Jesus is speaking of the results of his teaching. 0:22 Hated . . . name's sake. Because of their loyalty to the name of Jesus, men would hate the apostles wherever they labored. Endureth to the end means those who hold out faithful to the end of the persecutions will be saved or divinely blessed. 0:23 To endure persecution does not mean that one must needlessly expose himself to possible death. If he can escape without compromising any truth or evading any duty, he should do so and thus be able to do good elsewhere. The apostles would have plenty of places in which to preach, therefore when their work was rejected and their lives endangered in one city, they were to flee into another. Even then they would not have time to visit all the cities in Israel until their period for working would be ended. That was the reason for the restrictions mentioned in verse 11. 0:24 The word above means the disciple and servant are not any better than their master and lord, or any more entitled to escape persecu- tion than they. 0:25 Enough to be as. It should be regarded as a favor not to be any more liable to persecution than they. Since the master of the house has already been virtually called Beelzebub (Matthew 9:34), the servants may expect the like treatment. 0:26 The persecutors perform their evil deeds often in an underhanded and cowardly manner. But their works will finally be exposed and all false charges disproved. 0:27 Darkness and light are used figuratively, and have the same meaning as the next clause. Jesus taught his apostles many things while they were alone with him, and they were then expected to tell them to others publicly. The housetops were fiat in those times and used very much in the same manner a& our verandas or sidewalks. (See Deuteronomy 22:8; Matthew 24:17; Acts 10:9.) That would give the apostles an opportunity to preach to the people in a public manner. 0:28 Mere human beings can cause us to die physically, but Jesus teaches that they cannot go any further in their work of destruction while someone else can. All this proves that death as we use that term does not end it all, hence the materialists are shown to be teachers of false doctrine. God is the One who can destroy (cast) our whole being in hell, therefore we should fear or respect Him. See the note at chapter 5:30 for the lexicon explanation of hell. 0:29 God's care for his creatures is the point in this verse. A sparrow was of such little commercial value that two of them could be bought for a farthing, one of the smallest of coins; yet every time one of them is brought down God sees it. 0:30 Before finishing the subject of the sparrow, Jesus makes direct reference to the value of the human being. Numbered is from the Greek word , and Thayer defines it with the one word only that we have in our Authorized Version. Robinson defines it, "To number, to count." The meaning is that each hair is counted or considered. 0:31 If God takes such notice of the sparrow which has such small value, He certainly will not overlook man who is destined never to cease his existence. 0:32 The fear of persecution might cause some to deny Christ, so this verse is properly placed in the midst of that subject. Confess is from , and I shall give Robinson's definition of the word because it is more condensed: "To speak or say together, in common, i. e., the same things; hence to hold the same language, to assent, to accord, to agree with." To confess one, then, means to admit being in agreement with him and endorsing his teaching. Of course Jesus will not need to agree with the teaching of his disciples except to acknowledge that the disciples had accepted the teaching given them by the Lord. 0:33 This verse is simply the opposite of the preceding one. 0:34 Peace is from EIRENE and the primary definition in Thayer's lexicon is, "A state of national tranquility; exemption from the rage and havoc of war." His definition in our verse is, "Peace between individuals, 1. e., harmony, concord." Jesus uses the word peace in a restricted or figurative sense, and hence the word sword is also thus used, and the meaning will be explained in the verses following. 0:35 The conditions described in this verse are the opposite of the specific definition of "peace" in the preceding one. These relatives will be set at variance with each other because some of them will accept the teaching of Christ and some will not. 0:36 Not only will distant relatives be opposed to each other, but right in a man's household there will be members who will become his personal enemies because he is determined to accept Christ's teaching. 0:37 The only way to prevent the above difficulty is to reject the doctrine of Christ. If one does that it proves that he loves his earthly relatives more than he does Christ, in which case he becomes unworthy of his Lord. That will put him in the class mentioned in verse 33 and he will be rejected at the last day. 0:38 The cross is used figuratively in this place. The original word is defined by Thayer simply, "A cross." However, the same author cites us to some history that explains the language of Jesus as follows: "The judicial usage which compelled those condemned to crucifixion themselves to carry the cross to the place of punishment, gave rise to the proverbial expression [about bearing the cross], which was wont to be used of those who on behalf of God's cause do not hesitate cheerfully and manfully to bear persecutions, troubles, distress,--thus recalling the fate of Christ and the spirit in which he encounters it." 0:39 The key word in this verse is life which comes from PSUCHE in both cases. The word has been rendered in the Authorized Version by heart 1 time, life 40, mind 3, soul 58. Among the phrases in Thayer's long definition are the following: "Breath; the vital force; life; that in which there is life; the soul; the seat of the feelings, desires, affections; the soul as an essence which differs from the body and is not dissolved by death." From the above information we may learn that man has an outer and an inner life. Expressed in another way, he has a physical life and an inner life that can be saved spiritually. Both kinds of life must be considered in this verse which will make it read as follows: "He that findeth [or is working for] his earthly life shall lose his spiritual life." Of course the last half of the verse means just the opposite, but we may extend the language and say that if a man actually loses his earthly or outer life (verse 28) for the sake of Christ, he will gain eternal life. 0:40 Jesus and his Father are one in purpose, and both were upholding the apostles who had been chosen. Of necessity, then, the attitude of the people towards any one of the three would count for all of them. 0:41 The apostles were classed as prophets under the new order of things under Christ. To receive one of these in the name of a prophet means to receive him because he is a prophet of the Lord. Prophet's reward means the reward such as a prophet can bestow. The same principle applies to receiving a righteous man for his reward. 0:42 These "little ones" are the same disciples referred to in earlier verses of the chapter. Kindness of ever so little a character shown to them is the same as doing so to Jesus and will be rewarded in due time. This is the same lesson that is taught in Matthew 25:40. Matthew 11 "THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Chapter Eleven While the apostles were fulfilling the limited commission, Jesus was approached by emissaries from John the Baptist who received confirmation that He was "The Coming One" (Matthew 11:1-6). Jesus revealed that John was "The Messenger" foretold by Malachai and that many were inconsistent in their opposition to both Jesus and John (Matthew 11:7-19). Jesus then rebuked cities which did not repent at His teaching (Matthew 11:20-24), and at the same time extended a tender invitation to those who would accept His teaching (Matthew 11:25-30). POINTS TO PONDER * The relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist * Why the day of judgment will be more tolerable for Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom than it will be for Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum * The Savior’ s tender invitation to those with troubled souls REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter? - John’ s disciples come to Jesus - Matthew 11:1-6- Jesus’ discourse regarding John the Baptist - Matthew 11:7-19- Woe to impenitent cities - Matthew 11:20-24- The Savior’ s prayer and tender invitation - Matthew 11:25-30 2) Why did John send two disciples to Jesus? (Matthew 11:2-3) - To confirm that Jesus was "The Coming One" 3) What evidence did Jesus offer to John’ s disciples? (Matthew 11:4-5) - His miracles, and the fact that the poor have the gospel preached to them 4) What two O.T. prophecies did Jesus say that John fulfilled? (Matthew 11:10; Matthew 11:14) - Malachi 3:1 and Malachi 4:5 5) Who did Jesus say would be greater than John the Baptist? (Matthew 11:11) - He who is least in the kingdom of heaven 6) How did some people describe John and Jesus? (Matthew 11:18-19) - John: having a demon - Jesus: a glutton, winebibber, and friend of sinners and tax collectors 7) Why did Jesus rebuke the cities of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum? (Matthew 11:20) - Because they saw His might works and yet did not repent 8) To whom did Jesus extend His invitation? What did He expect in return? (Matthew 11:28-30) - To all who labor and are heavy laden (by the guilt of sin) - To take His yoke upon them and learn from Him (become His disciple) Matthew 11:1-30 Verse 1Mat 11:1-30 FROM JOHN THE BAPTIST; CITIES THAT HIM; AND THE GREAT And it came to pass when Jesus had finished commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and preach in their cities. (Matthew 11:1)Concerning the month's separation of Jesus and his disciples, see under Matthew 10:42. Verse 2 Now when John heard in the prison the works of the Christ, he sent by his disciples, and said unto him, Art thou he that cometh, or look we for another?John had grown uncertain as to whether Christ was indeed the Messiah or not. The uncertainty probably arose from the following circumstances: (1) John had been cast into prison, and Christ had made no move to free him; (2) John was suffering cruel and unjust persecution and probably foresaw his approaching martyrdom; (3) Jesus' identity as the Messiah was not being proclaimed at that time with the dogmatic certainty which John doubtless expected; (4) the reasons for Christ's reticence about his Messiahship could not have been clear to John. In fact, people would be somewhat in the dark about this, even today, had it not been for Luke's concise statement of the strait in which Jesus found himself at that moment. "I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!" (Luke 12:50). The philosopher John Locke traced the narrowness of the path our Lord had to travel. It was his purpose to die for the sins of the world; but his purpose would have been thwarted if he had been put to death for sedition. The popular misconception that the Messiah would supplant the Romans made it very difficult to walk the fine line between convincing all people of good will, on the one hand, that he was actually the Messiah, while, on the other hand, at the same time dispelling any thought that he would take the secular government away from the Romans. That Jesus was indeed hard pressed or "straitened" to find the true ground between those two parallel courses is evident. In this frame of reference, it is easy to see why Christ would openly declare himself the Messiah while conversing with the woman at the well of Samaria (John 4:26), whose word was worthless in court because she was a Samaritan, and upon other occasions fail back upon more noncommittal expressions such as "thou sayest." The deputation from John, therefore, precipitated a very delicate situation. It was absolutely necessary that John be confirmed in his conviction that Jesus was the Messiah, but not by any declaration that would result in Jesus' being hailed into court as a seditionist. Dummelow summed up Christ's skilled handling of the question in these words, By a reference to Isaiah 61:1, he declared plainly enough, and yet not too plainly, that he was the Messiah. He worked a number of miracles in their presence in proof of his Messianic claims (Luke 7:21), and finally sent them back to John with a message in which he expressly mentioned his miracles, and promised a blessing to those who should attach themselves to him. The spectacle of Christ's miracles must have been particularly impressive to the disciples of John, who performed no miracles (John 10:41)[1] It should be noted that in times of personal misfortune, suffering, hardship, or persecution, one's faith is inclined to waver; and those things which seemed so positive and certain under more favorable circumstances and in brighter days tend to be dimmed and obscured. Any sufferer who struggles with life's tribulations and feels that his prayers have not been answered can find deep: and sympathetic thoughts for John and his doubts. Note too that John took the wise course by presenting his difficulties and uncertainties directly to the Lord. If he had inquired of the Pharisees, or others, he could have found no alleviation of his distress. Take it up with Jesus. That is always best, and in fact is the only way to solve problems and doubts. Note again that Jesus said, "Go show John AGAIN ..." (Matthew 11:4, KJV). This teaches that even the best men and the most faithful disciples need to be told "again and again" the wonderful things of Christ and his kingdom. Tell me the story slowly, That I may take it in. That wonderful redemption, God's remedy for sin; Tell me the story often, For I forget so soon: The early dew of morning Has passed away at noon.[2] - Hymn: "Tell Me the Old, Old Story" [1] J. R. Dummelow, One Volume Commentary (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 664. [2] Kate Hankey, Hymn No. 227, "Tell Me the Old, Old Story" (Chicago: Great Songs Press, 1960). Verse 4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and tell John the things which ye hear and see.The King James Version has "Go and show John AGAIN ..." The word "again" does not occur in later versions, but the thought is surely included of RE- John who was the first publicly to recognize and identify the Messiah. This is a constant and unvarying need in all ages for the church to keep stressing over and over again the great facts of the gospel. The Great Commission stresses teaching the taught, as does Paul's readiness to preach the gospel to members of the church in Rome (Romans 1:16). Verse 5 The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.The miracles Jesus mentioned to John's messengers were precisely those which Isaiah identified with the advent of the Messiah (Isaiah 35:5-6; Isaiah 61:1). This was Christ's unique way of letting John know that he was indeed the Christ without phrasing it in terms that would have secular overtones. Verse 6 And blessed is he, whosoever shall find no occasion of stumbling in me.This earnest plea from Jesus' very heart and soul is a moving and powerful request that John would not take offense at our Lord's inability openly to declare himself at that time, nor at differences such as marked their attitudes toward fasting. The absence of any further inquiries from John shows that John understood. Verse 7 And as these went on their way, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to behold? a reed shaken with the wind?Jesus immediately launched into a dissertation on John and his ministry that revealed the very highest estimate of both. His praise of John the Baptist is unequaled by his praise of any other. "The reed shaken in the wind" suggested something of little importance, trivial, a minor curiosity. John was not that. It also suggests a man of weak and vacillating purpose. To speak such a thing in the context would both stimulate the popular admiration of John and, when the words were repeated to John, would more firmly establish his resistance against being blown about by changing winds of opinion. It was Jesus' way of saying, "John will stand firm. He is no reed bowing in whatever direction the wind blows." Verse 8 But what went ye out to see? a man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, they that wear soft raiment are in king's houses.The comparison suggested a sycophant; and John certainly was not that. His rough garment of camel's hair put him in a different world. The implication would give greater strength to John and would tactfully remind him that he was no fawning flatterer of Herod who would change his witness of Christ in order to curry favor. The aptness of this reference to "soft raiment" is notable. Nearly 2,000 years after Jesus spoke those words, it is still true that the clothing that brings the highest price and is held as the most desirable is nearly always marked by its "softness"! This infinite perfection of all that Jesus said under any and all circumstances has often been noted. See more under Matthew 5:13. There is a quality of permanence and aptitude that marked all of our Lord's utterances. Verse 9 But wherefore went ye out? to see a prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and much more than a prophet.John was the last and greatest of the prophets, foretelling: (1) the near approach of the kingdom of God, (2) that Jesus would take away the sin of the world, and (3) that the Jewish nation would be destroyed for rejecting him (see under Matthew 3:10). He was more than a prophet in that he did not merely foretell the Messiah but presented him to the people and identified him. He was greatest also in his proximity to Christ, which is the final, ultimate test of greatness. Verse 10 This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare the way before thee.Christ's selection of this prophecy from Malachi 3:1 and application of it to John proves two things: (1) that John the Baptist is that first messenger mentioned in that passage, and (2) that Jesus Christ is the Lord, "the messenger of the covenant" who even then had suddenly come to his temple. Verse 11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist: yet he that is but little in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.This is but a continuation of the Saviour's logic in the preceding verse. Just as John was the greatest of the prophets because of his proximity to Christ, the apostles, and indeed all Christians, are greater than John because they are even closer, being "in him" as a result of the new birth. Since Christ is Lord, this statement concerning John became the fulfillment of the prophecy that John would "be great in the sight of the Lord" (Luke 1:15). The statement proves that: (1) John was not in the kingdom of Christ, and (2) the kingdom had not then been set up, else John would have been in it. The least in God's kingdom are greater than John because (1) their sins are forgiven, whereas those of John were merely rolled forward to the cross, and (2) they enjoy full fellowship with Christ in his kingdom. Verse 12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and men of violence take it by force.Admitted to be one of the difficult passages of the New Testament, this verse in all probability was accurately understood and expounded by McGarvey who wrote: Jesus here pictures the kingdom of heaven as a besieged city. The city is shut up, but the enemies which surround it storm its walls and try to force an entrance ... The gates of Christ's kingdom were not opened until the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-47); but men, hearing it was about to be opened, sought to enter it prematurely, not by the gates which God would open, ... but by such breaches as they themselves sought to make in its walls.[3] Instances of such violence are: (1) Some tried to make him king by force (John 6:15). (2) the mother of James and John sought to obtain secular appointments for her sons in the kingdom (Matthew 20:21). (3) Some supposed the kingdom would appear immediately (Luke 19:11). (4) The apostles quarreled over who should be the greatest (Luke 22:24-30). (5) The apostles themselves seemed anxious for it to be done "at this time" (Acts 1:6). Furthermore, they envisioned a restoration of rule to Israel! McGarvey further wrote: The people were full of preconceived ideas with regard to the kingdom, and each one sought to hasten and enjoy its pleasures as one who impatiently seizes upon a bud and seeks with his fingers to force it to bloom. The context shows that even John the Baptist was then seeking to force the kingdom.[4] This view does not rule out the possibility discussed above that there was an element of genuine doubt in John's mind. It is also of interest to note that some of the Ante-Nicenes referred this "violence" to the zeal men should have in striving after the kingdom, thus construing the words in a favorable sense; but without doubt, McGarvey's exegesis of this passage appears more safe and perceptive of the Saviour's true meaning. [3] J. W. McGarvey, The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, Ohio: The Standard Publishing Company), p. 283. [4] Ibid., p. 284. Verse 13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.This signifies the end of all previous dispensations in John the Baptist, the notable person upon whom the hinges of God's economy began to open into the New Covenant. His proximity to Christ made him greater than Abraham, Moses, David, or any other of the great Old Testament worthies, revealing that the true test of greatness is proximity to Jesus. Verse 14 And if ye are willing to receive it, this is Elijah, that is to come.Basing their confident expectation of the return of Elijah before the advent of the Messiah upon Malachi 4:5-6, the Jews of Christ's day expected a literal return of the natural Elijah and had even tried to shake the faith of the apostles in Jesus' Messiahship because, in their view, Elijah had not yet come. Elijah did actually return and met with Christ on the mount of Transfiguration (Matthew 17:3); but in this passage, Christ revealed that the true intention of the prophecy was not a literal return of Elijah, but his spiritual return in the person of John the Baptist. The Pharisees should have been able to see this for themselves, for these reasons: (1) The birth of John the Baptist was announced in the temple to Zacharias, one of the priests, in his regular course of duty, a fact which the Pharisees certainly knew. (2) This annunciation was made by an angel who quoted, almost verbatim, the remarkable words of Malachi's prophecy, applying them, even before he was born, to John the Baptist. (3) John's raiment of camel's hair and the leather thong was designed to identify him with Elijah (see 2 Kings 1:8 and under Matthew 3:4). (4) The annunciator also said, "He shall go before the Lord in the spirit and power of Elijah" (Luke 1:17). Elijah actually came, therefore, in both ways: (1) literally on the mount of Transfiguration, and (2) spiritually in the person of John the Baptist. This did not prevent the Pharisees, however, from trying to subvert the Lord's apostles by the allegation of their own biased views on the subject (Matthew 17:10). The scribes had one thing going for them in this attempted subversion in that John himself had said that he was not "that Elijah" (John 1:21). John's statement, however, in answer to their question, was given in the literal sense in which they asked it. He was not, in truth, that Elijah who had been translated. That the scribes' objections on such grounds had some weight with the apostles is evident in the pains Jesus took to answer it and remove it. Verse 15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.This means that those who desire to know the truth may find sufficient knowledge in the words of Christ, that spiritual things are discerned by those who are spiritual. The Pharisees did possess ears, but not such ears as were disposed to hear any of the noble truths pertaining to the kingdom of heaven. Verse 16 But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the market-places, who call unto their fellows.Christ loved little children and made them models of kingdom virtues (Matthew 18:1-6) and flatly declared that unto such "belongs the kingdom of God" (Matthew 19:14). But here, Jesus used unruly and misbehaving children as a simile for the obdurate and unreasonable generation which rejected him and his kingdom. Such groups of spoiled and undisciplined children may still be observed playing in the marketplaces of the East. Verse 17 And say, We piped unto you, and ye did not dance; we wailed, and ye did not mourn.Translating this simile into the vernacular, it is just this: "Some wanted to play `wedding' and others said, `No! that's too happy.' Then they said, `Let's play funeral,' and the others said, `No! that's too sad?" The thought in this place suggests the proverb from colonial days in America, "You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't?" Jesus then proceeded to show that, in himself and John the Baptist, that generation had rejected both poles of righteous conduct without any reason whatever. Verse 18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a demon. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold, a gluttonous man and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners! And wisdom is justified by her works.John was an ascetic, living in the wilderness on the roughest of fare. Christ was sociable, even attending weddings, and eating with publicans and sinners. That unreasonable generation rejected both. John they accused of having a demon; and Christ they vilified as a "glutton and winebibber." There was clearly no place in that society for any type of manifestation of God's righteousness, no matter what direction it took. The following criticisms were directed against Christ: (1) He was called a glutton. (2) He was called a winebibber. (3) They said he cast out demons by the prince of demons (Matthew 9:34). (4) They called him Beelzebul (Matthew 10:25). (5) They called him a sinner (John 9:24). (6) They said he had a demon (John 7:20). (7) They said he was a Samaritan (John 8:48). (8) They charged him with violating the sabbath (Matthew 12:2). (9) They referred to him as a "deceiver" (Matthew 27:63). (10) They accused him of friendship with publicans and sinners (Luke 15:2). In that last calumny, they overreached themselves, because what they intended as a slander is in fact the glory of our Lord, namely, that he is a friend of publicans and sinners. And wisdom is justified by her works ... means that both John and Jesus were doing the will of God. Verse 20 Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not.The New Testament records only a few of the mighty works done in Capernaum and only one at Bethsaida-Julius, where the five thousand were fed. The wonder of why those cities did not repent remains and can be explained only upon the basis that the majority of mankind are not disposed to repentance, even if the Christ himself should be their instructor, if the disciples should be their preachers, and if the leading citizens should have their sick healed and their dead raised, as was true of Capernaum where Jairus' daughter was raised and the servant of the centurion was cured. Verse 21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon which were done in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.All three of these cities, situated within three or four miles of each other, were prosperous and populous in that day; and at least two of the Lord's apostles, Peter and Andrew, came from Bethsaida (John 1:44). Capernaum was the residence of Jesus and is called "his own city" (Matthew 9:1). Chorazin is nowhere else mentioned in the New Testament. McGarvey wrote that "When the time came for evangelizing the Gentiles, Tyre and Sidon accepted the gospel, and verified the words of the text" (Acts 21:3-6; Acts 27:3). Verse 22 But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment, than for you.Again we have an example of our Lord's designation of the final judgment as "THE DAY"! The amazing thing in this place is the relatively lighter punishment projected for Tyre and Sidon as compared with the cities Jesus upbraided. Christ plainly declared that Tyre and Sidon would enjoy a more "endurable" status. This, to be sure, is far from saying that their state should be described as "desirable"! Yet the so-called "degrees of punishment" hint at a mystery of which we have no sure knowledge. Concerning these things, L. S. White, pioneer minister of great ability, was accustomed to say, "God is too wise to make a mistake and too good to do wrong." (On "the day" of judgment, see under Matthew 12:41.) Verse 23 And thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted unto heaven? thou shalt go down unto Hades: for if the mighty works had been done in Sodom which were done in thee, it would have remained until this day.See notes on Matthew 11:22, above. This indicates that if Christ, instead of an angel, had visited Sodom, the people would have repented, and the city would have been spared. How favored, then, must be considered those men who have the privilege of knowing Christ and his saving gospel! Conversely, how reprehensible shall they be held who reject his word! A more terrible punishment awaits those who sin against the light. Let men lay it to heart. The gospel will either bless or curse those who hear it. Paul wrote, "For we are a sweet savor of Christ unto God, in them that are saved, and in them that perish; to the one, a savor from death unto death, to the other, a savor from life unto life" (2 Corinthians 2:15-16). Note too another reference to "the day" of judgment. See on Matthew 12:41 ff. Exalted unto heaven ... refers to the prosperity and general favor in which Capernaum reposed. This appears from the fact that her debasement is not to be in Gehenna, but in Hades, indicating a loss of her position and destruction of her beauty. The literal fulfillment of the Saviour's prophecy can be attested by any traveler who has stumbled over doubtful rubble and sought among ruins to find even the site of that unfortunate city that rejected the Christ. Moreover, an even more awful fate than her physical destruction awaits her citizens in the day of judgment, as may be seen by a glance at the following verse. Verse 24 But I say unto you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.The mystery of why more was not done for Sodom and Gomorrah, Tyre and Sidon, and other wicked cities of the remote past, should be contemplated with the deepest reverence for the wisdom and righteousness of God. It is not given men to know the "why" concerning many of the "deep things of God" (1 Corinthians 2:10). Verse 25 At that season Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes.Jesus, in this prayer, addressed God as "Father," and called him "Lord." This is in marked contrast to some today who speak in their prayers to God, addressing the Eternal as "You"! Christians should give honor to whom it is due (Romans 13:7); and such a palsy-walsy approach to God appears, in the eyes of this expositor, as falling short of that admonition. The Britannica's World Language Edition of Funk and Wagnalls Standard Dictionary lists "thou" and similar terms as obsolete, "except as an address to deity." Originally, such words as "thou" had a connotation of intimacy or even contempt, but long usage has exactly reversed the position and meaning of "thou" and "you." A similar crossover in which words exchanged meanings is seen in "ghost" and "spirit," each meaning exactly what the other did in 1611! Confusion naturally exists in such a situation, at least in some degree; but it cannot be denied that popular usage still favors what has become the more formal "thou" as an address to deity. See under Matthew 14:26. The basis of rejoicing that the Father had revealed his wisdom to "babes" is found in the apostles' lack of sophistication, pride, and intellectual arrogance. They were not worldly wise, wedded to preconceived notions, or doctrinaire. The advantage of this, from Christ's point of view, was noted by McGarvey: The wise and prudent were so wedded to tradition and false theories that the truth would not have been so safe in their keeping, as in that of men fresh from the masses of the people.[5] Also from McGarvey, It is certain that the chief corrupters of the truth in every age have sprung from the former class of men; and that (2) the fact that the gospel was originally established in the earth by the labors of the poor and illiterate in the face of bitter opposition from the rich and powerful, is an overwhelming argument in its favor.[6] However, it should be rejected that the Lord's apostles were lacking in truly intellectual gifts. They were, it is true, unspoiled by the philosophy and vain deceit of men, but they were diamonds in the rough, peculiarly fitted to receive without bias and to communicate without adulteration the pure truth of the gospel of salvation. Also, being men of the outdoors, they were especially able and accurate eyewitnesses of such things as the miracles. [5] J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on Matthew (Delight, Arkansas: The Gospel Light Publishing Company), p. 101. [6] Ibid., p. 102. Verse 26 Yea, Father, for so it was well-pleasing in thy sight.This shows the oneness between Christ and the Father and also indicates the propriety of including expressions in prayers, besides requests and thanks. Verse 27 All things have been delivered unto me of my Father; and no one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him.There is positively no other way to know God except through Christ (John 14:6). Man's only hope of eternal life lies in a knowledge of God, and this is possible only through Jesus Christ. In a practical sense, this means that the New Testament is the only source of accurate knowledge of God in matters pertaining to salvation; for, of all the books on earth, there is not another source, save only the New Testament, of the teachings of Christ. The positive, unqualified uniqueness of the New Testament is more and more apparent with the passing of each generation. Verse 28 Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shalt find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.THE GREAT Again we have in this place, and in Matthew 11:27 preceding, words from Christ which demand that we hail him as God Incarnate, or a fool. That only he knows the Father, that he will give all the weary rest, that only those may know God to whom Christ reveals him - these are all statements that cannot be reconciled with ordinary man. Christ was more than a man, and every line of the New Testament emphasizes this transcendent fact. These last three verses of Mat 11:1-30 are called the Great Invitation. Those invited are "all ye that labor and are heavy laden." Christ's teaching has a special appeal for the poor, the downtrodden, the despised, rejected, and suffering of earth; but it is incorrect to assume that only these are invited. Rather, all people are invited to fly unto Jesus for peace and redemption; and, in one sense or another, at one time or another, by some means or another, every soul ever born into this world is "weary," "heavy laden," and troubled by the common sorrows and calamities to which flesh is heir. In this larger view of the unmitigated sorrow in which all men dwell, the Great Invitation excludes no one. The common burden of sin, sickness, death, doubt, disillusionment, and sorrow is an invariable heritage of every man coming into the world. Reasons why men should come to Christ are: (1) for the rest he will give, (2) for the rest they will find, and (3) because Christ is meek and lowly in heart, thus fully qualified to provide sympathy, love, understanding, and whatever else may be required to alleviate human distress and to provide eternal life. The means of accomplishing all this is the "yoke" of Christ. What is that? Men are naturally leery of yokes; and Christ adds that his yoke is easy and his burden light. Christ's metaphor here is best understood by those who have journeyed to those lands where yokes are still found upon men's shoulders. In Pusan, this writer once saw a Korean Papa-San struggling up an inclined road with an incredibly large burden of hay. The progression of that haystack up that road appeared absolutely impossible, until investigation revealed the secret. The worker was using an "A-frame," padded, and fitted across his shoulders. The long sides of the "A" came down almost to the ground, and the cross member formed the span across his shoulders. The hay was ingeniously rigged on the frame. By placing his shoulders in the proper place, by stooping down and bending his knees, the worker could lift the whole load by straightening up. He would then stagger a few steps forward; and, when exhausted, he would flex his knees, stoop slightly, and rest the entire load on the ground. After resting a moment he would proceed, and in that manner moved the whole load half a mile! Now that "A-frame" itself was a burden, but it was the burden that enabled him to carry an immensely greater burden which would have been impossible without the "A-frame." In exactly the same manner, Christ's burden, his "yoke," is the burden that makes all other burdens bearable. Under the yoke of Christ, men can withstand all the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. They can carry whatever burdens of sorrow, misfortune, disease, or mortality that may come upon them - burdens which, if undertaken without his "yoke," would surely crush the unfortunate attempting to carry his burden alone. It only remains to inquire, "How may men take Christ's yoke upon them?" This is done, as he said, by those who "learn" of him. This refers to hearing, believing, repenting, confessing, being baptized, and walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord. People take Christ's yoke upon them by obeying the gospel and taking up their full duties and obligations in the church which is Christ's body. That such is surely a burden or "yoke," none may deny; but it is a burden which makes all other burdens light. J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Matthew Chapter ElevenRejection of John and of Jesus, Matthew 11:1-30 John's Message from Prison, Matthew 11:1-6. (Luke 7:18-23) 1. he departed thence.—The probability is that Jesus now labored separately from the apostles for a time— they laboring under the commission just given them, and he remaining with the multitudes who still flocked about him. 2. i.—According to Josephus, the place of John's imprisonment and death was the castle of Machaerus, east of the Dead Sea. (Ant. B. 18, ch. 5, §§ 1, 2.) It was not very far from that part of the Jordan in which John had baptized; and it is probable that Herod was residing in this castle when he went to hear John's preaching. 3. Art thou he.—Various hypotheses have been advanced by both ancient and modern expositors in reference to the purpose of John's inquiry. The natural and obvious supposition that he inquired merely because he wanted to know, has been very generally rejected as inconsistent with his previous testimony for Jesus, and with his inspiration. But we must remember that his inspiration passed away with the ministry on account of which it was bestowed, and that it was only the man John who made the inquiry. Moreover, it was the man John in hopeless imprisonment, and filled with the despondency natural to his situation. He may have still believed all that he had formerly said of Jesus, and yet have made the inquiry in the text. The inquiry is not, Are you what I declared you to be? but, being all of that, are you the one who should come, or must we look for another? Looking, as John did, in common with all the Jews, for an earthly king in the coming Messiah, and seeing in Jesus no aspirations for such a position, he was so far confused as to think that while Jesus fulfilled a part of the promises, there might be another Coming One who would fulfill the remainder. To satisfy his own mind, then, was the object of his inquiry, and he shows unabated confidence in Jesus by submitting the decision of the question to him. 4, 5. Go and show John.—Jesus did not choose to send a categorical answer, although John's question called for no more than this He preferred to let his works testify for him, and therefore he merely reiterated their testimony by saying, "Go and show John again those things which ye do hear and see." He was engaged in a variety of cures when the messengers arrived. (Luke 7:21.) The answer required John to revert once more to all that the prophets had written about the Coming One, and to thereby determine whether another after Jesus should be expected. It directed his mind especially to Isaiah 61:1-3, a passage to which Jesus had before appealed when preaching in the synagogue at Nazareth. (Luke 4:18-21.) 6. not be offended in me.—The chief reason why the scribes were offended at the claims of Jesus, was because he did not come up to their expectations concerning the Messiah; and now John seemed in danger of falling into the same fatal error: hence the warning to John, "Blessed is he who shall not be offended in me." True Estimate of Matthew 11:8-15. (Luke 7:24-30) 7, 8. A reed... soft raiment.—A reed shaken by the wind symbolizes a man who is swayed by public opinion; and one clothed in soft raiment, is a man of self-indulgence. The questions of Jesus Drought out with great emphasis the contrast between John and all such characters. In contrast with a reed shaken by the wind, stood his firmness in withstanding the Pharisees, and his fearlessness in rebuking sin even when Herod was the sinner, and when liberty and life were at stake. In contrast with soft raiment stood his camel's hair coat with its raw hide girdle, and his food of locusts and wild honey. To remind the people of these things, was to rekindle their admiration for John. 9, 10. more than a prophet—More than a prophet, in being the messenger sent before the face of Jesus, and in sustaining a closer relation to Jesus than any other prophet. 11. not risen a greater.—A greater prophet; continuing the comparison between him and the other prophets. If there were any doubt of this, it would be removed by Luke, who, in reporting the same speech, inserts the word prophet after greater. (Luke 7:28.) The point of superiority is that mentioned in the previous verse, his closer connection with Jesus. greater than he.—The point of comparison is still the same— the superiority consisting in closer connection with Jesus, and greater knowledge of him. In these respects, the least in the kingdom is greater than John, because he is a member of the body of Christ, and this is more than to be the messenger to go before him and to inquire, "Art thou he that should come, or look we for another?" This remark implies that John was not in the kingdom; for, otherwise, the least in the kingdom could not be greater than he. The language can not be treated as a hyperbole, as when Paul declares himself "less than the least of all saints" (Ephesians 3:8); for the contradiction in terms employed by Paul shows that he speaks hyperbolically; but there is no evidence of hyperbole in the passage before us. Neither can the expression "kingdom of heaven" be construed as equivalent to heaven, for in the next verse it is said to suffer violence, and this language can not be construed as referring to heaven. Neither is the present tense, "He that is least in the kingdom," to be construed as implying that some were already in the kingdom; for, in that case, John himself would have been in it, and the comparison could not have been made. Moreover, it is not uncommon to use the present tense in making comparisons between things yet in the future. (See Matthew 22:30.) The comparison in question is accounted for only by the fact that the kingdom of heaven, though preached, was not yet set up, and therefore John was not a citizen of it. 12. suffereth violence.—The correct translation of this verse is that given by Mr. Green in his Two-fold New Testament: "The kingdom of heaven is being forced, and men of force are seizing on it." The kingdom of heaven can not be literally forced; therefore, this term is to be understood metaphorically. The kingdom is compared to a walled city, into which men are trying to force their way in order to get possession of it, and this is said to have been going on "since the days of John the Baptist." In order to see what actual conduct of men is thus depicted, we must glance back at the history from the time of John. When the multitudes first rushed out to John at the Jordan, many of them thought that he was the expected Messiah, and they were eager to set up by force the expected kingdom. Disappointed in this, the same "men of force" soon gathered around Jesus, and on the very day in which the news of John's death reached Galilee, there followed Jesus into the wilderness about five thousand men, who, near the close of the day, tried to "take him by force and make him a king." (14:12-21; comp. John 6:15.) It was this disposition to force their way into the misconceived kingdom, which made it necessary for Jesus to frequently avoid the multitudes, and to sometimes command persons whom he had healed, "Tell it to no man." The verse, then, refers to the eager ness of the people to enter by violence into the privileges and honors of the kingdom— a disposition which arose from the mistaken idea that it was to be a political or military kingdom. The kingdom is compared to a walled city, and those men who wished to set up the kingdom by military force, to an army besieging the city. 13. Until John.—The statement that "all the prophets and the law prophesied until John," implies that then there was a change. The change is not stated, but may be supplied from the almost identical sentence in Luke, "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of heaven is preached." (Luke 16:16.) The change consisted in adding the preaching of the kingdom. 14. this is Elias.—The Jews expected the prophet Elijah to reappear, according to the prediction of Malachi, and they believed his coming would immediately precede the Messiah's kingdom. (Malachi 4:5-6; comp. Matthew 17:10.) They had at first thought it probable that John was the literal Elijah (John 1:21), but John denied it. Jesus now informs them that John, though not literally Elijah, was the person so called by Malachi; and he does this to show that Malachi's prediction had been fulfilled, and that consequently, according to their own doctrine, the kingdom of God must be at hand, and what he had just said about the kingdom, should be believed. John was called Elijah, because, as predicted by the angel who announced his birth, he was to go before the Lord "in the spirit and power of Elijah." (Luke 1:17.) He had the spirit of Elijah, in that he exercised similar self-denial in his mode of life, and maintained the same stern opposition against prevalent iniquity; and the power of Elijah, in that he swayed the people by his word, and gained a popular triumph analogous to that which Elijah gained at Mt. Carmel. (1 Kings 18:20-40.) 15. He that hath ears.—Jesus used the proverb contained in this verse when he desired to fix especial attention on something which his hearers were inclined to reject The foregoing speech about John was distasteful to those who had rejected his preaching and baptism; yet it was of the utmost importance to the cause of Jesus that the reputation of John, thus far his chief human witness, should be properly sustained, and the more so, as he was now in prison, and men were likely to think less of him on account of his waning fortune. Childishness of the Opposition, Matthew 11:16-19. (Luke 7:31-35) 16-19. like unto children.—In the comparison here instituted, two groups of children are supposed to be at play. One group makes a sound in imitation of a pipe, for the others to dance by, thus imitating the professional dancers; but the others refuse to dance. Supposing, then, that they feel more like weeping, the first group begin to mourn in imitation of the hired mourners at a funeral (see note on 9:23), but the others will not lament. In like manner, when John came, neither eating bread nor drinking wine, the unbelievers were displeased, and said he had a demon. When Jesus, as if for the very purpose of pleasing them in that wherein John displeased them, came eating and drinking, they were still displeased, and said, Behold a glutton and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. They acted like the ill-tempered children. justified of her children.—Wisdom is justified by her children when they act as wisdom's children should, thereby showing that she has trained them wisely. Jesus here assumes that he and John were both children of wisdom, and that they acted wisely though they acted so differently. John's life of Nazarite abstinence was wisely adapted to the special mission on which he was sent, that of preaching repentance. But Jesus, coming on a mission addressed not to one but to all the aspects of human life, assumed no peculiar personal habits, but preserved that evenness of balance and harmony of attributes which wisdom demanded in the Son of God. Wisdom was thus justified in both of her children; and she is justified in all of her children when they prudently adapt their habits each to the peculiar mission which God by providence assigns him. Unbelieving Cities Upbraided, Matthew 11:20-2420. most of his mighty works.—The meaning is, that more of his mighty works were done in these cities than in any other cities; not, more than in all others. Notwithstanding this fact, however, we have no record of any miracles at all wrought in either Chorazin or Bethsaida. This shows that comparatively few of the miracles are recorded. they repented not.—Notwithstanding the admiration of the people in these cities for Jesus, the dominion of sin within them was not broken down; they did not repent, and consequently they were not benefited by their heavenly opportunities. There were doubtless many individual exceptions. 21. Chorazin... Bethsaida.—Chorazin is not mentioned in the Scriptures except in the denunciations of it. Jerome, who traveled in Palestine in the latter part of the second century, represents it as two miles from Capernaum (Alford, Lange). Bethsaida was the home of Peter and Andrew (John 1:44), and was also near Capernaum (8:14). No trace of these villages is now seen by the traveler. in Tyre and Sidon.—We are not to infer that these two were the wickedest Gentile cities in the world; but they are mentioned because they were near by, and their wickedness was well known to the Galileans. would have repented.—Jesus here assumes that miracles, when rightly regarded, lead to repentance. Their power is not inherent, but depends on the proposition demonstrated by them. As Jesus preached repentance, his miracles demonstrated his divine authority to demand it, and the impenitence of his hearers proved them to be perverse and obdurate. High privileges abused render men more and more obdurate. The Galileans had abused their former privileges, and now they were not so susceptible to good influences as their Gentile neighbors, who had never known the will of God. The same difference is still seen between communities, and between individuals of the same community. When the proper time came for evangelizing the Gentiles, Tyre and Sidon both received the gospel, and verified the words of the text. (See Acts 21:3-6 Acts 27:3.) in sackcloth and ashes.—Not that they would literally have put on sackcloth and set down in the ashes, which was the ancient custom in times of great affliction (Job 2:12; Jonah 3:6), but that their repentance would have been attended with extreme sorrow, such as often found expression in this way. 22. more tolerable.—The cities of Tyre and Sidon, if judged by their actions alone, were far more wicked than these Galilean cities; but, bad as they were, they were better in proportion to their opportunities, and therefore they deserved less severity of punishment. The relative merits of men are to be determined by the correspondence between their lives and their opportunities. 23. shalt come down to hell.—Not hell (γεννα), but hades (δης). Not the final abode of the wicked, but the disembodied state. On account of the suffering which wicked spirits endure there (see Luke 16:25), when hades is mentioned in connection with the wicked, the idea of punishment is conveyed. The expressions, "exalted to heaven," and "brought down to hades," are both used figuratively; the former, to denote the high privileges which Capernaum had enjoyed, and the latter, the ruin which awaited her. The prediction has long since been fulfilled, and the traveler now searches among the rank weeds on the lake shore to find, in the fragments of stone which lie there, uncertain vestiges of the once populous and well built city. Thanksgiving of Jesus, Matthew 11:25-2625. I thank thee.—After ex pressing himself so fully in regard to those who rejected him, Jesus now, by a natural transition, proceeds to speak of those who received him. That he renders thanks for the result, shows that he was not displeased with it. On the contrary, it was an actual cause of rejoicing to him that he was received by those whom he calls "babes," and rejected by "the wise and prudent." God had "hid these things" from the latter class through the natural operation of their own corrupted hearts and perverted minds (comp. notes on 13:14, 15; Mark 4:12), and he had revealed them to the former through their more teachable moral and mental condition; the same light, meanwhile, shining on both alike. The ground of rejoicing is not stated, but we can see at least two considerations which were probably included in it. First, those called "the wise and prudent"— the educated Jews— were so wedded to tradition and false theories that the truth would not have been so safe in their keeping as in that of men fresh from the masses of the people. It is certain that the chief corrupters of the truth in every age have sprung from the former class of men. Second, the fact that the gospel was originally established in the earth chiefly by the labors of the poor and the illiterate, in the face of bitter opposition from the rich and powerful, is an overwhelming argument in its favor; but this argument would stand reversed, if it had been the "wise and prudent" instead of "babes" who at first received it. The anticipation of this result may have contributed to the Savior's rejoicing. 26. for so it seemed good.—Instead of for, we should have that. The entire verse is an abbreviated repetition of the thanksgiving, and is introduced for the sake of emphasis. It should be rendered thus: "Even so, Father, that so it seemed good in thy sight", "I thank thee" is understood after Father. (For a different opinion, see Lange on this verse.) Invitation, Matthew 11:27-3027. All things are delivered.—Jesus here speaks by anticipation. In God's purpose, all things were already delivered to him, but they were not actually delivered until his glorification. (See note on Matthew 28:18.) no man knoweth.—That is, knoweth completely. No one but the Father thus knew the Son at that time; nor, indeed, does any so know him even at this time. And no one thus knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son will reveal him. This revealing is done partly in this world and partly in the world to come. The assertion makes it certain that no correct knowledge of Clod can be obtained except through revelation. 28. Come unto me.—The preceding remarks are prefatory to this invitation. The dominion which he exercises, and the knowledge which he can impart, justify him in inviting men to come to him. labor... rest.—The labor and the rest here spoken of are those which affect the soul (verse 29); the labor and the heavy burden which sin imposes, the rest which follows the forgiveness of sins. Physical burdens are also made lighter by coming to Jesus, because the soul is made stronger to bear them. 29, 30. meek and lowly.—That Jesus is meek and lowly in heart, assures the invited that no grievous exactions will be made of them; and that his yoke is easy, and his burden light, is a good reason why the heavily laden should come. The tenderness and beauty of this invitation are the admiration of the world. Argument of Section 8By the speech of Jesus, which constitutes the body of this section, Matthew proves that the Jews were both inconsistent and inexcusable when they rejected John and Jesus. Inconsistent, because they condemned each for not living as the other did; and inexcusable, because they disregarded evidence which would have convinced the wickedest cities in the world. There is also a dignity and grandeur in the authoritative sentence which Jesus pronounces on the impenitent cities; in his lofty assertion of divine power and knowledge; and in his benevolent invitation for all who are weary and heavy laden to come to him, which are in perfect keeping with his claim to be the Son of God. These sentiments impress the soul as being truthful and pertinent utterances from a being full of divine power and goodness, whereas in any created being they would appear the extreme of arrogance and pretentiousness. They could not have originated in a false and deceitful spirit, such as the spirit of Jesus must have been if he was not the Son of God. It is internal evidence such as this that enables the Bible to furnish in itself the proof that it came from God. Questions by E.M. Zerr For Matthew 111. Whom had Jesus been commanding? 2. After that what did he do ? 3. Where was John at this time? 4. What had he heard? 5. Tell what he did. 6. What was to be their inquiry? 7. Tell the general answer Jesus gave. 8. Name the classes that had been benefitted. 9. Which of these benefits was spiritual? 10. Who had promise of being blessed? 11. After their departure of whom did Jesus speak ? 12. What plant did he suggest as comparison? 13. And what persons did he suggest? 14. What fact would preclude this class? 15. How did John compare among prophets? 16. Who is the messenger in 11:10? 17. Who is meant by “ thy” in same verse? 18. When was this verse fulfilled? 19. How did John compare among those bom of women? 20. Yet who was greater than he? 21. What had the kingdom of heaven suffered? 22. Since what time was it so? 23. To what period did the law and prophets point? 24. By what other name was John known? 25. What should a man do with his ears? 26. To whom was that generation likened? 27. What response should have been given the pipe? 28. And to the mourning. 29. Who had done the “ piping” and “ mourning” ? 30. Why say John did not eat and drink? 31. What friendship of Christ did they criticize? 32. Of what did they accuse John ? 33. How is wisdom justified? 34. What did Jesus upbraid? 35. For what reason did he upbraid them? 36. Compare Chorizin with Tyre and Sidon as to conduct- 37. And compare their chances at the judgment. 38. State the exaltation of Capernaum. 39. And its fall. 40. What had caused its exaltation ? 41. State its chances at the judgment. 42. For what did Jesus thank the Father? 43. Why had the Father done this? 44. From where did Jesus receive all things? 45. Between whom was there mutual knowledge? 46. Who are invited to Christ ? 47. To them will be given what ? 48. What should they take upon themselves? 49. Tell what learning is advised. 50. Describe the yoke of Christ. 11:1 All the words it came to pass are from GINOMAI and that word is used over 400 times in the Greek New Testament. It has a wide range of meanings and has been rendered in the Authorized Version by, be done 62 times, be 249, be made 69, become 42, come 53, tome to pass 82, and others. In places where it is rendered 'came to pass" it has the simple meaning; "it happened." Made an end means for the time being, for Jesus gave them commandments many times afterward. When the twelve disciples are mentioned it always means the apostles. Having given his apostles their "first commission," Jesus resumed his own work of teaching and preaching. There is not much difference between these two words when applied to the words of Jesus. The specific meaning of the first is "to instruct," and the other is, "to proclaim or announce." 11:2 This is the third time that the imprisonment of John has been referred to without relating its events. (See chapter 4:12; 9:14, 15.) The account of it will be found in chapter 14:1-12. John sent two of his disciples on an inquiry to Jesus. Let it be noted that it was his own disciples he sent, not those of Jesus who were daily near him and seeing his miracles on the sick and infirm. 11:3 I do not believe that John made this inquiry through any weakness of his own faith. That would have been a serious fault after the kind of preaching he had done. His own languishing in prison even should not have put any strain on his faith for he had preached to the people and told them concerning Christ and himself that "He must increase, but I must decrease," so that his persecution would harmonize with his own preaching. And had it been the case that his faith was weakening. Jesus would certainly have said something of a reproving character either to or about him. But he not only did not do that, but the entire speech that he made afterwards at verses 7-14 about John was highly complimentary. I am persuaded that it was for the reassurance of his own disciples who had not been seeing the miracles that Christ's disciples had seen. No doubt John believed that by getting his disciples in the immediate presence of Jesus on the occasion of the inquiry, they might get to see some of those evidences for themselves. This idea is borne out by the account in Luke 7:21 which says "in that same hour he cured many of their infirmities," etc. 11:4 Having "performed" doubtless for the benefit of John's disciples, he sent them back to John with the instruction to show him "again" about these miracles that they had just seen. The language shows that John had previously known about them, hence the report would not bring him any additional news. It might be asked why they should go tell John if the circumstance was just for their benefit. Well, the mission in the mind of John would have been accomplished, but their duty would not have been performed until they reported, and of course Jesus would not interfere with that. 11:5 This verse is the same account of the deeds which Luke says Jesus did "in that same hour." They all were things that required miraculous power unless we except the preaching of the gospel to the poor. That would require the miracle of inspiration but not the physical kind that is usually meant. 11:6 Not be offended is from and Thayer defines it at this place, "To be offended in one," and he explains his definition to mean, "i. e., to see in another what I disapprove of and what hinders me from acknowledging his authority." Jesus was giving so many evidences of the authority in his possession that no doubt should be had as to whether he was the one "that should come," and they need not "look for another." 11:7 The importance of John and his work will be the subject of some verses, all of which will show that Jesus had a high regard fcr him. A reed is a tall and slender stem that would be swayed easily by the wind. Such would illustrate a man with little stability and one who could be easily influenced. The question of Jesus implied that John was not that kind of a man. 11:8 A man who was accustomed to the soft and luxurious life of royal palaces would be unsuited for work out in the wilderness. But the prophecy had foretold that the forerunner of Jesus was to operate in the wilderness, hence no surprise should be felt over the rough outdoor raiment of John the Baptist. 11:9 Coming more specifically to the office of John, the subject of a prophet was mentioned. The ordinary prophet was a man who wrote and/or spoke general predictions that would have widespread fulfillment. John had himself been the fulfiller of other prophecies and hence he was more than a prophet. 1:10 Jesus makes references to the predictions that had been made of John, which are recorded in Isaiah 40:3-4; Malachi 3:1. The pronouns I and my stand for God, thy and thee refer to Christ, and the messenger means John the Baptist. 1:11 Up to the time of John's birth there had never been a greater prophet than he, for he not only fulfilled other prophecies, but uttered some himself that were of the greatest importance. Notwithstanding, he never was permitted even to see the kingdom of heaven, much less to set up and be "in it." For that reason the least person in that kingdom would be greater than John in the sense of having superior advantages over him, the privileges only possible to those who are members of the final master piece of Heaven in the salvation of mankind. 1:12 This verse is used by some to prove that the kingdom of heaven was in existence in the days of John. There have been several passages under observation that would forbid such a conclusion, hence we should seek for an explanation of the apparent contradiction. An organization is like a house in that it exists in preparation before it does in fact. Passing a site and seeing some digging of soil and unloading of material, a man may say to his friend: "This is our new school house." He would mean it was the school house in preparation. John began to "prepare" a people for Christ and thus it was the kingdom of heaven in preparation. But John's work was opposed even by ford and hence it is said that the kingdom suffered violence. 1:13 After Malachi completed his book, there was not one word of inspiration from heaven recorded until the voice of John was heard in the wilderness. That is, there was silence until his teaching about the kingdom introduced the new subject. 1:14 Elias in the New Testament is the form for Elijah in the old. Malachi 4:5 prophesied that "Elijah the prophet" was to come, which Luke 1:17 words" in the spirit and power of Elias." John the Baptist was not Elias in person (for he had gone to heaven, 2 Kings 2:11), but had the same kind of spirit (PNEUMA) and power (DUNAMIS) as he, and hence he is called by his name. 1:15 This is an emphatic call to attention, meaning that all who are blessed with the faculty of perceiving the sense of the divine teaching should use that faculty by attending to what is said. 1:16 Markets is from AGORA which Thayer defines, "1. any collection of men, congregation, assembly. 2. place where assemblies are held." The same author further explains: "In the New Testament the forum or public place,--where trials are held, Acts 16:19; and citizens resort, Acts 17:17; and commodities are exposed for sale." At such a place persons of all ages and classes would gather sometimes only for pastime. Children here is from which Thayer defines, "A little boy, a lad." These children were gathered to amuse each other. One set was to "furnish the music" and the other set was to respond. 1:17 But the set that was to respond was hard to please which was used by the Lord to illustrate the people of that generation in their attitude toward John the Baptist and himself. The one set of children first played on their pipes or flutes, but the others would not respond by dancing. Thinking they were not in the mood for jollity, they next set up a wailing sound and the others refused to respond to that, too, showing that they were determined not to be satisfied with anything that was done. 1:18 Neither eating nor drinking. No man can live without eating and drinking, but John did not eat among the people or from their supplies. He dwelt in the wilderness and lived on locusts and wild honey. He hath a devil. This charge is not recorded in any place except in the words of Jesus, but that makes it an established fact. They meant by such an accusation that John was a maniac or "out of his mind" to live as he did. That was the meaning that was attached to such a charge as may be seen in the following passages. John 7:20; John 8:48-49; John 8:52. 1:19 Jesus did the very opposite as to his social activities and did eat "with publicans and sinners" (chapter 9:11), yet that did not suit the people so they represented him as a man especially interested in his appetites. Wisdom is justified of her children. The last word is from a Greek word that means something that is produced by another. The wisdom that John and Christ showed in their different manner of life will be justified by the good results (the product or children) of their work, which was adapted to the peculiar circumstances in which they moved. 1:20 The key to this verse is that they repented not. God does not condemn unrighteous persons rashly on the mere fact of their sinfulness, but it is when they have been admonished and refuse to repent. (See Revelation 2:5; Revelation 2:16; Revelation 3:3.) 1:21 These cities first named were not literally as wicked as Tyre and Sidon, but they had received more opportunities for learning better. Those ancient cities would have shown a better spirit in that they would have repented, which is the idea of importance in the passage. 1:22 Notice the toleration was to be at the day of judgment, not afterward. See the comments on this thought at chapter 10:15. 1:23 The same comparison is to be made between the cities of this verse as was made in verse 21. Exalted unto heaven is a figure of speech, based on the fact that Jesus was an inhabitant of Capernaum by choice (chapter 4:13), and hence it had the advantage of his presence. Hell is from HADES, and the literal meaning of it is the abode of disembodied spirits after death. However, it is used figuratively in this passage, since its fate is contrasted with what would have been that of Sodom under as favorable opportunity, namely, that it would have remained until this day. The prediction of Jesus is that the city will sink into a state of forgetfulness. The prophecy has been fulfilled because the works of reference can only tell of various places that claim to have been its location. Funk and Wagnalls Standard Bible Dictionary says, "Its present site is a matter of dispute," and Smith's Bible Dictionary declares, "It is impossible to locate it with certainty." 1:24 For more tolerable see the comments on verse 22. 1:25 The Pharisees professed to have superior wisdom, yet their hearts had become so hardened with selfishness that the important principles of responsibility had been hid from their perception. Babes is a figurative term for the honest and humble people who were ready to hear the lessons of truth offered to them. 1:26 The endearing term of Father is used here, to which Jesus had joined that of Lord in the preceding. verse. Jesus endorsed the work of God with NAT which is translated. even so. Thayer defines it, "Yea, verily, truly, assuredly, even so." The beautiful reason for his endorsement was that it "seemed good in thy sight." The best of reasons for any action of God is that He considers it to be good. 1:27 The complete intimacy between Jesus and God is the main point, and he indicates it by using the terms Father and Son. In anticipation of the full delivering of authority to him (chapter 28:18), he says all things are delivered. No person will be permitted to benefit from this great intimacy but the one to whom the Son reveals it, and that will be only the man who accepts the Son. 1:28 The willingness of Jesus to share the forementioned blessing with others is indicated by the rest of this chapter. This whole passage is often called Christ's world-wide in-vitation. To labor means to be distressed with the hardships of life, especially those brought about by sin. The kind of rest to be given will be shown next. 1:29 Yoke is from ZUGOS, which has been rendered in the Authorized Version by yoke 5 times and pair of balances 1. The word is used as an illustration of the obligation that one must accept as a co-worker with Jesus in the service of righteousness. Learn of me is consistent with the whole situation, for if a man expects to serve his yokefellow he should desire to know something about him. That learning will reveal that the owner of the yoke is meek and lowly which means he is humble and interested in the welfare of the unfortunate ones of earth. The rest is to be for the soul, not that a disciple of Jesus will be an idler in the vineyard. But while his body may be bent down with the toils of the service and from its persecutions imposed by the enemy, the inner man will be at peace and rest in the Lord. (See 2 Corinthians 4:16.) 1:30 Easy is from a word that means it is not harsh nor galling because it is made correctly. If a yoke for a beast is made to fit his body, he can pull a heavy load without any injury to his shoulders, and that would make a big burden comparatively light. On that principle the service that Christ places upon the shoulders of his disciples is adapted to their needs and abilities, which makes it easy to bear. Matthew 12 "THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Chapter Twelve Opposition to Jesus and His ministry increased, spear-headed by Pharisees who objected to Jesus’ conduct on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-14). Jesus humbly sought privacy, which fulfilled Isaiah’ s prophecy concerning God’ s Chosen Servant (Matthew 12:15-21), but Pharisees followed Him making blasphemous accusations against the Spirit and demanded a sign (Matthew 12:22-45). When Jesus’ physical family wanted to see Him, Jesus identified His disciples as His true family (Matthew 12:46-50). POINTS TO PONDER * Jesus and the Sabbath day * The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit * The true family of God REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter? - Controversies over the Sabbath - Matthew 12:1-14- The humility of the Chosen Servant - Matthew 12:15-21- Blasphemous opposition by the Pharisees - Matthew 12:22-45- Jesus’ true family - Matthew 12:46-50 2) What were Jesus’ disciples doing that angered the Pharisees? (Matthew 12:1-2) - Plucking heads of grain to eat on the Sabbath day 3) What was Jesus doing that angered the Pharisees? (Matthew 12:9-14) - Healing on the Sabbath day 4) What prophecy did Jesus fulfill warning people not to make Him known? (Matthew 12:17-21) - That He would not quarrel or cry out (Isaiah 42:1-4) 5) How did the Pharisees explain Jesus’ ability to cast out demons? (Matthew 12:24) - He did it by the power of Beelzebub, ruler of the demons 6) What was the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? (Matthew 12:31-32) - Attributing Jesus’ ability to cast out demons to having an unclean spirit (cf. Mark 3:30) 7) For what will one give an account in the day of judgment? (Matthew 12:36-37) - Every idle word 8) What sign did Jesus say He would give to the Pharisees? (Matthew 12:38-40) - The Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth 9) Who did Jesus identify as His true family? (Matthew 12:49-50) - His disciples, i.e., whoever does the will of His Father in heaven Matthew 12:1-50 Verse 1Mat 12:1-50 THE SABBATH; AGAINST THE HOLY SPIRIT; THE SIGN OF THE PROPHET JONAH; THE EMPTY HOUSE AND THE RETURN OF THE UNCLEAN SPIRITAt that season, Jesus went on the sabbath day through the grain fields; and his disciples were hungry and began to pluck ears to eat. (Matthew 12:1)This action of Jesus' disciples should have been passed over and ignored altogether; but the bitter, hair-splitting Pharisees, finding no genuine fault in the conduct of Jesus and his disciples, attempted to make a case out of this. Their knowledge of so trifling an incident shows how minutely they observed all his deeds. Their spies must have included half the population! The time was April or May, when the grain was formed in the ear but not yet harvested. The grain was likely wheat; Indian corn would not be known until after Columbus discovered America. Verse 2 But the Pharisees, when they saw it, said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which it is not lawful to do upon the sabbath.This charge was false. God's law did not prohibit the preparation and eating of food on the sabbath day. At the conclusion of the interview, Jesus referred to his disciples as "guiltless" (Matthew 12:5). It is true, however, that the disciples had violated a Pharisaical "interpretation" of the law; and such interpretations were held even more sacred by the Pharisees than the law itself. In the Pharisees' view, the disciples were guilty of threshing wheat! Such pedantry, nit-picking, and magnification of trifles would also have made them guilty of irrigating land, if they had chanced to knock off a few drops of dew while passing through the fields! The Pharisees were out to "get" Jesus; and any charge was better than none. Verse 3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was hungry, and they that were with him; how he entered into the house of God, and ate the showbread which it was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them that were with him, but only for the priests?Note that what David and his companions did on that occasion was , nor does Jesus say that they were blameless in so doing. That was not the point of bringing up the conduct of David. Some commentators have drawn unjustifiable conclusions from this, as, for example, Dummelow, who wrote: He (Christ) laid down the principle that even the Divine Law itself, so far as it is purely ceremonial, is subservient to human needs, and can be broken without sin for adequate cause.[1] We agree with McGarvey's words, If Christians may violate law when its observance would involve hardship or suffering, then there is an end to suffering for the name of Christ, and an end, even, of self-denial?[2] Why then did Christ mention those unlawful actions of David? It was because the Pharisees wholeheartedly approved of that far more flagrant case of sabbath-breaking by David (for David's action WAS unlawful; the disciples' was not), and yet were willing to press an accusation of wrongdoing against the Christ for something of infinitely less consequence. That the Pharisees did approve David's conduct was well known; and, if they had not approved it, they could have turned Jesus' words against him by saying, "So, you class yourself with David, but both you and David are sinners." That they did not so respond proves that they approved of David's conduct. Thus, their hypocrisy was open for all to see. [1] J. R. Dummelow, One Volume Commentary (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 666. [2] J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on Matthew (Delight, Arkansas: The Gospel Light Publishing Company), p. 104. Verse 5 Or have ye not read in the law, that on the sabbath day the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless?This reference is to the fact than an exception was made for the priests who served in the temple, and who could, therefore, do work on the sabbath that would otherwise have been unlawful. Christ's stress on that exception called attention to an analogy between himself and the temple. He referred to his body as "the temple," stating that he would raise it up in three days (John 2:19). The argument is that, just as the priests served the temple on the sabbath day and were guiltless, his disciples might also serve Christ, the Greater Temple, without incurring guilt. Thus, even if his disciples had violated the sabbath restrictions (which they had not done), their doing so in the service of Christ would have granted them exemption. "Profaning" the sabbath does not refer to any actual profanation, but means that their actions, if performed otherwise than in temple service, would have profaned it. Verse 6 But I say unto you, that one greater than the temple is here.Who but God Himself could be greater than the temple God ordained? Christ again made a statement fixing a gulf between himself and all ordinary men. This is a dramatic reference to the analogy between Christ and the temple, mentioned under the preceding verse, and makes it crystal clear that Jesus' disciples were totally within the law, and were, like the temple priests, ! Those expositors who assume the charge of the Pharisees to have been correct, making Jesus' justification of his disciples to be merely that "David did it too," appear totally to have misunderstood this portion of God's word. And then, to go forward and formulate a law authorizing in prescribed circumstances the breaking of God's laws, is to forget that Jesus said, "Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:19). Verse 7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I desire mercy and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.Christ said the disciples were guiltless. Therefore, he was not attempting to justify their conduct on the basis that David had also been guilty of sabbath breaking. Christ's quotation from Hosea 6:6 (See more on this under Matthew 9:13) was a plain reference to the corruption and guilt of the Pharisees, and suggests that a proper attitude of mercy in their hearts would have rejected the criticism of this action before it was made. The real trouble was not in Christ and his disciples but in the hearts of the Pharisees. Verse 8 For the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath.This proclamation of his own authority took the whole matter out of the context of their law, and their interpretations, and their opinions, and even out of the Law of Moses. Christ had the right to set aside all of those; and, in the final analysis, his disciples needed no permission except Christ's to do whatever he permitted. This place has been cited as proof that Christians should keep the sabbath day, but the opposite is taught. The sabbath should be ignored and rejected utterly, unless Christ commanded it (which he did not); for Paul said, "He took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross" (Colossians 2:14). Verse 9 And he departed thence, and went into their synagogue: and behold a man having a withered hand. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? that they might accuse him.Following so closely on the preceding, this question amounted to a continuation of the conflict regarding the sabbath day: Their question, Matthew declared, sprang not from a desire to learn, but from hope of a chance to accuse. Verse 11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be of you, that shall have one sheep, and if this fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?The obvious answer was affirmative. The Pharisees, with one accord, made an exception for "the ox in the ditch," basing their view upon Exodus 23:4-5 and Deuteronomy 22:4. Verse 12 How much then is a man of more value than a sheep! Wherefore it is lawful to do good on the sabbath day.In this, Christ continued to prove that his conduct and that of his apostles was altogether correct and lawful. He did not lay claim to any "excusable violations," but he claimed strict and wholehearted compliance with the law, the whole law. He said, "Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I came not to destroy but to fulfill" (Matthew 5:17). Certainly, healing was allowable on the sabbath day, or upon any other day. That principle was honored by the Pharisees, as it applied to animals; but, in their blindness, they rejected the same principle applied by Christ to a man! Verse 13 Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, as the other.Christ demonstrated the principle he had just enunciated. As Luke expressed it, it was both in "preaching and bringing" the gospel to men that Jesus surpassed all other teachers (Luke 8:1). Christ always fitted the deed to the precept and the precept to the deed. Verse 14 But the Pharisees went out and took counsel against him, how they might destroy him.Hatred and blind rage will always try to destroy that which cannot be removed by more conventional means. Mark's mention of the Herodians in their conference shows the grounds upon which the Pharisees would attempt his legal murder; that is, by accusing him of sedition. This added to the difficulties confronting Christ in a situation where he was constrained to convince as many as possible of his Messiahship, yet without giving grounds for his legal punishment as a mere plotter against the government. Verse 15 And Jesus perceiving it withdrew from thence: and many followed him; and he healed them all.Knowing of the evil plot to kill him, Christ withdrew, as Mark added, to the Sea of Galilee (Mark 3:7). This was in keeping with Jesus' own rule (See under Matthew 10:23). Significantly, he healed them all. There were no failures. Verse 16 And charged them that they should not make him known.To have given wide publicity to his deeds at that time would have prematurely precipitated his eventual showdown with the Pharisees; and Christ was not yet ready for that. He was the Great Architect of all those events; and, although he intended to die, he intended also to accomplish his death at a time and manner fully in harmony with his own eternal purpose. Verse 17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying.Characteristic of Matthew are the numerous appeals to the writings of the prophets of the Old Testament. The reason for this reference is that it shows that Christ was doing exactly what it was prophesied that he would do. Verse 18 Behold my servant whom I have chosen; My beloved in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my Spirit upon him, And he shall declare judgment to the Gentiles. - Isaiah 42:1 ff The area into which Christ then entered had a heavy Gentile population. "Judgment," as used in this place, means "God's truth." The meekness and submissiveness of the Lord in that withdrawal were also in keeping with prophecy. Verse 19 He shall not strive, nor cry aloud; Neither shall any one hear his voice in the streets. - Isaiah 42:1 ff Jesus was no street-corner egotist, bawling for attention. Techniques of the rabble-rouser, the sensationalist, and the soapbox orator were beneath his dignity. Barnes wrote, "The meaning is that he should not seek publicity and popularity."[3] In keeping with these words concerning Christ, some of the antics of certain religionists appear to be totally improper. On Times Square in New York City, one often sees screaming advocates of this or that doctrine jostling the throngs pouring forth out of the theaters; and, although their zeal may be commendable, one cannot help remembering that the Christ drew the throngs to himself. He did not invade them, beating on a bucket, and yelling for the attention of the passers-by. ENDNOTE:[3] Albert Barnes, Barnes' Notes (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1954), p. 129. Verse 20 A bruised reed shall he not break, And smoking flax shall he not quench, Till he send forth judgment to victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles hope. - Isaiah 42:1 ff The last sentence of this quotation gives the sense but not the exact words of Isa 42:4. The bruised reed and dimly-lighted lamp are symbols of weakness and feebleness of faith, applicable in this place, no doubt, to the general spiritual condition of the Gentiles, but also a pledge that Christ does not despise the faith of any of his children, however weak and ready to perish. Barnes saw in the bruised reed a symbol of the soul, broken and contrite on account of sin, weeping and mourning for transgression. He will not break it. That is, he will not be severe, unforgiving, and cruel. He will heal it, pardon it, and give it strength.[4] The metaphor of the smoking flax referred to the string-like fabric, or wick, one end of which was contained in the bowl of ancient lamps, and the other end lighted. Flax was the material of which such wicks were made. "Smoking flax" indicated a lamp, nearly out of fuel, and almost ready to go out. There is also in this place a contrast between worldly conquerors and the Pharisees, on the one hand, riding rough shod over the weak and helpless; and, on the other hand, the lowly Christ, withdrawing from popular clamor, solicitous for the bruised reed or the smoking flax. But make no mistake. Christ, not the Pharisees, was THE VICTOR. Look to the last word of the quotation from Isaiah. He will send forth judgment "to victory"! Christ will continue in the way of the meek and humble. His methods did not lead to nor tend towards defeat. Far from it. Total and final VICTORY was, and ever shall be, his. ENDNOTE:[4] Ibid., p. 129. Verse 22 Then was brought unto him one possessed with a demon, blind and dumb; and he healed him, insomuch that the dumb man spake and saw."Dumb" in this place means "mute," which was the original meaning of that word. More recent connotations, indicating feeble mental powers, are not implied. Extensive events developed from this gracious deed, the populace hailing him as the "Son of David" (a popular name for the Messiah), and the Pharisees accusing him of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub. Verse 23And all the multitudes were amazed, and said, Can this be the Son of David?The contrast in attitude between the Pharisees and the multitudes showed that Christ was getting his message over to the majority of the people in spite of the bitter opposition of the leaders. For more on "Son of David," see under Matthew 1:1. Verse 24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This man doth not cast out demons, but by Beelzebub, the prince of the demons.Regarding the meaning of "Beelzebub," see under Matthew 10:25. Charges of the Pharisees were not honest. They would have denied the miracles if possible; but, unable to do that, they spoke maliciously about the source of his power. "Beelzebub" was a combination of two ancient words, "Baal," the name of the old god of the Canaanites, and [~zebul], meaning "dunghill." In the lore of the Pharisees, "Baal-zebul," or Beelzebub, as he came to be called, was said to be the prince of devils, or demons. How shameful it was that they linked the name of the Saviour with that false god. In spite of those vile charges having been initiated in deceit and malice on the part of their progenitors, the widening river of sin carried those slanders far from their source; and thus it is found that Celsus repeated them, with embellishments of his own, more than a century later, in 170 A.D., as did also the later Jewish Talmudists. Verse 25 And knowing their thoughts he said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.The argument in this and the following verse is simple, but profound. If Satan was really casting out Satan, a ridiculous absurdity on the face of it, then Satan's kingdom was being destroyed. Note that Jesus knew their thoughts, a knowledge that only God could have. Verse 26 And if Satan casteth out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then shall his kingdom stand?Christ, in this argument, took full advantage of the fact that the Pharisees, in malice, had overreached themselves by making an argument that was fraudulent and illogical on the face of it. Verse 27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges.Christ here referred to the widespread practice of some of the disciples (sons) of the Pharisees of casting out demons, or pretending to do so, which practice the Pharisees openly accepted, and upon which they based claims of divine approval of both themselves and their doctrines. Josephus described such a case thus: I have seen a certain man of my own country, whose name was Eleazer, releasing people that were demoniacal, in the presence of Vespasian and his sons and captains. He put a ring to the nostrils of the demoniac, and drew the demon out through his nostrils, making mention of Solomon, and reciting the incantations which he composed.[5] Christ's argument was: You Pharisees accept so-called exorcisms by your disciples, in spite of all the "mumbo jumbo" and evident witchcraft connected with them, but you reject my miracles which are accomplished with only a word of authority. If the miracles of your disciples are acceptable, surely mine, the Christ's, should also be acceptable. Of course, Christ did not endorse the exorcisms of the Pharisees' disciples any more than he endorsed the Pharisees. ENDNOTE:[5] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 668. Verse 28 But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you.In this, Christ turned their own arguments against them. His works, accomplished by God's power, were proof enough that the kingdom of God was at hand. "Come upon you" does not mean that the kingdom had been set up at that point, but that the King had certainly appeared, and that its establishment was near. Verse 29 Or how can one enter into the house of the strong man, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.In some real sense, Satan was "bound," else the Lord could not have cast out demons. Satan is still "bound." All the evil on earth seems, at first, to negate this view; but, when it is considered that things might be infinitely worse than they are, and when certain passages of the word of God are taken into consideration, it appears certain that Satan is limited and restrained by divinely imposed boundaries encompassing all infernal activity: (1) Satan cannot tempt a child of God more than is possible to bear (1 Corinthians 10:13). (2) He could not enter even a herd of swine without our Lord's permission (Matthew 8:32). (3) God's specific permission was necessary in the satanic harassment of the patriarch Job (Job 1:12). (4) Satan sifted Peter only after the Lord allowed it (Luke 22:31). (5) Satan and his angels are reserved "in chains of darkness" until the day of judgment (2 Peter 2:4). (6) He sowed tares in the wheat, but could do so only "while men slept" (Matthew 13:25). (7) He snatches the word of God from men's hearts, but he can do so only when hearts are hardened (Matthew 13:4). From these and countless other implications in the Scriptures, it may be positively concluded that Satan does not share control of the universe with God. Whatever Satan may do, it is always under God's permissive will; and all that he does will finally serve the eternal purpose. Verse 30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.Of this, Boles wrote: In the great conflict between life and darkness, good and evil, the kingdom of God and of Satan, there is no middle ground; there is no neutral position; there is no third power to which these miracles may be attributed. These Pharisees were obliged either to join Christ or to be against him. They had to become allies of God or co-workers with Satan; there was no other alternative.[6] Also, since their disciples were doing the same thing, or professing to do so, their judgment of Christ was automatically a judgment of themselves. ENDNOTE:[6] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Matthew (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1961), p. 268. Verse 31 Therefore, I say unto you, Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.There is an unpardonable transgression, and here is an example of it, "blasphemy against the Spirit." Boles' comments that the passage speaks not of "a sin against,"[7] but of "blasphemy against" the Spirit does not exclude a class of sins which are unforgivable and known collectively as "the sin" against the Holy Spirit. From the gospel of Mark comes, "Whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of AN ETERNAL SIN; because they said, He hath an unclean spirit" (Mark 3:29-30). Significantly, Mark spoke not of "the" but "an" eternal sin, showing that the transgression under consideration in this place is one of a class of sins designated as "eternal." We shall note the whole class of eternal sins first and then consider the example of it, committed by the Pharisees. The word of God teaches: (1) "There is a sin unto death; not concerning this do I say that he should make request" (1 John 5:16). Note that John spoke not of sin "until," but "unto" death. Such a sin is, therefore, not UNTIL physical death, but it is UNTO spiritual death. (2) "For, as touching those who were once enlightened, and tasted the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then fall away, it is impossible to renew them" (Hebrews 6:4-6). (3) "She that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth" (1 Timothy 5:6 KJV). (4) And regarding certain violations of the Lord's table, Paul declared, "For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and some sleep" (1 Corinthians 11:30). "Sleep" in this place is a euphemistic expression for death. (5) That the Holy Spirit in one's heart can be "quenched" is evident from the admonition, "Quench not the Spirit" (1 Thessalonians 5:19). (6) Concerning apostates, "The last state is become worse with them than the first" (2 Peter 2:20-21), indicating a condition worse than being lost, and which is fulfilled only by being lost without possibility of recovery. Now of this general condition, variously described as death while one lives, a sin unto death, the quenching of the Spirit, worse than being an alien sinner, and impossible to renew, and for which there is no need to pray - all such sins qualify for Mark's description, "an eternal sin." What, then, is THE sin that does all this? It may be any sin, hence the deadly and dangerous nature of all sin. In the physical world, what is THE fatal disease? It is the one the doctor writes on the death certificate, and may be any one of a countless number of maladies. The analogy holds in the spiritual realm; and the eternal sin is the one that destroys the soul of the sinner. That such may occur even while physical life is extended appears certain from all of the references noted above. Now, with reference to blasphemy against the Spirit, Christ named it as "an eternal sin," making it unforgivable. It was not the only sin that could have destroyed the Pharisees, but it is the one that did. The peculiar aggravation of their wickedness springs from their reviling Christ although they knew him to be righteous. Contrary to what they KNEW, they said he had an unclean spirit. They put falsehood for truth, darkness for light, evil for righteousness, and shut their eyes and hearts against the Lord. Their blasphemy was of a kind that blotted out the hope of heaven; and there can be little doubt that the same type of blind, senseless opposition to the Lord today would have the very same consequences. Acknowledgment of the influence of the highly-esteemed Grover Cleveland Brewer in the understanding of this difficult question, is hereby registered. His convincing sermons on this subject are reflected in the above comments. Seven different sins against the Holy Spirit may be noted in these references: (1) lusting against (Galatians 5:16);(2) resisting (Acts 7:51), (3) grieving (Ephesians 4:30); (4) lying to (Acts 5:3); (5) insulting (Hebrews 10:24); (6) blaspheming against (Mark 3:29); and (7) quenching (1 Thessalonians 5:19). It might be assumed that Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:3) committed an eternal sin, but it is not so stated in the word of God. It is implicit, however, in the very nature of all sin that ANY SIN, persisted in, can result in quenching the sacred fire within the soul and issue at last in eternal death. ENDNOTE:[7] Ibid., p. 269. Verse 32 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come.Many did speak against Christ, but when the Spirit of God came of Pentecost, they obeyed the gospel message and were saved. Those who spoke against the Spirit, rejecting the gospel which he delivered through the apostles, were not saved. No other means of redemption was given. Those who rejected the Spirit received no forgiveness then, or ever. One should avoid reading into this passage any hope that some sins will be forgiven in the world to come which remain unforgiven now. We agree with Boles. "No sin, unforgiven here, or in this world, will be pardoned or forgiven hereafter."[8] ENDNOTE:[8] Ibid., p. 270. Verse 33 Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree corrupt, and its fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by its fruit.Dummelow's paraphrase on this passage brings the meaning into sharp focus: Pharisees, be logical. You say that to cast out devils is good, but that I who do it am corrupt. That is as if you said, The fruit of this tree is good, but the tree itself is corrupt. Make up your minds which way you will have it. Either say that my works are good, and therefore that I am good also, or else that my works are corrupt, and that therefore I am corrupt also. You cannot separate a tree from its fruit, for a tree is known by its fruit. Nor can you separate a man from his works, for he is known by them.[9] ENDNOTE:[9] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 669. Verse 34 Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.In this, Christ applied to them the principle expounded in the preceding verse. The evil works of the Pharisees proceeded from inner corruption. Their hearts were not right in the sight of God. People should keep the heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life (Proverbs 4:23). As Adams expressed it, "When the citadel of the heart is won, the turret of the understanding will not long hold out."[10] ENDNOTE:[10] R. A. Bertram, A Homiletic Encyclopedia (New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls Company, thirteenth edition), Item 2690, p. 458. Verse 35 The good man out of his good treasure bringeth forth good things: and the evil man out of his evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.This is an elaboration of what Christ had already said. Such full attention to the Pharisees' slanders endows the entire event with tremendous significance; and, when it is recalled that their sin consisted principally of "speaking against" Christ, the implication is mandatory that an evil mouth can damn the soul forever. Evil and unbelieving words are not merely evil within themselves, but are like the escaping bubble to the surface of the lake, that betrays the rotten carcass beneath. Evil words proceed out of evil hearts. Verse 36 And I say unto you that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give an account thereof in the day of judgment. This is a strong admonition to guard what is spoken. "Idle" words are not necessarily those casual and insignificant sayings indulged in the course of social fellowship, nor such words as may be calculated to bring a smile to care-worn faces, but rather, they are the words that betray a bias of the soul against God and expose the evil heart of the sinner. Again, Christ referred to "the day" of judgment. See on Matthew 12:41, below. Verse 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.Speech is one of the greatest endowments of humanity; and the greater the gift, the greater the sin of perverting it to unworthy purposes. It would be impossible to sum up all the sins of mankind in the area of sinful speech. It must appear even to casual thought of it that words, as used by millions, constitute the bulk of human shame and wickedness. James said, "If any stumbleth not in word, the same is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body also" (James 3:2). Beyond everything else, man should watch what he says. One's words can justify when they confess Christ, or teach the truth, or serve to make peace, bestow a blessing, or give encouragement; but on the other hand, when words condemn, cast a reflection, subvert the truth, utter profanity, vulgarity, hatred, or malice, or any one of a million other evil things - then such words bring the condemnation of those who speak them. Verse 38 Then certain of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, Teacher, we would see a sign from thee.This arrogant request came from a group who had already accused Jesus of being in league with the devil and who had already seen signs aplenty; but in this case, they were demanding a sign of their own choosing. Luke stated that they sought a "sign from heaven" (Luke 11:16). By that, they no doubt meant some spectacular wonder without moral value but which would appeal sensationally to a man's curiosity. Christ always rejected that type of sign, as, for example, when he refused to jump from the pinnacle of the temple (Matthew 4:6). In fact, there is more than a suggestion that the Pharisees' request for a sign was but a renewal of Satan's temptation of the Lord in the wilderness. Christ always refused to perform wonders for his enemies like Herod or the Pharisees. He did work miracles for the benefit of John's disciples (Luke 7:18-22), and raised Lazarus that the people might believe (John 11:42). For more on "a sign from heaven," see under Matthew 16:1. Verse 39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet.The "adulterous generation" refers not merely to the morals of the people but to the rejection of Israel's covenant with their God. Barnes wrote: The relation of the Jews to God was represented as a marriage contract with God as the husband and the Jewish people as his wife (Isaiah 57:3; Hosea 3:1; Ezekiel 16:15). Hence, their apostasy and idolatry are often represented as adultery.[11] The "sign of the prophet Jonah" refers to the resurrection of Christ, the greatest and most wonderful miracle of all time. Jesus' announcement of this "sign" at that time was actually a prophecy of his death, burial and resurrection. The Old Testament had plainly indicated the Messiah would rise from the dead (Psalms 16:10); but, in keeping with his usual methods, Christ again laid claim to Messiahship, but in such terminology, and in such analogies, that his enemies would not see it, or if they did, would be unable to prove what he meant! ENDNOTE:[11] Albert Barnes, op. cit., p. 134, Verse 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.The use of "whale" in this verse is in error; the Greek word is "sea-monster," as a glance at the English Revised Version (1885) margin will show; not that there is any essential difference, for the Bible states that "God prepared" a great fish (Jonah 1:17). In the book of Jonah is related also how God "prepared" a gourd (Jonah 4:6), a worm (Jonah 4:7), and a sultry east wind (Jonah 4:8)! Why it should be considered for God a more difficult matter to prepare a great fish than any of those other "preparations" is surely a mystery! Regarding the truth of the Jonah narrative, it appears absolutely incredible that Christ, one of the Godhead, would have made a mere folk tale the principal prophecy and sign of his resurrection from the dead. We here register a protest against those expositors who are so wise above their Saviour in casting a reflection of doubt upon this astounding incident from the Old Testament. From Jesus' reference to it here, it appears that the experience of Jonah was an authentic event which God "prepared" to be a prophecy of a still greater one, the resurrection of Christ. The question of "three days and three nights," as signifying the time of our Lord's remaining in the tomb, is one of the most widely discussed issues in the New Testament. An overwhelming number of scholars hold the conviction that the expression is a Hebrew idiom referring to any part of three days and nights which included an entire day, the two nights on either side of it, and portions of the other two days. The present custom of accepting a month to be 28,30, or 31 days is held to be similar to the Hebrew custom of so loosely determining "three days and three nights." The traditional view that Christ was crucified on Friday and raised on Sunday draws its principal support from Matthew's word that Christ should be raised "the third day" (Matthew 16:21). This view asserts that if he was crucified on Thursday, and raised on Sunday, then he would have been raised on the fourth day. In spite of the fact that a good case can be made out for the above explanation, some very respected students of God's word take another view. Torrey said, "There is absolutely nothing in favor of Friday crucifixion, but everything in Scripture is perfectly harmonized by Wednesday crucifixion."[12] Torrey's argument is the following: (1) Christ was crucified the day before the sabbath (Mark 15:42). (2) This does not necessarily mean the day before the ordinary sabbath, because the Jews always honored the day before the Passover (15th of Nisan) as a special "high" sabbath, no matter what day of the week it fell upon (Exodus 12:6; Leviticus 23:7; Numbers 28:16-18). (3) The truly important question is, therefore, whether "day before the sabbath" refers to an ordinary Saturday, or the special "high" sabbath related to the Passover, and occurring on any day of the week, depending where the 15th of Nisan fell. (4) John's gospel plainly says it was "the preparation of the Passover" (John 19:14), and that it was "an high day" (John 19:31). These Scriptures plainly show that the ordinary sabbath was not meant. (5) Thus, Christ was crucified on the day before the "high day," or first day of Passover. Since the Passover (15th of Nisan) in the year 30 A.D. fell on Thursday, the "day before" would make it Wednesday on which Christ was crucified. (6) Scriptures supporting this view are: Christ said he would rise "after three days" (Mark 8:31). "After three days" he would rise again (Mark 9:31; Mark 10:34). "This is now the third day since these things were done" (Luke 24:31). Whatever one thinks of Torrey's argument, it must be admitted that it is supported by more Scriptures than the traditional view. Warning: devout souls will not be troubled by this question; for, if it had been necessary to know the day of the week, the Lord would have revealed it. Furthermore, to resolve this question finally and dogmatically, it would be positively necessary to know the exact year of our Lord's passion; and THAT is not certainly known. Not even the exact year of his birth can be determined. It can never be known what day of the week was the 15th of Nisan until the overriding question of WHAT YEAR is fixed. This, of course, is the weakness of Torrey's position. He takes the year 30 A.D. as the base of his calculations. The heart of the earth is a figurative expression for the grave which is also called "the lower parts of the earth" (Psalms 63:9; Ephesians 4:9). ENDNOTE:[12] R. A. Torrey, Difficulties in the Bible (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1907), p. 109. Verse 41 The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, a greater than Jonah is here.Of surpassing interest in this passage is Christ's reference to "the judgment." Some fancy they see seven judgments in the word of God; but Christ continually spoke of only ONE. As already noted repeatedly in this commentary, THE was a constant theme of Christ's teaching. Christ's view of the judgment envisioned a day of wrath and glow toward which all the world is moving, a day on which God shall rise in righteous anger and cast evil out of his universe. Christ's word on this subject makes it impossible to hold "our age" as the judgment; for "it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh judgment" (Hebrews 9:27). Nor is the day of death to be viewed as the day of judgment. THAT comes after death. The verses before us show that the judgment is a simultaneous judgment of all nations and conditions of men, regardless of the ages in which they lived. The Queen of the South, the men of Nineveh, and the people of Christ's generation are spoken of as all appearing simultaneously for judgment, though, of course, their lives were separated by many centuries in time. Paul referred to that occasion as "that day" (2 Timothy 4:8). Thus, it may be logically concluded that "the judgment" of Scripture is a specific occasion, a cataclysmic day, upon which every man ever born on earth shall appear before the judgment seat of Christ to receive the deeds done in the body (2 Corinthians 5:10). How commendable was the repentance of the men of Nineveh! They repented without any command to repent, without any promise of relief if they did repent, with no invitation to repent, without even a small desire on the part of the preacher that they would repent (but, on the contrary, a fervent hope that they would not), and without any appreciation on Jonah's part when they did repent! A preacher will know how to elaborate this! Christ's being greater than Jonah is seen in the contrast between the messages, one secular, the other spiritual; between the messengers, one true, the other untrue; and between the miracles that certified each, one disgorged by a sea-monster, the other raised from the dead. See also Matthew 8:25. Verse 42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.The superior faith of the Queen of the South is seen in that she came upon a paucity of evidence, responding to rumor, or hearsay. The ends of the earth, according to Barnes, referred to "the most distant parts of the habitable world then known."[13] Christ as "greater than Solomon" was expounded by James H. Childress as follows: (1) Christ was greater in his birth, (2) his wisdom, (3) his temple, (4) his throne, (5) his prayers, (6) in his mansions, and (7) in the sacrifice Christ offered. As one example, Solomon offered at the dedication of the temple "twenty-two thousand oxen, and a hundred twenty thousand sheep" (2 Chronicles 7:5). Christ offered his own blood within the holiest place of all for the sins of all men (Hebrews 9:14). ENDNOTE:[13] Albert Barnes, op. cit., p. 135. Verse 43 But the unclean spirit, when he is gone out of the man, passeth through waterless places seeking rest, and findeth it not.This parable of a wandering demon applies to the Jewish nation, which is "the man." The "going out" represents the spiritual rebirth of Israel under the preaching of John the Baptist. The "swept and garnished" period (in next verse) referred to the lack of any meaningful change in the character of the people, and the relatively innocuous neglect of Christ during the early part of his ministry. The restlessness of the demon showed the anxious and unrelenting hostility of the forces of evil and their determination against Christ. Waterless places were supposed to be attractive to demons, who were thought to take advantage of people who borrowed water, and were said to take up residence in crumbs, or fragments of food. Christ flaunted all those popular notions by borrowing water from the woman at the well of Samaria (John 4:1-54), by commanding the disciples to gather up the fragments after the feeding of the five thousand, and the four thousand, and by himself frequenting desert places. Although the primary application of the "swept and garnished" condition must be to Israel's lack of the fruits of repentance, it is also proper for the Christian teacher to base a warning to all Christians upon these words. No house can remain long empty, unused, swept, garnished, or idle. Alas, such is a true description of the spiritual condition of many. They are "good," but "good for nothing." Their righteousness consists of emptiness, superficial decoration, and negative goodness. However, the life that is not constantly improved and dedicated, and pressed, and worn out in service to God, will finally revert to a condition worse than at the first. The evil spirit cast out of a man is ever lurking and seeking an opportunity to return with seven companions worse than himself, and to take over and plunge the soul in greater wickedness than ever. That is exactly what happened to Israel. Verse 44 Then he saith, I will return into my house whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.See comment on preceding verse. The failure of Israel to carry forward the good impulses initiated by the preaching of John and the early popularity of Christ and his teachings became the occasion for a far more terrible thing than mere neglect and casual indifference. In the diabolical intentions of the wicked leaders, coupled with the relative "emptiness" of the people regarding any genuine righteousness, Christ clearly saw that the Pharisees would be able to deceive and command them all in a catastrophic rejection of himself as the Christ. That is why the warning came at that moment, when the evil heart and purpose of the Pharisees had become so evident to Christ. Verse 45 Then goeth he and taketh with him seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man becometh worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this evil generation.These words were doubtless spoken in sorrow. They were a firm, dogmatic prophecy of Israel's rejection of Christ, reminding one of 2 Peter 2:20. What state is worse than being unsaved? It is the apostasy from which it is impossible to be renewed (Hebrews 6:4-6). Verse 46 While he was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, seeking to speak with him.If the mother of Jesus in this passage was his literal mother, then there is no reason to suppose that his brothers were not his literal brothers. Medieval theology has warped the views of expositors on such Scriptures as this and others like it. See more on this subject under Matthew 13:55. What they desired to discuss is not known. Verse 47 And one said unto him, Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking to speak to thee.Whoever delivered that message apparently expected Jesus to drop everything and honor the intrusion. He did no such thing. He plainly declared that the ties of flesh and blood would not take precedence over the spiritual ties of the kingdom itself. At least, this would appear to be a logical inference from what Christ said and did. Verse 48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand towards his disciples, and said, Behold, my mother and my brethren!Probably due to his foresight of the gross idolatry that would flourish around the name of his mother, Christ was careful to guard against it. More on this will be found under Matthew 13:55. Mary was never set forth as a female deity by Christ. If she had been, in any sense, the "Mother of God," Christ's treatment of her on this occasion was improper. Although there is no hint that they were aware of it, Mary and his brothers were interfering with his work; and Christ refused to see them, at least until the business at hand was completed. Verse 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.Relationship to Christ does not depend on fleshly kinship but on obedience to God's will. As John's gospel has it, "As many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 12:2 The Pharisees knew about this law and hence could not accuse them of trespass. They were so eager to find fault, however, that they charged them with breaking the law of the sabbath. 12:3 Two wrongs never make one right, but these Pharisees pretended to have so much respect for David and other of the fathers or ancestors, that it was fair to refer to him in this manner to expose their hypocrisy. 12:4 The incident is recorded in 1 Samuel 21 when David was fleeing from Saul. He did not eat of the bread that was then on the table, but that which had been put back for the use of the priests after the table had been supplied with new loaves. While it was intended only for the priests, yet an emergency existed which allowed David and his men to eat. Likewise, the disciples were out from home with Jesus and were in need of food, and that justified them in eating in this way because the necessities of life do not constitute a violation of the sabbath law. 12:5 To profane means to make a secular use of a thing. Numbers 28:9-10 shows the priests performing the manual labor of handling an animal in the sacrifice. John 7:22-23 tells of a child being circumcised even on the sabbath day. The surgical act of performing circumcision was a manual one and hence technically violated the sabbath law. But it was understood that if an emergency or positive commandment called for some physical act even on the sabbath day, then the regular law as to its observance did not apply or bind the parties to its usual observance. 12:6 The temple was holy and it was the place where these manual performances were done. In this place means the case of Jesus and his disciples, and that it was of more importance at that time than the sanctity of the sabbath day. 12:7 This subject is explained at Matthew 9:13. 12:8 The title Son of man is used only by Jesus himself, and it applies especially to him because he was born of a member of mankind, as well as having been begotten of God. Lord of the sabbath does not imply that he would belittle the law of the holy days. He was with his Father in all of the works of creation, also in the issuing of laws and dispensations for the conduct of human beings. Any lawmaking power has the right to alter its own edicts if and when it sees fit to meet an emergency, hence Jesus was within his rights in the above conduct. 12:9 The use of the synagogues is explained at Chapter 4:23. Jesus entered into such a place and there met another opportunity of performing a good work, also of exposing the hypocrisy of the Jews who were present. 2:10 Jesus was not long in meeting such an opportunity as referred to in the preceding verse. A hand withered means one that had been cut off from obtaining its normal share of moisture and nourishment from the circulation. The condition would be caused by some permanent obstruction that could not be cured by natural means. The account here says they asked him, while the accounts of the same event in both Mark 3:2 and Luke 6:7 say they watohed him. There is no contradiction for the last two passages explains the first to mean that they were asking that question in their minds. This conclusion is borne out by the 8th verse of Luke 6 which says, "But he knew their thoughts." The idea is that they had an accusing suspicion of him in their minds that Jesus would probably heal the man, then they could charge him with breaking the sabbath. 2:11 But, knowing their thoughts Jesus anticipated their verbal question and asked one himself. The manual labor necessary to lift a sheep out of a pit would be far greater than what is required to heal an afflicted man. Yet these critics would not hesitate performing that kind of deed even on the sabbath day. 2:12 The contrast between the value of a man and a sheep is so evident that they could not give Jesus any answer to his question. Lawful to do well was putting the case in an unexpected form. It ignored the technical fact of a physical action on the sabbath day and expressed the more important and unanswerable idea of doing well. They could not deny that it would be doing well to relieve a man of an affliction, neither would they presume to say that any time existed when it would be wrong to do well. 2:13 The hand only was afflicted, hence the man could use his arm to extend the hand toward Jesus. We have no doubht that Jesus could have healed the man without any ac tion on his part, but it has always been a feature of the Lord's dealings to require man to cooperate with Him. This was exhibited as an act of faith on the part of the afflicted man when he reached out his hand and so he received the favor of a cure. 2:14 The Pharisees displayed the very depths of wickedness in wanting to destroy Jesus. They could not deny the good done to the afflicted man, neither could they answer the reasoning that Jesus put to them, so the next resort was to destroy him. Council is from and does not mean the sanhedrin, but a meeting especially called in the form of a consultation. 2:15 Jesus always knew what was going on and prevented the wicked designs of the Pharisees by leaving the scene. He was not intimidated from continuing his good works, for when the multitudes followed him he healed all that were afflicted. 2:16 Not make him known. See the comments at Matthew 9:30. 2:17 That it might be fulfilled is explained at Matthew 4:14. 2:18 The quotation is from Isaiah 42:1-3 which is the Old Testament form of Esaias. The pronouns of the first person refer to God. Gentiles means the nations in general. The favor of Christ's work was finally to be given the people of the world. 2:19 Strive is from ERIZO which Thayer defines, "To wrangle, engage in strife." Cry is from and defined, "To cry out, cry aloud." It means that Jesus was not to be a noisy, loud-mouthed person. His voice was not to be heard in the streets; he was not to be an ordinary "street preacher." 2:20 The figures in this verse are used for the same purpose as the preceding verse, to illustrate the gentleness and quietness with which Jesus was to go about his work. A reed in normal condition is not very resistant, much less if it has been bruised. Jesus would not use enough violence even to break such an article. Smoking flax denotes the wick in a candlestick that is being used as a light. Jesus would not use enough violence even to snuff out that imperfect light. He was to maintain that spirit until he had completed his work and was ready to sit upon his throne. 2:21 The word Gentile comes from different Greek words and they also are rendered by different words them as unworthy of respect as they in the Authorized Version. The gen- were trying to place Jesus. The general meaning of the word is that it refers to the people of the world who are not Jews. The Mosaic system was for the Jews only while that given by Christ was for universal benefit. 2:22 Being possessed with a devil is explained at chapter 8:28. It was the man who was rendered blind and dumb, for when the devil was cast out the man spoke. 2:23 It was known by many tbat David was to have a descendant who would be a wonderful man in many respects. When they saw these mighty works being performed by Jeeus, they concluded that he was that ODe predicted by the prophets. 2:24 The Pharisees could not deny the fact of the casting out of the devil, for the people were there and saw the evidence of it. They thought of robbing Jesus of his proper credit by reflecting against the power by which he did it. It was known that Beelzebub (Satan) had displayed supernatural power, hence it seemed convenient to reason that he could be working through Jesus, little realizing how their inconsistency would soon be exposed and turned against them. 2:25 Jesus knew their thoughts. The Pharisees did not always express themselves directly to Jesus because they were too cowardly to do so, but they would make their remarks to the multitude. But they could not escape exposure in that way because the Lord always knows what people are thinking. He therefore made this argument based on the unreasonableness of their statement. For Beelzebub to assist Jesus in casting out the devils, beings in the same wicked moral class as Satan himself, would be like a kingdom engaging in conflict with itself which would certainly bring it to ruin. 2:26 Satan is one of the names of Beelzebub and he would be interested in the same conditions that would be favorable to the other devils, and surely would not cooperate with Jesus or any other person in opposing their interests. these persons really did cast out devils, they just made that claim such as the case in Acts 19:13. But their position on the subject gave Christ another basis for exposing their inconsistency. They would not admit that their children did their work by the help of Beelzebub, for that would be classing 2:27 Jesus did not admit that these persons really did cast out devils, they just made that claim such as the case in Acts 19:13. But their position on the subject gave Christ another basis for exposing their inconsistency. They would not admit that their children did their work by the help of Beelzebub, for that would be classing 2:28 Taking for granted, then, that Christ was doing his work by the Spirit of God, it would prove his claim that he was the one to bring the kingdom of God to them. 2:29. This verse is another argument against the accusation of the Pharisees. Whoever can enter forcefully into a man's house and plunder him must be stronger than Verse 23. It was known by many he. Likewise, to overcome Satan and that David was to have a descendant cast him out of his lodgings, one who would be a wonderful man in would have to be stronger than he. many respects. When they saw these Therefore, it could not be Satan doing mighty works being performed by this for that would be making him Jesus, they concluded that he was that stronger than himself. one predicted by the prophets. 2:30 This verse is a conclusive statement of principle on which Jesus regards all intelligent creatures. There is no neutrality between the kingdom of Christ and that of Satan. A man may refuse to be outwardly an advocate of the kingdom of Christ but still wish to profess being in favor of it. But in that case he will be regarded as an active worker in the kingdom of Satan and against that of Christ. 2:31 All manner of sin. This phrase is so direct and complete that it will not admit a single exception but the one that Jesus makes. (More on this thought in the next verse.) The original word for blasphemy is defined by Thayer as follows: "Universally, slander, detraction, speech injurious to another's good name." forgiven. Neither in this world, neither in the world to come. The original word for world is AION and one meaning of it is "age." When Jesus spoke this passage the Jewish age was in force, and the Christian age was to come. The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit would not be forgiven under 2:32 Sometimes persons will attempt to formulate a description of some very wicked actions. They may think they have an unanswerable argument when they tell of the vicious things that have been said about Christ, and state that such conduct as that must be the "unpardonable sin" if there ever was any. Yet our present verse is directly against that because it specifically says that speaking against the Son of man "shall be forgiven." It should be noted that the Scriptures in no place calls this the "unpardonable" sin. We do not know that it would be impossible for God to pardon this sin, but we are told plainly in these two verses that it shall not be forgiven. Neither in this world, neither in the world to come. The original word for world is AION and one meaning of it is “ age.” When Jesus spoke this passage the Jewish age was in force, and the Christian age was to come. The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit would not be forgiven under either dispensation. This sin will be described in detail at Mark 3:30. To say that the world to come means the life in heaven would im0ly that some sins will be forgiven at that time which we know is not true. All sin, whether “ pardonable” or not will have o have been forgiven before the judgment day for any person to enter into that life. At that time the status of every intelligent being will be as described in Revelation 22:11. 2:33 Make is said in the sense of describe or consider or classify. The clause means that as a bad tree cannot produce good fruit, so the good work of casting out a devil could not be done by a wicked character like Satan. 2:34 Generation of vipers is defined by Thayer, "Offspring of vipers," and the same author explains his definition thus: "Addressed to cunning, malignant, wicked men." On the principle that a corrupt tree cannot produce good fruit, these wicked Pharisees are unable to bring forth good fruit in the way of righteous words or deeds. It is under that rule of reasoning that Jesus accuses them of having an evil heart, because the words of their mouth were evil against the Holy Spirit. 2:35 See the preceding verse for the explanation of this. 2:36 The original for idle is ARGOS, and its proper or literal meaning is to be worthless or meaningless. Such a word not only cannot convey any good impression to the hearer, but it might be mistaken for something the speaker never intended. To make that use of language would therefore be wrong and will have to be accounted for. 2:37 See the comments at Matthew 11:19 on the word justified, to learn in what sense a man may be justified by his words. It should be noted that the text does not say a man will be justified by his words only. 2:38 The word sign is from SEMEION which has been rendered in the Authorized Version by miracle 22 times, sign 51, token 1, wonder 3. Jesus worked miracles for a testimony to those who were honestly disposed toward information, but there is no case on record where he did it to gratify mere curiosity. These Jews had just witnessed the casting out of the devil, and that should have convinced them that Jesus was a good man to say the least. This present re quest was in the nature of a challenge, and it also was in line with the leading characteristic of their race (1 Corinthians 1:22). 2:39 For the reasons expressed in the preceding paragraph, Jesus called them an evil generation and refused to perform any miracle at that time. However, he was willing to stake his reputation as a prophet on an event yet to come. 0. Thayer defines the original for sign, "A sign, prodigy, portent," and he explains his definition to mean "an unusual occurence, transcending [going beyond] the common course of nature." Jonah lived three days and three nights in the belly of the fish, which was certainly something unusual. And Jesus predicted that he would be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:40) and live again. 2:41 We know that Christ will be the only one to sit on the throne of judgment at the last day, hence all apparent statements to the contrary are to be understood in some accommodative sense. The word condemn is from which Thayer defines, "b. by one's good example to render another's wickedness the more evident and censurable." If the men of Nineveh were willing to repent at the preaching of a man like Jonas, there will be no excuse for people who have had that of the Son of man given them. 2:42 The lesson of responsibility based upon opportunity is that in the preceding verse and is the same in this. If as notable a person as a queen would come so far to hear the wisdom of a man, surely the people should show greater interest in the wisdom of such a person as Jesus. This woman is called the queen of the south because the country of Sheba was a great distance from Judea and was south as to direction and in such a trip signified that a great territory was represented. 2:43 Jesus made some arguments based on the practices and beliefs of the people without necessarily endorsing those beliefs. (See comments at verse 27). The Jews believed that the devils haunted the deserts, but made raids into the places of civilization to torment human beings. One of those devils was cast out of a man and it went back to its regular dwelling place (according to the Jewish notion) but could not find a satisfactory spot to rest. 4-45 A man's body is likened to a house and hence the clearing out of the demon is called the sweeping and cleaning of a house. The demon saw the place he had just been occupying in such an inviting condition that he wanted to share it with his special friends and took them with him. Logically, then, that man was in worse condition than he was the first time. Let the reader remember that Jesus is only using this notion of the Jews for an illustration, not that he endorses it, and it serves as a likening of what was to come to their race. The things used for the story existed only in the belief of the Jews, but the thing it was used to illustrate was to come as an actual experience upon the nation. The Jews at first accepted the Gospel and furnished many recruits, but the nation as a whole turned against it and became unbelievers. Their city was finally destroyed and they became the object of scorn in the eyes of the peoples of the world. 2:46 Brethren is from which Thayer defines as follows: "1. A brother (whether born of the same two parents, or only of the same father or the same mother): Matthew 1:2; Matthew 4:18 and often. That 'the brethren of Jesus,' Matthew 12:46-47; Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3 (in the last two passages also sisters); Luke 8:19; John 2:12; John 7:3; Acts 1:14; Galatians 1:19; 1 Corinthians 9:5, are neither sons of Joseph by a wife before Mary (which is the account in the Apocryphal Gospels), nor cousins, the children of Alphaeus or Cleophas (i. e., Clopas) and Mary, a sister of the mother of Jesus (the current opinion among the doctors of the church since Jerome and Augustine), according to that use of language by which like the Hebrew . . . denotes any blood-relation or kinsman, but own brothers, born after Jesus, is clear principally from Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7 . . . where, had Mary borne no other children after Jesus, instead of HUION , the expression HUION would have been used, as well as from Acts 1:14; John 7:5, where the Lord's brethren are distinguished from the apostles." For the convenience of the reader and to save him from confusion, I will state that this quotation from the lexicon shows that Jesus had fleshly brothers who were the children of Joseph and Mary, and that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus as the Romanists teach. 2:47 Jesus never disrespected his mother but treated her as any man should the woman who had given him birth, but the people needed the lesson that is set down here, and it was for their benefit that he spoke. 2:48 The question does not indicate that Jesus intended to ignore his family relations, or that he did not recognize them; it was not asked for that purpose. 2:49 After the aforesaid remark, Jesus pointed toward his disciples as an answer to his own question. Since the persons included in the gesture were men and women, while he named three relationships regarding family ties, we know he had some figurative sense in mind for the terms. 2:50 The only proper relationship that can be produced by obedience to the will of God is that of brethren. Thus the conclusion is necessary that no earthly relative should be regarded as near to one as our fellowship with Christ. Matthew 13 "THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Chapter Thirteen Jesus began teaching in parables regarding the kingdom, seven recorded in this chapter (Matthew 13:1-9; Matthew 13:18-33; Matthew 13:36-52). His goal appeared to separate the truth seekers from the curiosity seekers, as He explained the parables privately to His disciples (Matthew 13:10-17; Matthew 13:34-35). At Nazareth, He taught in the synagogue where He found an unreceptive audience (Matthew 13:53-58). POINTS TO PONDER * The purpose of parables * What the parables reveal about the kingdom of heaven REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter? - Seven parables concerning the kingdom of heaven - Matthew 13:1-9; Matthew 13:18-33, 36-52 - The purpose of parables - Matthew 13:10-17; Matthew 13:34-35- Jesus rejected at Nazareth - Matthew 13:53-58 2) List the seven parables of Jesus found in this chapter (Matthew 13:3; Matthew 13:24; Matthew 13:31; Matthew 13:33, 44,45,47) - The parable of the sower - The parable of the wheat and tares - The parable of the mustard seed - The parable of the leaven - The parable of the hidden treasure - The parable of the pearl of great price - The parable of the dragnet 3) What was Jesus two-fold purpose in teaching in parables? (Matthew 13:10-17, 34-35,51-52) - To keep truths of the kingdom hidden from those not seeking the truth - To illustrate truths of the kingdom to those with ears and hearts willing to listen 4) What does the parable of the sower illustrate? (Matthew 13:3-9; Matthew 13:18-23) - Different types of listeners and their response to the word of the kingdom 5) What does the parable of the wheat and tares illustrate? (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43) - The efforts of the devil to undermine the work of the Son of Man 6) What do the parables of the mustard seed and the leaven illustrate? (Matthew 13:31-34) - The growth and spread of the kingdom heaven 7) What about the parables of the hidden treasure and pearl of great price? (Matthew 13:44-46) - The great worth of the kingdom, found accidentally or after diligent search 8) What does the parable of the dragnet illustrate? (Matthew 13:47-52) - The final makeup of the kingdom will be determined at the end of the age 9) Why was Jesus rejected by many at Nazareth? (Matthew 13:53-58) - They were apparently blinded by their familiarity with Him and His family Matthew 13:1-58 Verse 1 Mat 13:1-58THE SEVEN OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN On that day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the seaside. And there were gathered unto him great multitudes, so that he entered into a boat, and sat; and all the multitude stood on the beach. (Matthew 13:1-2)On sitting down to teach with the audience standing, see under Matthew 5:1. Dummelow and others believe "the house" in this case was that of Peter and Andrew in Capernaum. For the Sermon on the Mount, Christ went to the hills; but on this occasion, he went to the seashore. The use of the boat, anchored in a quiet place offshore, and with the placid water providing a perfect sounding board for his words, made it possible for Jesus to be distinctly heard by a vast throng of people. Verse 3 And he spake to them many things in parables, saying ...Here Christ began a new type of teaching, using , partly for concealment, partly for illustration. His reasons for this methods will be noted more fully under Matthew 13:10, below. There are, to be sure, parables in the Old Testament, but Christ's use of this device exceeded any previous conception of it, and are still, some 2,000 years afterward, the marvel of all who study them. A parable is a story which is made the vehicle of a spiritual message, it differs from a fable in that the parable COULD have happened, and probably DID. In a fable, there are many impossibilities, such as an animal talking, etc. The parable also differs from the myth in that the latter bears no relation whatever to reality. Allegory, such as Paul's reference to Sarah and Hagar, the wives of Abraham, builds a spiritual analogy upon well known historical facts. Behold, the sower went forth to sow; and as he sowed, some seeds fell by the wayside, and the birds came and devoured them: and others fell upon rocky places, where they had not much earth: and straightway they sprang up, because they had no deepness of earth: and when the sun was risen, they were scorched: and because they had no root, they withered away. And others fell upon the thorns; and the thorns grew up and choked them: and others fell upon the good ground, and yielded fruit; some a hundred fold, some sixty, some thirty. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. I. Parable of the Sower, verses Matthew 13:3-9 :Some commentators accept the rule of "ONE parable, ONE point!" For example, Henry H. Halley wrote, "Ordinarily, a parable was meant to show one point, and should not be pressed for lessons in every detail."[1] This view of expositors is probably due to the excesses of some who went too far, using incidental and inert elements of the parable for advancing all kinds of notions and speculations; but, whatever caused the widespread opinion that only one lesson, or point, is to be sought in a parable, it is clear that Christ, in the cases where he explained his parables, made many points. It is the view here that one is always safe in following the example of the Saviour instead of the opinions of men. This parable of the sower is a vivid picture of a farmer, sowing wheat from a bag strapped over his shoulder, scattering seed by thrusting his hand into the bag and hurling the seeds in an arc, somewhat in front of him, as he walked through the field. A hard, trampled path crossed the field, and some of the seeds fell upon it, where they were quickly gathered by the birds. Part of the field had very thin soil; and the seed that fell there sprouted quickly and withered quickly. A portion of the field was infested with thorns; and the seed in that area, after a long struggle with the hardier thorns, failed to produce a harvest. The good ground was the productive part of the field which rewarded the sower's efforts. There is no reason to suppose Jesus invented this story. He saw it, as travelers to that part of the world may still see it. The genius and divinity of our Lord lie in the fact that he saw so much more in such an incident than any man ever saw before. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. This was Christ's invitation to study that innocent story for its hidden meaning. Even yet, the true and full implications of this rich narrative come only to those with perceptive minds and hearts, attuned to the detection of spiritual truth. ENDNOTE:[1] Henry H. Halley, Bible Handbook (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Press, 1959), p. 404. Verse 10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?Of the seven parables in this chapter, the first four were addressed to the multitudes, and the last three were spoken to the disciples. The apostles were quick to notice the dramatic change in the Saviour's teaching methods and promptly asked the reason for it. Verse 11 And he answered and said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.Christ turned to teaching in parables after opposition developed against his divine mission; and this verse shows that Christ designed the parables, at least in part, to conceal his teachings from those who were not sincerely seeking to know and do his will. The harmless and innocent stories which the Great Teacher told gave nothing at all for the Pharisees' spies to report. of the kingdom mentioned here refer generally to Christ's redemptive message which appeared mysterious enough to those secular and materialistic persons who had no proper conception of the Messiah's purpose. "Mystery," as used in the New Testament, referred to things concerning the kingdom of God, hidden from all previous generations; but then, in Christ, revealed to the apostles, and later to all mankind (Romans 16:25-27; 1 Corinthians 2:7-8). Verse 12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he hath.This means that those who had perceptive and willing hearts and truly desired to know God's will could, by proper application, know more of the kingdom of heaven and thus be richly rewarded; but that those who did not have such character would consider the parables as mere riddles and so lose their chance to know the Lord. Verse 13 Therefore speak I to them in parables; because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.How wonderfully were the parables designed to accomplish Christ's purpose! They were marvelous devices for the separation of his hearers and polarizing them with reference to the approaching kingdom. Those who desired and expected some worldly conqueror who would break the back of Roman tyranny and restore secular power to the Jews were repelled by the innocent and innocuous descriptions of such prosaic and commonplace things as those which formed the basis of the parables. On the other hand, spiritually minded disciples would read the deeper meaning and know the mysteries of the kingdom of God. Verse 14 And unto them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall in no wise understand; And seeing ye shall see, and shall in no wise perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, And their ears are dull of hearing, And their eyes they have closed; Lest haply they should perceive with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And should turn again, And I should heal them. - Isaiah 6:9-10; Acts 28:26-27 Thus, as in everything else, Christ was acting in full accordance with the ancient prophecies which foretold his coming into the world. Significantly, Paul also quoted this passage (Acts 28:26-27), making the same application to the self-induced blindness and deafness of Israel and their obdurate unwillingness to accept the King when he appeared among them. The words "turn again" near the end of the prophecy above are also translated "be converted" in the King James Version. See more under Matthew 18:3. Verse 16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see; and your ears, for they hear.The blindness and sin of the many shall not militate against the joy and blessing of those who heeded our Lord. Israel, as a nation, indeed rejected the Christ; but some of her more noble sons, including the apostles, shall receive the full measure of the heavenly gift. The principle holds for all who truly love and seek Christ. Verse 17 For verily I say unto you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see the things which ye see, and saw them not; and to hear the things which ye hear, and heard them not.Here, as in Matthew 13:11, above, Christ referred to the hidden nature of God's eternal purpose for man's salvation. Paul frequently wrote of this, and a more particular attention to that "mystery" can be quite rewarding. The New Testament refers to these mysteries: The mystery of Christ and his church (Ephesians 6:12) The mystery of lawlessness (2 Thessalonians 2:7) The mystery of the seven stars and seven candlesticks (Revelation 1:20) The mystery of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:51) The mystery of the blindness of Israel (Romans 11:25) The mystery of the harlot church (Revelation 14:7) The mysteries of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 13:1-58) Containing all those mysteries, and exceeding them, is a greater and more comprehensive mystery referred to by Paul as: The great mystery (1 Timothy 3:16) The mystery (Romans 16:25) The mystery of his will (Ephesians 1:9) The mystery of Christ (Ephesians 3:4) The mystery of the gospel (Ephesians 6:19) The mystery of God (Colossians 2:3) The mystery of faith (1 Timothy 3:9) The mystery of gods (1 Timothy 3:16) Peter also elaborated the fact that the ancient prophets, and even the angels of God, desired to "look into" those things which they could not fully understand (1 Peter 1:10-12). In view of such things, how blessed indeed were the disciples of the Lord who were privileged in him to see the embodiment of the total mystery of redemption. Neither men nor angels knew it until Christ revealed it to the Twelve. Verse 18 Hear then ye the parable of the sower.Explanation of the Parable of the Sower, Matthew 13:18-23 : Christ named this parable. It is not, therefore, the parable of the soils, or of the birds gobbling up the seed, nor of the rocky ground, or the thorny ground, but the Parable of the Sower. The sower in this analogy stands for God, the Great Architect of redemption. The central place belongs to him. People may or may not receive his word; but the seeds still fall, and the harvest is still produced, regardless of human failure, indifference, or opposition. Verse 19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the evil one, and snatcheth away that which hath been sown in his heart. This is he that was sown by the wayside.From this, it is plain that the various classes of soil represent the various conditions of human hearts. The birds stand for the evil one. The seed is the "word of the kingdom." The hardness of the trampled path suggests unreceptive and evil men. Verse 20 And he that was sown upon the rocky places, this is he that heareth the word, and straightway with joy receiveth it; yet hath he not root in himself, but endureth for a while; and when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, straightway he stumbleth.The shallow soil, overlaying rock, produced quick but impermanent results. This stands for the easy convert, easily lost. The sun's scorching heat in the analogy stands for tribulations and persecutions because of the word. The shallowness of the ground represents impressionable, easily influenced persons, who have little stability. Verse 22 And he that was sown among the thorns, this is he that heareth the word; and the care of the world and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.The thorns that choke out the words and cause unfruitfulness in hearers of the word of God are the cares, riches, and pleasures of life. (Luke adds "cares," Luke 8:14.) This represents a class of hearers which may be described as capable of salvation, possessing many excellent qualities, but who subordinate the most important things to secondary considerations and are thus robbed of eternal life. Cares, riches, and pleasures are not, in and of themselves, evil; but a well may be as effectively choked and stopped with a load of flowers as by a load of rotten carcasses. Verse 23 And he that was sown upon the good ground, this is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; who verily beareth fruit, some a hundred fold, some sixty, some thirty.In this part of the analogy, the good ground stands for the fruit-bearing hearer of God's word; but why the varying degrees of yield? Christ's repetition of this in the explanation shows that it has spiritual significance. Anyone familiar with the causes of various productivity in the agricultural industry cannot fail to be aware of the answer. Such things as preparation of the soil, cultivation, protection from enemies, the rains and the weather, and promptness in harvesting - all these things, and others, enter into the yield of a given crop. By analogy, Christians who have been properly cultivated by home training and education, who are protected from spiritual enemies by wise choice of friends and companions, who begin to serve the Lord early in life, and who are blessed with favorable opportunities for teaching and influence of others, may well reap a more bountiful harvest than others who had not such advantages.[2] Since this is the first parable explained in the New Testament, it is appropriate to note that in this single parable Christ pointed out the following comparisons: The seed is the word of God. The wayside soil is the hardened hearer. The shallow soil is the unstable hearer. The thorny ground is the hearer who permits other things to choke out the word. The good ground is the faithful hearer who bears fruit. The birds of the air are the evil one. The sun's heat is tribulation and persecution. The thorns are the cares, riches, and pleasures of life. The various multiples of yield are the variable fruitfulness of hearers. The sudden sprouting of seed on shallow soil stands for the ease with which unstable souls are converted. The sower stands for God. In view of the above, it is futile to talk of "one parable, one point." Yet it is plain that one might go too far and make deductions unwarranted by a parable. This would always be the case where inert or unstressed incidentals should be made to convey a message where none was indicated. For example, no reference is made to the bag out of which the sower took the seed; therefore, it would not be correct to make some lesson to hinge on that. On the other hand, it is perfectly clear that each one of the Lord's parables was a genuine work of art from the mind of the Master Teacher, and that everything stressed in a parable is worthy of careful attention and study. ENDNOTE:[2] J. W. McGarvey, The New Testament Commentary (copyrighted by Chase and Hall in 1875; republished by Gospel Light Publishing Company, Delight, Arkansas). Verse 24 Another parable set he before them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seed in his field: but while men slept his enemy came and sowed tares also among the wheat and went away. But when the blade sprang up and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. And the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it tares? And he said unto them, An enemy hath done this. And the servants say unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he saith, Nay; lest haply while ye gather up the tares, ye root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather up first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them; but gather the wheat into my barn.II. The Parable of the Tares, Matthew 13:24-30 :Christ fully explained this parable, and for the notes on the explanation, see under Matthew 13:36 below. Verse 31 Another parable set he before them saying. The kingdom of heaven is like unto a grain of mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field: which indeed is less than all seeds; but when it is grown, it is greater than the herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of heaven come and lodge in the branches thereof. III. The Parable of the Mustard SeedThis and the parable of the leaven which immediately followed it constitute a pair with these similarities: (1) both stress the small beginning of the kingdom; (2) its gradual increase, and (3) the extensiveness later attained. Comparison of a great kingdom to a tree was not new. Daniel 4:10-12 and Ezekiel 31:3-9 reveal similar analogies. The mustard seed may be viewed as the word of God, or Christ himself, who is the Word (John 1:1). Clement of Alexandria chose the latter application[3] which is also followed by Trench: Not Christ's doctrine, merely, nor yet even the church which he planted on earth, is the grain of mustard seed in its central meaning. He is himself at once the mustard seed and him who sowed it.[4] However, the church itself is the "body of Christ"; and, therefore, it is no violence to refer this parable primarily to the church or kingdom of God. Christ said the "kingdom of heaven" is like, etc. The wonder of how the kingdom began in an obscure province by the birth of a child to humble and obscure parents in a stable, and how the kingdom grew to encompass people of every kindred and nation is aptly illustrated by this parable. No difficulty is seen in the fact that some seeds might actually be smaller than a mustard seed. This trifling quibble disappears in the ancient proverb, "small as a grain of mustard seed." Besides, in the relative sense in which Christ spoke, it was a literal fact. And if that is not enough, it could easily be explained as an example of hyperbole, exaggeration for the sake of emphasis. None of the commentaries, as far as determined, make anything of the birds lodging in the branches, other than an illustration of the kingdom's ultimate magnitude; however, in the parable of the sower, Christ used the birds to represent the devil, and upon that it would seem wise to seek a meaning here. Coupled with John's prophecy of the apostate church, that it should become "a hold of every unclean and hateful bird" (Revelation 18:2), this parable makes it very likely that the ultimate corruption of the kingdom of heaven is intended; that is, as manifested in the so-called Christendom of modern and medieval times. A glance in any direction during the current century will afford many glimpses of foul birds that have built their nests in the kingdom! Yet, just as the birds could not, in fact, corrupt the mustard tree, neither can evil men succeed in thwarting God's purpose, however closely they may be allied with the visible church and its activities. Chrysostom noted that this and the parable of the leaven were parables outlining the success of God's kingdom and were thus designed to alleviate the distress of the disciples and to encourage them, such distress arising from the fact that in the parable of the sower, three-fourths of the soils were unproductive, and that in the parable of the tares, an enemy succeeded in corrupting the whole field with tares! It is as though Christ had said by means of these two short parables, "Nevertheless, my kingdom shall not fail but shall attain marvelous success!" Note the following analogies in this parable: The small seed shows the small beginning of the kingdom. The large plant shows its ultimate glory and success. The birds of the heaven in its branches suggest an identification of evil and extraneous operations closely connected with the kingdom, yet not a part of it. The field is the world. The one who sowed the seed is Christ, or God. The seed is the word of God. The mustard tree stands for the visible church in all ages. [3] Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1956), Vol. II, p. 234. [4] Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Parables (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1953), p. 112. Verse 33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till it was all leavened. IV. The Parable of the Leaven in Three Measures of MealThere is a long list of expositors who make the leaven in this parable something evil and the parable itself a prophecy of the ultimate corruption of the church during the apostasy, basing their claims upon the fact that leaven is almost always used in Scripture as a type of something evil. Thus, the Israelites were commanded to purge out the old leaven during Passover; and the disciples were warned by the Saviour against the leaven of the Pharisees. All these considerations should be rejected in the light of Christ's word that "the kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, etc." The figures in the Bible are not so stereotyped that symbols must invariably follow common patterns. It does seem bold and startling that Christ, in this parable, would reverse the usual meaning of leaven and make it something good, holy, and desirable; but another example of the same reversal is seen in the fact that Christ is "a lion" (Revelation 5:5), and so is the devil (1 Peter 5:8)! In the parable of the mustard seed, one may impart some meaning of demerit to the birds, because they form no essential part of a mustard tree; but in this parable the leaven becomes a part of the whole three measures of meal; and, therefore, to construe the leaven as evil would be to make this a prophecy of the complete, final, and total corruption of the church itself, which cannot be. "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18). One difference in these two short parables is that, whereas a man sowed the mustard seed in his field, it was a woman who took and hid the leaven in three measures of meal. This may indicate that the church is meant, since the church is represented often as a woman, and as the bride of Christ. This view would make the leaven to be the word of God which the church preaches, or the influence emanating from it. Many ancient commentators made much of the "three measures of meal," seeing in them the three dispensations of God's grace, the racial composition of the human family in the descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and the three-fold nature of man as a being with a spirit, soul, and body! Such deductions appear as too speculative; and it is much easier, and as likely true, that the three measures were mentioned only because that was the usual amount a woman would have taken on an ordinary occasion. It was the excessive pressing of such details as these that resulted in a retreat to the position mentioned earlier of seeing only one point in a parable. The following analogies would appear to be valid: The leaven (yeast) represents the kingdom of heaven in its influence. The leaven imparts its character to the whole loaf, the church changes the character of people influenced by it. The leaven rises silently, unostentatiously, suggesting the manner of the church's growth. A little leaven is capable, given time, of leavening a vast amount. The influence of the church will become very wide and extensive. The fact that a woman took the leaven may not be a vital part of the illustration; but, if so, probably represents the church. Verse 34 All these things spake Jesus in parables unto the multitudes; and without a parable spake he nothing unto them: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things hidden from the foundation of the world. - Psalms 78:2 This concluded the first four parables which were addressed to the multitudes. This restriction of Jesus' teachings to parables only was confined to certain occasions, especially this one. Halley pointed out, "Christ's teachings that day were parabolical."[5] But, of course, there were other occasions when he did not use parables exclusively. The quotation from Psalms 78:2 showed that even in the choice of that teaching method Christ was following exactly the guide laid down in prophecy. The things "hidden from the foundation of the world" were mysteries mentioned earlier in this chapter. See under Matthew 13:17. ENDNOTE:[5] John W. Haley, Discrepancies of the Bible (Nashville: B. C. Goodpasture, 1951), p. 331. Verse 36 Then he left the multitudes, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him saying, Explain unto us the parable of the tares of the field.The desire of the disciples for an explanation of that parable is understandable. Even with the Lord's explanation, men do not fully understand it, as evidenced by the most diverse opinions regarding it. It must have appeared dark indeed before the Lord illuminated it. Explanation of the Parable of the Tares of the Field: Verse 37 And he answered and said, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man.The identity of the one who sowed the good seed is plain. It is Christ. The problem concerns the true meaning of "the field." Christ said the field is "the world," and from this it is alleged that the parable has no reference to prohibitions against the disciples' exercise of discipline against members of the church. Note, however, that authority for church discipline does not require any support from this parable, since it stands on more than sufficient authority mentioned otherwise throughout the New Testament. Besides, gathering tares into bundles to burn them is far too strong a figure for church discipline and has even less application to proposed activities of disciples without and beyond the confines of the church, namely, "in the world." Therefore, to make "the world" in Christ's explanation to mean the unregenerated portion of humanity would mean that Christ here forbade his disciples to exterminate unregenerates, a temptation which it is very unlikely any disciples ever had. It is possible that the "world-wide church" is intended or meant by this, a view supported by the fact that Christ said, "The kingdom of heaven is like" this, and also from the statement in Matthew 13:41 that the angels shall gather "out of his kingdom," indicating that purging tares out of the kingdom is actually the thing under consideration. More bitter controversies have been waged over this portion of the Scriptures than over any other, with the exception, perhaps, of "this is my body"! Some fierce upholders of purity in the church have applied the prohibition against tare pulling to the purging of those without, namely in "the world" and have proceeded to arrogate to themselves the business of gathering the tares into bundles and burning them - even doing so literally in the case of thousands of heretics burned at the stake! Others have taken a different view and have made this parable an excuse to contain within the church every evil thing on the basis that to remove them would root up the wheat also! Neither view, it appears to this writer, is correct. We have seen that the mild and loving discipline to be exercised by the church of our Lord is amply provided for in other New Testament writings, apart from this parable; and, it seems, what is forbidden here is exactly the thing that was done in the brutal, savage excommunications so characteristic of the church of the Middle Ages, which mounted the Spanish Inquisition and many other diabolical institutions upon the pretense of purifying the church. It is in this frame of reference that the view is held which makes "the field" the church in the whole world. It appears that Christ did not give this parable to warn his disciples against casting "out of the world," but "out of the church," since it is only in the church that any such power, opportunity, or temptation exists for disciples to do any casting out. It is freely confessed that there are difficulties in this view, but they seem less insurmountable to this expositor than some of the difficulties inherent in the other view which, in effect, removes any prohibition against tare pulling within the church itself. Thus, it may be said that this parable puts a terminator on church discipline in that there is a point beyond which it cannot go. Plucking up, binding into bundles - this is not allowed to Christians, however urgent the considerations of discipline. The wretched history of both Catholicism and Protestantism points up the wisdom of this restriction. With Richard Trench, we hold this parable to be primarily a prohibition against using "violent means for the suppression of error."[6] Aside from the area of widest controversy, mentioned above, the parable is laden with many other significant and helpful teachings. ENDNOTE:[6] Richard C. Trench, op. cit., p. 99. Verse 38 And the field is the world; and the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one.The fact that the tares did not appear until fruit was "brought forth" (Matthew 13:26) shows that they were indistinguishable from the wheat until that time, a fact strongly indicating that they were "in the church," else they could not have been confused with the wheat. The "tares" were actually "darnel" (English Revised Version (1885), margin), a type of bastard wheat bearing a close resemblance to the noble grain and impossible to detect until harvest. It is this proximity of the tares and wheat and the lack of identification separating them that forces one to look "in the church" for the area under consideration. Verse 39 And the enemy that sowed them is the devil: and the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. The enemy who operated while men slept is the devil. The tares are people, sons of the devil, masquerading as Christians. The harvest is the end of the world, when the Lord will send his angels and gather "out of his kingdom" all things that cause stumbling ( Matthew 13:41). Note that the final separation of the good from the bad is not a prerogative of men but of God and his angels. Verse 40 As therefore the tares are gathered up and burned with fire; so shall it be in the end of the world.The fire into which the tares will be cast is hell, the lake of fire (Revelation 19:20; Revelation 21:8; Mark 9:44; Matthew 25:41 ff). The ultimate fate of the wicked is a doom so intolerable and overwhelming that Christ came down from heaven and endured the pangs of suffering and death to deliver men from such a fate. Only a fool could set aside such warnings, delivered at such cost, and authenticated in every conceivable manner. "Fear him who hath power to cast both soul and body into hell" (Luke 12:5). This is a valid admonition. The end of the world, mentioned here, is noted in more detail under Matthew 28:18-20, which see. Verse 41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that cause stumbling, and them that do iniquity.Here again, in Jesus' explanation, are the words "out of his kingdom," indicating the area under consideration to be primarily the church, but on a world-wide scale. The burden of teaching in the parable seems to be that God and his angels, rather than men and their devices, are to separate the wicked from the just. As to how evil persons get into the kingdom, it is stated in Matthew 13:25, above, that an enemy, the devil, planted them there. Significantly, this was done only "while men slept" (Matthew 13:25), and shows the limitation upon Satan's activity in this endeavor. Most of the sorrows and shortcomings in the church occur when men are asleep, failing to keep watch as the Master commanded. Verse 42 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.This shows the terror and frustration of the doomed. The furnace of fire refers to hell (see more under Matthew 13:40). Verse 43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He that hath ears, let him hear.This entire parable sets forth the divinity and glory of Christ. He is the Son of man who sends his angels to sever the wicked from the righteous. It is his angels who cast the wicked into torment. Such assumptions of prerogative on the part of a mere man would be unthinkable. The following analogies are explicitly set forth in this parable: Gathering into his barn represents salvation of the righteous. He that sowed the good seed is Christ. He that sowed the evil seed is the devil. The good seed are Christians. The bad seed are children of the devil. The field is the world. The harvest is the end of the world. The burning of the tares represents hell. The reapers are the angels in the end of the world. "While men slept" suggests that Satan must abide his opportunity and may not fully countermand the truth except with God's permission and man's inattention. Gathering "out of his kingdom" suggests purging of the church at the last day, in the judgment. From the above, it further appears that Christ expected many analogies, not merely one, to be deduced from a parable. Verse 44 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a treasure hidden in the field; which a man found, and hid; and in his joy he goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field. V. Parable of the Treasure Hidden in the FieldThese parables, this one and the two immediately following, were spoken in the house, not to the multitudes by the seashore. In the case of the treasure, it was found when the finder was not looking for it; but in the case of the pearl, its discovery followed a long and diligent search for it. There are other notable differences. In the treasure is a likeness of the kingdom; but in the other, it is the merchantman searching for the pearl. The treasure hidden in the field teaches the supreme regard men should have for the kingdom of heaven; and that, whatever incident or opportunity leads to the knowledge of it, the finder should exercise every human effort to obtain it, even to selling all that he has, if necessary, to come into possession of it. The great consideration is that the kingdom of heaven is indeed a treasure, a treasure surpassing all others in riches and desirability. Analogies: The kingdom of heaven is a treasure. It is hidden to some, indeed to many. Some find it accidentally, or unintentionally, while doing something else. Once found, a man should obtain it, regardless of cost. Verse 45 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto man that is a merchant seeking goodly pearls: and having found one pearl of great price, he went and sold all that he had, and bought it. VI. The Parable of the Merchantman Seeking Goodly PearlsAlthough it is not stated here that the kingdom of heaven is like a pearl of great price, a number of analogies suggest themselves. The pearl is a symbol of difficulties overcome, since it is caused by an annoyance to an oyster. It is a life-created thing of great value and beauty. Significantly, the gates of the Eternal City are said to be "each one a pearl" (Revelation 21:21). Thus, through obstacles overcome, one may enter the home of the soul. The prime comparison, however, regards the merchant. man engaged in the search. This was Jesus' emphasis: "Seek ye first the kingdom of God!" Seeking is a vital and very necessary part of knowing and sharing the mysteries of God's kingdom; but so is decision! The merchantman is held up for our approval and emulation because: (1) he did not waste his time admiring the pearl, or wishing he had it; (2) he did not propose to obtain it at a reduced price; (3) he did not delay or postpone his decision; (4) he did not reject it as too expensive - none of these things, he simply sold all he had and bought it! Some search all their lives for the truth and at last find it. Others, as in the hidden treasure, are not looking for it at all, as, for example, when some sinner marries a Christian wife or husband, but then, in the light of opportunity, rises to claim the prize! Analogies suggested: Seeking is an essential part of finding the kingdom. Once found, it should be obtained, regardless of cost. A pearl of great price suggests the kingdom because: It is not of the earth, like gold, but of life. It is created by the overcoming of a difficulty. It will form a gate to the Eternal City. The merchantman set a good example because: He was not content with admiring, or wishing. He did not shrink from the cost. He sold all he had and bought it. He did so at once, then and there, with no delay. Verse 47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: which, when it was filled, they drew up on the beach; and they sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but the bad they cast away. So shall it be in the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the righteous, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.VII. The Parable of the Net That Was Cast into the Sea: This is another of the parables Jesus explained, and again, not one analogy but many are noted: The sea is the world. The net is the church. The enclosed fish of "every kind" are members of the church. The good fish are the truly spiritual children of their Father. The bad fish are like the tares, sons of the evil one. The fact that both kinds are in the net shows the proximity of the good and bad in the kingdom, who are all accounted by men to be "in" it, but some of whom are wicked. The beach represents the end of time. The net's being "filled" shows that God will attain his full purpose in the redemption of men. The sorting of the fish represents the judgment of the last day. The sorters are the angels. The casting away of the bad is the casting of the wicked into hell. The gathering into vessels represents the salvation of the godly. The vessels represent heaven. There is a subtle change of emphasis in the parable in which the fishermen, who may be understood to be the Lord's disciples of all ages, draw the net upon the beach; and yet, it is not THEY but the angels who are said to sever the wicked from the just. That is why no definite mention of the fishermen is made in the parable, indicating that those elements of a narrative which are not stressed by Christ are to be construed as serving no analogy. One overwhelmingly important deduction to be obtained from this remarkable parable is seen in the fact that no fishes were taken into the vessels that had not first been captured in the net. In the large analogy of the sea as the world, the net as the church, and the vessels as heaven, it is thus quite plain that Christ intended to teach that membership in the church is prerequisite to entry into the eternal kingdom in heaven. God's church, or kingdom, is the appointed way of gathering from the great seas of human population the number of the redeemed. Furthermore, not all so-called Christians will be saved. A great many are in the net, "the church," who must be accounted as "bad," and who shall suffer eternal banishment from the face of the Father. First glance may leave the impression that this parable covers the same ground as that of the tares, but there are marked differences. The emphasis on that one is upon the present intermixture in the church, and in this one upon the certainty of the final separation of the righteous and the wicked. The emphasis in the former is upon "who" will make the separation, and in this one upon the "certainty" of that separation. In both cases, it is clear that angels, not men, shall effect the separation. Both in this and in that of the tares is stressed the puzzling containment within the church herself of both good and bad elements. This ought not, however, to appear overly strange to students of the word of God, because: (1) there was a Ham in the ark; (2) a Judas among the Twelve; (3) a man of sin in the temple of God; (4) a mystery Babylon within the historical perimeter of the church; (5) Esau contended with Jacob in the very womb of Rebekah; and, as in her case, the church may often cry, "Why am I thus?" ( Genesis 25:22). The parable of the drag net is Christ's pledge that, whatever doubts and perplexities may arise from this mixture of good and bad in the church, there will at last occur the thorough and dramatic separation of the one from the other, and that it will be accomplished by beings most eminently qualified to do it, namely, by the angels of God. Verse 51 Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea. And he said unto them, Therefore every scribe who hath been made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.Both ancient and modern commentators refer these words to the Old and New Testaments. Victorinus said, "Things new and old - the new, the evangelical words of the apostles; the old, the precepts of the law and the prophets."[7] Dummelow identified the old and the new as "the old truths which God had long made known to the Jews, as well as the new truth declared by Christ."[8] There is another meaning in this place, and it is contained in the unceasing wonder that the same things can be both old and new simultaneously! What is older, or newer, than conversion? the birth of a child? a wedding? or the manner in which some soul reacts to a crisis? What is newer, or older, than the great thoughts of the Eternal God which men of each passing generation are privileged to think after him, by means of the Scriptures? It is certainly not amiss to see this "new and old" aspect of every sermon. This suggests that teachers and preachers should adapt messages to hearers. [7] Victorinus from the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VII, p. 345. [8] J. R. Dummelow, One Volume Commentary (New York: Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 675. Verse 53 And it came to pass that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.This verse concludes a section of Matthew's gospel, that pertaining to the proclamation and inauguration of his kingdom, appointment of its officers, enunciation of its principles, and statement of its laws. The last seven parables, recorded in this chapter, constitute a remarkably comprehensive and detailed presentation of the guide of faith; and there is a strong temptation to find in these seven parables some mystical or secret meaning. The efforts of men to do this, however, are far from convincing. Unity and harmony do indeed appear in the group taken as a whole. THE SOWER stresses the obstacles to be overcome by the word, which succeeds anyway. THE TARES presents the enemy opposing God's purpose, even within the church itself, and warns the church against taking matters into its own hands. THE MUSTARD SEED and LEAVEN show the growth of the kingdom from small beginnings to great power and influence, both outwardly and visibly, as shown by the tree, and also inwardly and secretly, as shown by the leaven. THE MUSTARD SEED and LEAVEN concern the general impact of the kingdom upon the whole world, whereas the next two, THE HIDDEN and PEARL OF GREAT PRICE, show the impact of the kingdom upon the individual and the supreme worth of God and his kingdom to the individual person. THE DRAW NET presents the final end of God's purpose when the precious shall be separated from the vile, and each class shall inherit the destiny it deserves. Verse 54 And coming into his country he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that their were astonished and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? IVTHE OF THE PEOPLE TO CHRIST; SOME AND SOME HIM (Matthew 13:54-58; Matthew 14:1-36; Matthew 15:1-39; Matthew 16:1-20)What a paradox it is that Jesus' rejection by his own community is also an eloquent testimony to the greatness of his deeds. WHY did they reject him? Among other reasons, because of the very magnitude of his wonderful deeds, his wisdom and mighty works, which they held to be inconsistent with the humble environment in which they had seen him grow up. Thus, their very rejection of Christ is a witness to his power and glory. He was such a wonderful person that they simply could not reconcile him with the obscurity and humility of his childhood and youth. Verse 55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?Well, there it is. This was the first council of unbelief ever held against Jesus the Son of God. It occurred not in some ivory tower of learning, nor in some gathering of wise and learned men, ah, no! It occurred in the wretched and miserable village of Nazareth; and the protagonists of this dark drama of rejection were not intellectuals, nor educated and cultured men, but were prejudiced gossips, vulgar, and ignorant buffoons, but still entitled to one marvelous distinction: THEY WERE THE OF ALL THE WHO EVER LIVED! Satan has long sponsored the lie that unbelief is sophistication, intellectuality, erudition, and "smartness"! But in this original pilot-project for the rejection of the Christ, the truth is evident. Unbelief is not a courageous rejection of ancient dogma; it is not a brilliant conclusion of philosophical intelligence. Nazareth rejected no doctrine, manifested no intelligence, and could lay claim to no particular power, culture, or worth of any kind that could have endowed their rejection with any semblance of justification or honesty. Those who fancy that the rejection of Christ is the result of comparing all religions, let them note that at Nazareth there was no study, no comparison, no investigation, precious little information, and a dreadful suspicion of intellectual mediocrity, if not indeed downright stupidity. It is clear as the sun at perihelion that the blighting unbelief of Nazareth which blinded their eyes against the only Person who saved that town from oblivion - their unbelief was not intellectual superiority, nor moral courage. nor logic, nor philosophy, nor honest doubt. What was it? (1) It was unworthiness. That town had justly earned an unsavory reputation. As Christ said, "Men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil" (John 3:19). (2) It was egotism. Look at the self-glory of the words, "Is not this the carpenter's son?" What ridiculous snobbery of an inflated ego is implicit in such words as those! Ah, yes; who was speaking? The burgomaster's daughter, no less, or the local salt merchant, or some owner of a wine shop, or of a brothel! Fit citizens indeed to look down upon the carpenter's boy! (3) It was mental laziness. They could easily have ascertained the truth by a little investigation; but no, it was far easier to deny the news filtering down to that wretched little village than to check up on it and find it true. To have done THAT would really have created a problem. The lazy mind takes the lazy way out. (4) It was illogical. Strange that Nazareth should have rejected the Holy One who was welcomed with "Hosannas" in Jerusalem; but the same illogical phenomenon is yet seen in men who will blindly reject a faith that was held by men like Paul, Washington, Newton, and countless others of the greatest minds ever known on earth. (5) It was moral cowardice. The gossips of Nazareth did not have the moral courage to kneel at the feet of Jesus. The rich young ruler did so, but the citizens of Nazareth had no such grace. (6) It was the opiate of the people. Where have we heard that before? Unbelief sealed Nazareth off from what was happening in the world. It was an escape mechanism by which they avoided doing anything. If they had believed, it would have involved them in all kinds of activity; but, with one good drag on the opium-pipe of infidelity, all was quiet in Nazareth! Satan, by his emissaries, has sought to reverse this truth, but it won't work. Infidelity or atheism is the opium of the people. (7) It is self-pity. They were offended in him. Christ had not consulted them; his success had bruised their local pride. This characteristic whine of unbelief is everywhere noticed, even in famous infidels such as H. G. Wells, who said, "The universe is getting bored with man." In view of such plain and indisputable facts as these, what blindness is it that allows Satan to embellish atheism with some aura of intellectual respectability? The epic falsehood of the devil that unbelief is any form of intellectual activity is surely and certainly destroyed by a careful analysis of this classic example of it at Nazareth! The problem of the identity of the four brothers and three sisters of Jesus, mentioned in this place, did not exist in ancient times. Helvidius, the most ancient commentator on this passage, said that they were all the children of Mary and Joseph, born after Jesus was born. It was only in ages after men had invented religious doctrines incompatible with the obvious truth of Matthew's words, that ingenious interpretations were devised to relieve the embarrassment. All such efforts fail in the light of the simple, obvious, and necessary meaning of Mat 13:55-56. The truth was built into the passage by the Holy Spirit and is incapable of destruction. As the noted Dr. Adam Clarke so ably expressed it, "Why should the children of ANOTHER family be brought in here to share the reproach which it is evident was designed for Joseph the carpenter, Mary his wife, and their son Jesus?"[9] Cousins or lodge brothers simply do not fit into the picture here at all, nor would their being pulled in have aided the reproach in any way. No, the reproach was directed at Jesus and his immediate family; those others named were his literal brothers and sisters. See more on this under Matthew 1:25. Note, three sisters must be assumed from the words, "are they not all with us?" This rejection at Nazareth occurred on the second visit of Jesus, the first being described in Luke 4:16 ff. This second rejection, recorded also by Mark (Mark 6:1-6), was final and determinative. Mark's words, "He marveled at their unbelief," show the shock and amazement which attended the conduct of the people of Nazareth. Christ himself was made to marvel at it. ENDNOTE:[9] Adam Clarke, Commentary (New York and London: T. Mason and G. Lane, 1837), Vol. V, p. 152. Verse 57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and in his own house. And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.Christ quoted this same proverb on his other visit to Nazareth (Luke 4:16 ff). The human side of Christ's dual nature was foretold by Isaiah who noted that the Messiah would be "despised and rejected of men" (Isaiah 53:3). Nazareth provided the first in a series of rejections; but it should be remembered that this was precisely what was prophesied, the very unbelief of the people becoming, therefore, a further testimony of his divinity. J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Matthew Chapter ThirteenA Series of Parables, Matthew 13:1-52 Parable of the Sower, Matthew 13:1-9. (Mark 4:1-9; Luke 8:1-8) 1, 2. sat by the sea.—The sitting posture which Jesus habitually assumed in his public addresses, rendered it impossible for him to be seen or heard at a great distance when the people thronged him. On this occasion, as the crowd became great, he moved from his seat on the shore to a more conspicuous place on the prow of the fishing boat, where the people could not press very closely to him, and whence he could be seen and heard by all as they stood or sat on the sloping shore. 3. in parables.—A parable is a species of allegory. An allegory is a discourse in which an object is described by describing another which resembles it, or which is analogous to it. Parables differ from other allegories in that they are taken from actual occurrences, while most others are taken from imaginary occurrences. Every parable contains an illustrating example, and indicates certain points of resemblance between it and the subject which it illustrates. The interpretation of a parable consists in pointing out the subject illustrated and the points of analogy intended by the author. These are to be ascertained from the context, and from the terms of the parable itself. In interpreting the parables of Jesus two fundamental rules must be observed: first, when Jesus himself gives an interpretation, it must be accepted as final and exhaustive; second, only those points of analogy which were certainly in the mind of the author should have a place in the interpretation. The chief error to be guarded against is a violation of the latter rule; and in order to successfully guard against it, one must have a well balanced judgment and an accurate knowledge of the subjects which the parables illustrate. No rules can be given which will enable a person who is deficient in either of these two qualifications, to become a successful interpreter of these wonderful discourses. 3-9. a sower went forth.—As Jesus himself gives an interpretation of the parable of the Bower (18-23), we attempt none of our own. We note here only the fidelity to nature which is maintained throughout. Every person acquainted with farming operations must be struck with the faithfulness of the picture. 9. i.—This warning, habitual with Jesus when he desired to direct especial attention to a speech or a remark, was necessary to prevent the people from regarding the parable as merely a beautiful and lifelike description. It warns them of a meaning beneath the surface, and hidden as yet from their view. Why He Spoke in Parables, Matthew 13:10-17. (Mark 4:10-13; Luke 8:9-10)10. Why speakest thou... in parables?—The question of the disciples shows that this method of teaching had not been employed by Jesus before, and the question was extorted by the obvious fact that the people could not understand the parables. It is not likely that the question is inserted by Matthew in its chronological place, but that it was propounded after this entire series of parables had been spoken. 11. it is given unto you.—Jesus proceeds to give several reasons for speaking in parables, the first of which is that it was given to the disciples, but not to the unbelievers, to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God. This is merely an assertion of the fact that it was so ordered by God, without assigning a reason why he so ordered. By the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, are not meant things incomprehensible; for, in that case, the disciples could not know them; but the yet unrevealed truths of the kingdom, which were mysteries only because they were as yet unrevealed. 12. whosoever hath.—This verse contains the reason why it was given to the disciples to know the mysteries of the kingdom, and not given to the unbelievers. It is a law of God's moral government, often repeated by the Savior, that to him who has, more shall be given, and from him who has not, even that he has shall be taken away. In order to understand this singular phraseology, we must observe that the thing which is taken away from him who has not, is necessarily something that he has. He has, and at the same time he has not. Now the unbelieving Jews had, in common with the believers, the heavenly privilege of hearing Jesus and seeing his miracles; but, unlike the believers, they had not the faith and the knowledge which they should have derived from these opportunities. These opportunities were now to be taken from them by a kind of teaching which they could not understand, and which would not be explained to them. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 13:2 A person as interesting as Jesus would not be left to himself very long if the people know where he is, so we are told that great multitudes came unto him. The second word is from a Greek original that means the populace or people in general, and that alone would indicate a goodly number of men and women. Then the other word emphasizes the expression so that we understand that a very large audience came together. Jesus wished to be heard by the multitude and that suggested also that he be seen. For this twofold purpose he entered a ship where he could be in the position of a public speaker with his audience on the shore that doubtless was elevated rearward on the order of an inclined floor of an auditorium. 13:3 The literal meaning of the original for parable is, "A placing of one thing by the side of another."--Thayer. As to the results of such a placing, or the reason or reasons why it is done, that has to be determined by the context in each case. (See the comments at verse 11.) Caution should be observed in the study of the parables not to make them mean more than was intended. Jesus spoke about thirty parables all pertaining to the plan of salvation that he intended to set up among men. Surely that many would not have been necessary just for the sake of emphasis. The conclusion is that different parts of that plan were considered in the various parables. No one illustration could be large enough to cover all the phases of the one plan of salvation that was to be given to the world. As a result of the above truths, there may be some features of one parable that do not fit in with the Gospel plan at all. That is because the whole story had to be told in order to make it understood at the point where it does apply. Then another parable will be given that will cover the points in its application where the other one seemed not to be fitting. The parables of our Lord were drawn both from nature and art, and from the customs of man in the conduct of his public and private affairs in all of life's relations. 13:4 In the days before machinery, seed was sown by the system known as broadcasting, even as such seeding is done sometimes today. In such a work a man could not have full control of the direction of the seed and hence did not always deposit it where it might have been desired. Way side is from HODOS which Thayer defines, "A traveled way." In such a place the surface would be packed down and hard so that the seeds could not find any opening to bury themselves in the soil. Being thus exposed, they would soon catch the eyes of the birds and be devoured. 13:5 Stony ground is that where small rocks are mixed with the surface of the soil, thereby limiting the amount of earth at any given spot. Forthwith means "immediately," and the seed sprang up in that way because it ran out of material for growth in the ground, hence it had to come up into the open where it could feed on air and sunlight. But having been thus impelled upward prematurely, the root part of the plant was incomplete and therefore was weak. 13:6 Sunlight is necessary for plant life and growth, but other elements must accompany it; it must have a "balanced diet." This plant was deprived of the moisture and mineral food that should have been supplied in the ground. Not having such necessities, the one article in the menu (that of the sun) was too much and the result was fatal. 13:7 Thorn is from AKANTHA which Thayer defines, "A thorn, bramble-bush, brier." It is a plant that grows near the ground in the nature of coarse grass. That is why the soldiers could plat it into a wreath or crown to place on the head of Jesus (Matthew 27:29). The seeds of this plant were not visible at the time of the sower's work, but when the growing season came they sprang up with all other vegetation. Being more rugged and wild than the good seed deposited by the farmer, they soon choked out all the other plants just as weeds will often smother out the good grass today. 13:8 The good ground would be that where the three forementioned obstacles were not present. Yet with all that advantage it should be noted that the crop was not the same in every place as to the amount, which will be explained at verse 23. 13:9 See comments for this statement at Matthew 11:15. 3:10 Attention is called to the fact that the question the disciples asked pertained to them, the multitude. 3:11 A familiar statement that may be heard on the parables is as follows: "Jesus spoke in parables in order to make his teaching easier to be understood by the people." Such a statement is exactly opposite of the truth, for this very verse says, in answer to the question of the disciples, that it was not given to the multitudes to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. It may be replied that it was because this knowledge of the mysteries was not possessed by the multitudes that the parables were given to explain them. But that is not correct, for even the disciples did not understand the meaning of the parables until Jesus had them to himself and explained them. A natural question now is in regard to the present day. May we speak of the parables as a means of making the subject plainer in our teaching of the subjects of the New Testament? The answer is that we may, and the reason is that we have both the illustration (the parable) and the thing illustrated with us which is the church and the Gospel, and we can show the comparison. The kingdom had not yet been started when Jesus spoke to the multitudes and hence it was not time to introduce them to all of its mysteries or un-revealed truths. 3:12 Jesus had told the disciples that it was not given to the multitudes to know the mysteries of the kingdom, and in this verse he begins to tell them why. We would think it impossible to take from a man something that he hath not, hence we must look for some figurative or accommodative use of this language. A useful illustration of the subject is in John 15:2. Every branch had been given an opportunity to bear increase but it did not do so. Hence the branch itself was to be removed from the vine. The multitudes had been given the words of Moses and the prophets, yet they refused to see in them the beauties of the kingdom of heaven in predicted form. Now it was certainly just to keep them still in the dark as to those beauties (mysteries) until such time as the whole world would have a full description of the system in detail. 3:13 The first clause of this verse is similar in meaning to verse 11. Seeing see not, etc., means that they were given the ability and opportunity to see and hear but they would not use them. 3:14 Failing to use the means of information within their reach is the subject of this verse. The prophecy referred to is in Isaiah 6:9-10. 3:15 The condition described is with reference to their moral or spiritual situation, but the natural organs are named by way of illustration. Gross means "To make fat; to make stupid (to render the soul dull or callous)." And this was not an accident that came to them, for the verse states the motive they had for bringing on the condition. It was done deliberately for fear they might hear some truth that would expose their evil deeds and later lead them into the service of Christ. 3:16 The disciples were willing to use their opportunities for obtaining information and hence were pronounced as blessed of the Lord. That was why they were admitted into the explanation of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, while the multitudes were not permitted to receive anything but the unexplained parables. 3:17 This verse sounds as if some others who were righteous were in the same class as these multitudes in that they had not seen or heard either. The apparent difficulty is ex plained by going back to the time when the Lord did not expect the people to have a full knowledge of the divine plan. But even the things they could have discerned by proper attention to what was revealed, the Pharisees had failed to grasp because of their hardness of heart. Which ye see and which ye hear is spoken in prospect as if Jesus said, "which ye are going to hear," meaning the explanation of the parables which comes in the next and following verses. 3:18 This verse invites the disciples to listen and they will hear the inner meaning of some of the "mysteries" that had not been told even to the prophets. 3:19 Failure to understand might not always be a fault, yet we know it is used as one in this case. The original word is SUNIEMI, and its general meaning is, "to set or bring together," and the definition is explained to mean, "to put the perception and the thing perceived together: to set or join together in the mind." It denotes that the hearer will give careful attention to what is said so as to arrive at the thought intended by the speaker. Of course a person will not understand what is said to him if he refuses to give it due consideration. As a further result, that person will soon forget all that was said to him and the thought will be lost as was the seed that fell on the hard or beaten ground. 0-21 Anon is from a word that is defined "immediately" in Thay-er's lexicon. It does not indicate that one can be too ready to accept the word, but he may be influenced more by enthusiasm than serious consideration. Such a person may be sincere in his motives, but he has failed to consider that the same word that he received with so much joy for the present, will need to be retained as firmly in the future. He will have to endure opposition from the enemies because of his devotion to the truth, and when that comes if he yields to the foe he becomes offended which means to stumble and reject the word he had heard so joyfully. 3:22 See the comments at verse 7 for a description of these thorns. Care is from MERIMNA and Thayer's simple definition is, "Care, anxiety," and he explains his definition to mean, "anxiety about things pertaining to this earthly life." Robinson defines it, "Care, anxiety, anxious thought," and his comment on it is, "as dividing up and distracting the mind." It means to be so concerned about the things of worldly interest that one neglects to give proper attention to spiritual matters. Deceitfulness. of riches means the false pleasures that one may have by means of his wealth. He should not be thus deceived because "the fashion of this world passeth away" (1 Corinthians 7:31). 3:23 The good ground is the heart or mind that understands, and this word is explained at verse 8. The hundred, sixty and thirty fold is different in amount only. It is all good wheat, but not all men even in the good class have the same ability or capacity for producing results. The Lord is not concerned about the amount of work a man accomplishes in the vineyard just so he does what he can. 3:24 The reader should first see the comments at verse 3 about the right use of parables. The one now before us is for a different purpose from the one just concluded. The main point in this is to show what is going to take place at the judgment day. But in order to explain why that will be done it is necessary to tell what was going on in the world before that. In relating those details the Lord mentions some things that do not represent the activities within the church. The items of the parable will first be given and the explanation will follow a little later in the chapter. It starts with the simple fact that a man sowed good seed in his field as no man would sow any other kind in his own territory. 3:25 While men slept means the time when mankind was usually asleep, and that would be the most likely time for an enemy to get in his evil work. Tares is from , and Thayer's description of it is, "A kind of darnel, bastard wheat, resembling wheat except that the grains are black," and Robinson says of it, "At first having a close resemblance to them" [good grain]. A common idea is that the tares were growing in such a way that the roots of them and the wheat were entwined so that a man could not pull up the one without uprooting the other. This is a mistake, and instead, it is the resemblance that is considered and which will be considered also below. 3:26 There was enough difference as the growing proceeded that some informed servants recognized the presence of the tares and were puzzled about it. 3:27 The servants asked their master for an explanation. 3:28 He explained that an enemy had done it. The natural conclusion with the servants was that he would want them to gather the tares out of the field. 3:29 The close resemblance between the tares and the wheat might cause some of the servants to mistake the one for the other while the plants were not fully matured. 3:30 By harvest time the growth will be completed and hence no harm can be done to the wheat even if it is pulled up. Also by that time the distinction will be clearer so that the reapers whose experience guides them in the harvesting work will be able to make the separation between the things that should not remain together. 3:31 The parable of the tares was dropped for the present because the multitudes were still present and the explanation was not to be for them. Before dismissing them Jesus spoke two shorter parables, one of which was about the mustard seed. 3:32 The point in this parable is the extent to which the kingdom of heaven was to grow from a very small beginning. The variety of mustard that is considered is the garden kind or that which is cultivated. The word is from SINAPI and Thayer describes the plant as follows: "The name of a plant which in oriental countries grows from a very small seed and attains to the height of 'a tree'--ten feet or more." The birds of the air need not be thought as being the largest kind for the text does not require such a conclusion. There are many varieties of small birds that could easily perch in the branches of a plant ten feet high. The kingdom of heaven started in one city and with only a few hundred members at most, but it spread until it became universal and people of all nations sought spiritual shelter in it. 3:33 The next parable is con-tained in this one verse. The meaning is somewhat the same as the preceding one but from a different standpoint. The nature of leaven is to work its way through the mixture in which it has been deposited. If nothing interferes with its operation it will continue until it converts all of the material into a nature like itself. The leaven of the Gospel was deposited at Jerusalem and it spread its influence until it reached to the extremities of "the whole" world or was carried out according to the great commission (Romans 10:18; Colossians 1:23). 3:34 Without a parable applies to the multitudes at such times as Jesus was using to talk about the kingdom of heaven (verse 11). 3:35 In speaking the parables Jesus fulfilled a prophecy spoken by David in Psalms 78:2. World is from KOSMOS and means the people of the earth. 3:36 The first verse of this chapter states that Jesus went out of the house where he spoke to the multitudes. He now dismissed them and went back into the house, and when the disciples came to him they asked for an explanation of the tares and wheat. 3:37 The sower is the Son of man or Jesus the Christ. 3:38 The field is the world (mankind in general) and not the church as some people teach. Good seed are the children means the good seed (which is the divine truth) produces children for the kingdom of heaven. The tares are the children or product of evil teaching. These evil men are people of the world who would not accept the kingdom of heaven and the Lord's teaching. 3:39 Devil is from which means Satan or Beelzebub. He has always been an enemy of righteousness and has used his influence to keep men out of the kingdom of the Lord. World in this and the following verse is from AION and means age; specifically the age of the earth. Angels have been instruments of God since the human family has existed. They are said to be the reapers, and the same prediction is made of their part in the last harvest as recorded in Revelation 14:14-20. 3:40 All refuse material that accumulates in the course of a growing season generally is disposed of at the time of harvest. Thus it will be done with the tares at the harvest time which will be at the end of the world. 3:41 One meaning of the word for kingdom is, "The territory sub ject to the rule of a king," and Jesus said (chapter 28:18) that "all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." This shows that the whole inhabited earth is the kingdom of Christ in this broad sense. Hence the wicked characters in the world will be taken out of it at the last day and cast into the fire. 3:42 Wailing and gnashing of teeth. The subject of endless punishment will be fully considered at chapter 25:46. It will be stated here however, that the phrase in italics indicates a condition of conscious torment. 3:43 Then is an adverb of time and refers to the condition just after the harvest which is at the end of the world. In 1 Corinthians 15:24 Paul says that Jesus will give up his kingdom when he comes and deliver it to his Father. That is why this verse says that the righteous will then shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. 3:44 The lesson in this parable is the value of salvation, and hence the sacrifice that one should make willingly in order to obtain it. The treasure represents the salvation which Jesus brought and deposited in the same field that is a part of the parable of the tares. When a man "finds" that salvation through hearing the Gospel and desires to obtain it, he will devote all his time and talents for that purpose. 3:45 This parable teaches the same lesson as the preceding one on the value of salvation. One word in the definition for goodly is, "genuine." There are many things that appear as pearls but are only imitation. This merchant was not wishing anything but the real and hence he was seeking for it. 3:46 Salvation also is something for which a man should seek (chapter 6:33), and he should be just as careful to find the genuine and not some imitation. Like the parable, there are systems made by man that have the appearance of being good, like "simulated pearls," but upon examination will be found to be false. And there is no reason for anyone to be deceived for the Scriptures will make it very clear as to what the salvation from God is like. When a man finds it he must devote his entire attention to it in order to retain this pearl of great price. 3:47 When a man casts a net into the water he does not know what may be taken because he cannot see the fish until the net is drawn out. Likewise, no man can read the mind of another, and when he offers the Gospel to the world he cannot see the hearts of those who profess to accept it. 3:48 After the fishing time Is over the net will be drawn out and taken to the shore where the good fish can be separated from the others. In like manner the Gospel fish net will be spread out on the shore of the judgment. Then all those persons who have deceived their fellow men will be exposed before the eye of the great Judge. 3:49 As in the parable of the tares, the angels are represented as the servants of the Lord in separating the good from the bad at the end of the world. 3:50 This verse takes the same comments as verse 42. 3:51 Jesus was still talking to his disciples, the multitudes having been dismissed (verse 36), hence it was appropriate for him to ask them if they understood what had been said. We recall that the disciples who were following Jesus had shown enough sincere attention to the things that had been recorded to have formed a commendable idea of the matters, which entitled them to the explanation of the "mysteries" of the kingdom. But some of the teaching of Jesus was more literal or direct so that honest minds like these would be able to grasp it without special explanation. Hence we are not surprised that they answered his question with yea Lord. 3:52 One important key word in this verse is scribe, and I shall give some information from the writings of learned authors upon the work of this special class of men. The word is from and Thayer's general definition of it is, "1. A clerk, scribe, especially a public scribe, secretary, recorder . . . 2. In the Bible, a man learned in the sacred writings, an interpreter, teacher." This definition of the word is based on the special work of these men. On this subject Robinson in his lexicon says the following: "The scribes had the charge of transcribing the sacred books; whence naturally arose their office of interpreting difficult passages, and deciding in cases which grew out of the ceremonial law. Their influence was of course great, and many of them were members of the Sanhedrin." As further consideration of this subject, we observe that mechanical means of recording literature were not in existence in Biblical times, hence the copies of the law had to be made by hand. Such frequent contact with the sacred writings naturally made these men familiar with the text, and they could be relied on to quote from it when occasion called for it. With this knowledge of the Old Testament to begin with, after a scribe received the instruction belonging to the kingdom of heaven he would be qualified to offer the treasures of sacred knowledge from both the New and Old Testaments. 3:53 Finished these parables refers to the ones in this chapter. 3:54 Jesus was in Galilee all the time he was teaching these parables and hence he was already in his own country with reference to the province. Thus the term has specific reference to the vicinity of Nazareth where he had been brought up. Having lived there in his boyhood and early manhood, the people were acquainted with his humble life and hence they were astonished when they heard his teaching and saw his works. 3:55 The people were acquainted with much of the family history of Jesus and never knew of any training he had gone through to give him the talents he was now displaying. There could be no question about his general standing as a citizen for they knew all of these nearest relatives and could mention them by name. For comments on the term brethren see those at chapter 12:46. 3:56 The Romanists insist that Mary always remained a virgin, and that when his "brethren" are mentioned it means his disciples since they are known by the name of brethren also. That is true, but when so used it includes all of the disciples regardless of sex. If that had been the meaning intended in verse 55 there would have been no reason to mention sisters in this verse for they would have been included in the other. 3:57 Offended is from SKANDA-LIZO and Thayer's definition at this place is, "To find occasion of stumbling," and he explains his definition to mean, "To see in another what hinders me from acknowledging his authority." Jesus uttered the familiar proverb about a prophet's honor in his own country. People are inclined to have more, respect for a teacher who is unknown to them than for their acquaintances. Jesus did not state any reason for this and hence I am unable to explain it. 3:58 Pretended miracle workers try to explain their failure at performing certain miracles on the ground of the unbelief of the multitude. They will refer to such passages as the present verse and try to hide behind it. They ignore the point that Jesus did do some of his works in spite of the unbelief of the multitude. The reason their unbelief restricted his mighty works so that he did not many of them was their unbelief which rendered them unworthy. (See chapter 7:6 and Mark 6:5.) Matthew 14 "THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Chapter Fourteen Word of Jesus’ ministry came to Herod the tetrarch, and Matthew tells how Herod killed John the Baptist (Matthew 14:1-12). Hearing of John’ s death, Jesus sought privacy but was followed by the multitudes and fed over 5000 with five loaves and two fish (Matthew 14:13-21). Sending His disciples away by boat, Jesus dispersed the crowd and went to the mountain to pray. He later joined His disciples by walking on the sea (Matthew 14:22-33). In the land of Gennesaret, Jesus healed all who came to Him by simply letting them touch the hem of His garment (Matthew 14:34-36). POINTS TO PONDER * The unlawful marriage of Herod that led to John’ s death * Two miracles that demonstrate Jesus’ power over nature * The inverse relationship between fear and faith REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter? - The death of John the Baptist - Matthew 14:1-12- Jesus feeds the five thousand - Matthew 14:13-21- Jesus walks on the sea - Matthew 14:22-33- Jesus heals many in Gennesaret - Matthew 14:34-36 2) Who did Herod think Jesus was when he heard about Him? (Matthew 14:1-2) - John the Baptist, risen from the dead 3) What led to Herod’ s arrest of John the Baptist? (Matthew 14:3-4) - John’ s rebuke of Herod’ s unlawful marriage to Herodias (cf. Mark 6:17-18) 4) How was Herod tricked to have John beheaded? (Matthew 14:6-10) - By Salome’ s dance, Herod’ s foolish oath, and Herodias’ prompting 5) When Jesus heard of John’ s death, what did He try to do? What happened? (Matthew 14:13) - Go to a deserted place; the multitudes followed Him 6) What prompted Jesus to heal the sick and feed the hungry? (Matthew 14:14-15) - His compassion for them 7) How many were fed, and with what? (Matthew 14:16-21) - 5000 men, besides women and children; five loaves and two fish 8) As Jesus walked on the sea, what led to Peter sinking? (Matthew 14:25-31) - Fear, which Jesus attributed to little faith 9) How were the sick in the land of Gennesaret healed? (Matthew 14:34-36) - As many as touched the hem of Jesus’ garment Matthew 14:1-36 Verse 1Mat 14:1-36THE OF JOHN THE BAPTIST; THE OF CHRIST TO ; THE FEEDING OF THE FIVE ; WALKING ON THE SEA; HEALING THE At that season Herod the tetrarch heard the report concerning Jesus, and said unto his servants, This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead; and therefore do these powers work in him. (Matthew 14:1-2)This Herod was a son of Herod the Great by the second Mariamne, daughter of Simon. He had inherited the tetrarchy of Galilee of Perea. On a visit to Rome, he was enamored by Herodias, his niece, who was the wife of his half-brother, Herod Philip II, who at that time were private citizens in Rome. Herod seduced her, divorced his own wife, married her, and made her his queen. Herod's comment concerning John, recorded in these two verses, was made in the aftermath of John's murder, which is detailed in this chapter. His remarks pointed up his guilt and also the conviction he held that John was indeed a righteous man. Verse 3 For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife.The Jews fiercely resented Herod's incestuous marriage with Herodias for three reasons: First, he was already married; second, she was his niece; and third, she was his brother's wife. The Jewish law expressly forbade a man's marrying his brother's wife, even after the brother's death, much less while he was still alive; the one exception being that when a man died without an heir, his brother was commanded to marry the deceased's widow and produce an heir to his estate (Leviticus 18:16; Deuteronomy 25:5-10). Herod's imprisonment of John was due to the hatred of Herodias and shows what an evil influence can sometimes be exerted by an unprincipled woman in high place. Had it not been for the designs of the cruel, heartless, and immoral Herodias, John the Baptist might well have lived to see the Christ after his resurrection. Verse 4 For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her.John did not belong to that school of preachers always careful not to "stick out their necks"! He, like Priscilla and Aquila who "laid down their own necks" (Romans 16:4) for the apostle Paul, was fearless in declaring God's law. Verse 5 And when he would have put him to death, he feared the multitude, because they counted him as a prophet.This exposes Herod as equally guilty with Herodias for the murder of John. The purpose was already in his heart; and, had it not been for fear of the people, he would already have martyred John. He needed only the stimulation provided when Salome danced to give the order of execution. John's holy reputation was justly earned, and he surely deserved a better fate than to fall under the evil eye of a beast like Herod. Verse 6 But when Herod's birthday came, the daughter of Herodias danced in the midst, and pleased Herod.Earthly rulers mark their birthdays; Christ required of his disciples that they celebrate his death. Birthday parties through the ages have often been the occasion of license, as here. Herodias' daughter, Salome, "did leap in the myddle," as an ancient translation has it, meaning that the dance was probably a belly dance. Verse 7 Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her whatsoever she should ask.Extravagant promises of the type here were characteristic of kings and rulers of that period, the promise sometimes being limited by the words, "unto half my kingdom." Verse 8 And she, being put forward by her mother, saith, Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptist.This giddy, irresponsible request came at the instigation of Herodias who was still smarting under John's fearless rebuke of her incestuous marriage with Herod. She took her revenge in the macabre scene that closed Herod's birthday party. One can only pity the little fool of a dancing girl who might have received something truly desirable instead of the ghastly thing she asked. Verse 9 And the king was grieved; but for the sake of his oaths, and of them that sat at meat with him, he commanded it to be given; and he sent and beheaded John in the prison. And his head was brought on a platter, and given to the damsel; and she brought it to her mother. And his disciples came, and took up the corpse, and buried him; and they went and told Jesus.The scene of this bloody accent on Herod's birthday party was the old prison of Machaerus, some five miles east of the Dead Sea. One can reflect only with sorrow upon the feelings of the godly John when informed of his fate. Herod heard only the music and dancing; John heard only the grating of the prison door as the headsman came to lead him to the block. Yet, through the power of faith, any man in his right mind would prefer the fate of John the Baptist to that of Herod. The disciples went away and told Jesus! That bodes nothing good for Herod, or for any other sinner who opposes or maltreats one of God's faithful children. All people must finally stand before Christ for judgment. The foolish fear of what people might think is highlighted by this incident. Herod, while fully capable of murder, and intending it at one time, nevertheless seemed at the moment to have been in the mood to spare John; but he had opened his mouth with a foolish promise, and fear of what his guests might think forced him to go through with it. Countless times, Satan has maneuvered some cowardly soul into a situation where some terrible deed is committed for fear of turning back. Satan surely is a master at setting a stage like that booby trap into which Herod fell. John lost his head; Herod lost his throne as a result of that shameful deed. Aretas, father of Herod's first wife, invaded Herod's tetrarchy; Herod fled to Rome, where Caligula banished both him and Herodias to Lyons in Gaul on a charge of misgovernment. That birthday party was loaded with consequences. Things of the kind related in this passage probably account for the Jewish detestation[1] of birthday parties which were long held by the orthodox to be a part of idolatrous worship. ENDNOTE:[1] J. R. Dummelow, One Volume Commentary (New York: Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 675. Verse 13 Now when Jesus heard it, he withdrew from thence in a boat, to a desert place apart; and when the multitudes heard thereof, they followed him on foot from the cities.Robertson wrote, "Note that four separate withdrawals from Galilee are given. In every case, he keeps out of Herod's territory, and in every case he goes to the mountains."[2] The desert mentioned is not a waterless place, but an uninhabited place. Insight as to the scriptural use of the term "desert" may be obtained from a glance at the following accounts from the four gospel accounts of the same incident: Matthew calls the place a "desert," adding a word about there being "grass" there (Matthew 14:19); Mark relates that there was "green grass" (Mark 6:39); and John refers to "much grass" (John 6:10). Luke gives the location as Bethsaida (Luke 9:10), a beautifully-situated city near the mountains at the northeast corner of Galilee. Wide, level grassy places may still be seen there, but so far from the city as to have made it impractical for the people to go and buy bread. The people, seeing that Christ had gone across the lake to Bethsaida with the Twelve, merely walked around the northern end of the lake and met him there. ENDNOTE:[2] A. T. Robertson, Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1922), p. 85. Verse 14 And he came forth and saw a great multitude, and he had compassion on them, and healed their sick.Christ had already withdrawn up into the mountains near Bethsaida, but when he saw the vast throng of people, he came down and met them on the grassy plain. His compassion is frequently mentioned in the New Testament, and refers to the pity and feeling of deep concern which he always manifested toward the people. His healing of all their sick people richly rewarded all those who thus exerted themselves to follow him. Verse 15 And when even was come, the disciples came to him, saying, The place is desert, and the time already past; send the multitudes away, that they may go into the villages, and buy themselves food.The disciples in this instance came up with the usual solution for difficult problems, and the one usually resorted to by the Christians of all ages when some difficult situation presented itself, namely, "Send the multitudes away!" How frequently the church has sought to solve problems by sending them away, instead of meeting the need. Verse 16 But Jesus said unto them, They have no need to go away; give ye them to eat.Christ knew what he was about to do, but this commandment tested the faith of the Twelve. Their first objection was to the effect that they did not possess sufficient resources for such a task; but Christ asked them to produce what they did have! Andrew had found a lad with five loaves and two little fishes, and these were brought to the Lord. Not a very large store was this, for serving five thousand men besides the women and children. Verse 17 And they say unto him, We have here but five loaves, and two fishes. And he said, Bring them hither to me.The little that men have is enough, if it is dedicated to the Lord. This profoundly impressive miracle of creation is recorded in all four gospels. It set off a tremendous wave of popular enthusiasm among the multitudes who hailed him as that Prophet who would come into the world. Psalms 78:19 recorded the question, "Shall God prepare a table in the wilderness?" And in this instance, God in Christ did that very thing. Verse 19 And he commanded the multitudes to sit down on the grass; and he took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake and gave the loaves to the disciples, and the disciples to the multitudes.Christ tested the faith of the multitude by the command to sit down on the grass. The store out of which food was to be supplied for so vast a company was evident to all; and it is a mark of their confidence in the Lord that they sat down. Note that Christ, as Billy Sunday said, "was the chef on that occasion, not the waiter." He gave to the disciples; they gave to the multitudes. This is eternally true of all who would truly serve Christ; they must receive FROM HIM all that is imparted to others. Even yet, men must believe on Christ "through their word," that is, through the word of the apostles. Christ's giving thanks is a reminder, through example, that men should express thanks for food. If one ever had a right to eat without it, it was Christ; but, even though he had created that food only a moment before, still he gave thanks to God for it. Verse 20 And they, all ate, and were filled: and they took up that which remained over of the broken pieces, twelve baskets full.How Jesus did this wonderful thing is not revealed. Certainly, the modernist view must be rejected, which holds that Christ took the example of the little lad who had the loaves and fishes and shamed everybody into sharing his lunch with others, thus providing a banquet out of what they already had! Such a view denies the record. Christ in this wonder manifested his creative power as he did at the miracle of Cana in Galilee, where he changed the water into wine. It was another link in the evidence that made Jesus "that Prophet" like unto Moses who fed the people with bread from heaven. Indeed, this was precisely the deduction which that audience drew from those remarkable events (John 6:14). Saving the fragments and gathering them into baskets suggests a number of things. The superabundance of Jesus' power is noted in the fact that they had twelve times as much left over as they had at the start. Also, since there was a popular superstition to the effect that demons lurked in crumbs, Christ flaunted it by saving the crumbs. Another thing concerns the ownership of the twelve baskets of fragments. Trench and other commentators pointed out that there was one basketful for each of the Twelve; however, by any fair reckoning, their was a prior claimant on at least one of those baskets, and that was the lad who had provided the original! It seems only fair to conclude that he was the only legitimate owner of all that was left, baskets and all. This is a parable to the effect that no man ever gave anything to Christ but that he got it back, compounded and multiplied. Verse 21 And they that did eat were about five thousand men, besides women and children.What an astounding deed of creative might was that which fed so great a multitude from a little lad's basket! Also, let it be observed that the status of woman has been dramatically altered by Christ and the impact of his teaching upon men's hearts. No one in our age would think of numbering an audience without taking any account of the number of women and children present. It would be considered an outrage for anyone to number a throng of people merely by the number of men, lumping the women and children in as surplus! Verse 22 And straightway he constrained the disciples to enter into the boat, and to go before him to the other side, till he should send the multitudes away.Why did Jesus need to "constrain" the disciples, indicating that some definite resistance on their part was encountered? The key to this is in John's account where it is related that the multitude was about to take Jesus and make him king by force, a thing the disciples no doubt desired and would have abetted in every possible way if Jesus had not ordered them to the other side of the lake. Christ thus dispersed his own true followers, and then the great rabble. They were sent to the other Bethsaida, on the western side of Galilee; the Bethsaida they were leaving was a larger city, situated on the northeastern shore of Galilee, and called Bethsaida-Julius. Verse 23 And after he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into the mountain apart to pray: and when even was come, he was there alone.Following so closely upon the rejection at Nazareth, this enthusiastic desire of a vast concourse of people to make Jesus king by force must have been a genuine temptation to Christ. Satan was renewing the temptation to take a short-cut to popular acclaim. This is evident from the manner in which Jesus responded, namely, by going apart into the mountain, alone, to pray. Christ met every crisis of his life in exactly that way. The word "even," as used here, referred to the first even which began at three o'clock in the afternoon; the second even began at six o'clock. These first and second evens corresponded almost exactly to our afternoon and evening. Verse 24 But the boat was now in the midst of the sea, distressed by the waves; for the wind was contrary.It will appear a little later that Satan was the instigator of that storm. Failing to induce Christ to accept the mantle of material kingship, the devil was of a mind to drown all his apostles in the sea! The contrary winds had prevented their successful crossing; and as late as the fourth watch of the night, they were still tossed by the angry seas about the point of no return, some three miles from land in either direction. There appears to be a progressive design in our Lord's schooling of the Twelve. In Matthew 8:1-34, it was recorded that he was asleep in the stern of the ship during a storm; but in this instance the disciples were alone. In that case, they had him on board and could arouse him in an emergency; but in this, Jesus was out of sight, and they were learning the hard way what it means to walk by faith and not by sight. Verse 25 And in the fourth watch of the night he came unto them, walking upon the sea. And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a ghost; and they cried out for fear.This was an astounding occurrence, and the fear of the Twelve is understandable. If they recognized the form of Christ, they may have thought he had been killed; but for whatever reason, they were thoroughly afraid and troubled. In this verse is a remarkable example of how words can change meanings. Note the following: English Revised Version King James Version 1885 A.D. 1611 A.D.Matthew 14:26 "It is a ghost." "It is a spirit" Matthew 28:19 "The Holy Spirit" "The Holy Ghost"In this case, the words "ghost" and "spirit" exchanged meanings during the interval between 1611,1881, each word meaning today exactly what the other did when the King James Bible was published. Verse 27 But straightway Jesus spake unto them saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.Christ's coming to those storm-tossed disciples symbolizes the way he has often come to his troubled disciples in all ages, walking to them over life's troubled waters; and, as always, he may pass them by, unless they cry out and call upon him as did the apostles here. Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid. How grandly have those blessed words echoed down the centuries in men's hearts. Christ's holy religion is one that casts out fear. Fear not! That is the first and last commandment of faith. Verse 28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee upon the waters.Peter's "if" in this place is not a word of doubt but an argumentative "if" such as Christ himself used when he said, "If I go, I will come again." The true meaning is, "Since it is thou, etc." Peter, impetuous as always, dared the impossible, and with what memorable results. He actually did it, for a while, at least! Verse 29 And he said, Come. And Peter went down from the boat, and walked upon the waters to come to Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried out, saying, Lord, save me.Peter succeeded at first, but then he failed. He did actually walk on the sea; but when he took his eyes off the Saviour and began to consider the difficulties, he began to sink. What a lesson shines in this. As long as people have respect unto the Lord and behold him in all their ways, they go forward; on the other hand, when men become analysts of the difficulties, they fail. Most of the high and noble things ever done would never have been started or concluded if the men who achieved them had taken a good hard look at the difficulties. That goes for the American Revolution, the invention of the electric light, the discovery of America, and just about everything else that has made history; and it is one thousand times more true in the realm of spiritual things! Was there something of the show-off in Peter's conduct here? Perhaps. It will be recalled that, later, he professed to have more faith than the others; and there may be some suggestion of the same attitude in his conduct on the occasion mentioned here. In any case, the Lord did not permit him utterly to fail, but only enough to strengthen his faith in the Lord. Verse 31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and took hold of him, and saith unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt? And when they were gone up into the boat, the wind ceased. And they that were in the boat worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.Peter's failure was due to lack of faith; and the rebuke was therefore deserved. He apparently profited by it. The acknowledgment of the disciples that Jesus was in fact the Son of God showed that Christ's schooling of them was achieving his purpose. The great calm was proof of Jesus' power. See note under Matthew 8:26 for evidence that this storm, and that, probably resulted from satanic instigation. The grand design of Christ's purpose is plain. Rejected at Nazareth, improperly acclaimed by the rabble at Bethsaida-Julius, Christ is recognized by the disciples as the Son of God. That was the big thing that he came to teach, and the germ of this world-shaking truth was already firmly implanted in the minds of the apostles by the time this remarkable event was concluded. From that overwhelming experience, Peter no doubt drew the faith to confess Christ as recorded in Matthew 16:16. The difference in his confession and that recorded here was a matter of circumstances. Under the excitement and joy of the moment, they all said he was the Son of God; but it remained for Peter to come through with the formal affirmation of it in the face of adverse opinion to the contrary. Verse 34 And when they had crossed over, they came to the land, unto Gennesaret. And when the men of that place knew him, they sent into all that region round about, and brought unto him all that were sick; and they besought him that they might only touch the border of his garment: and as many as touched were made whole.In this section, it has been noted that Christ was rejected at Nazareth; John's martyrdom caused Christ to leave Herod's territory; the multitude at Bethsaida had tried to make him king; and in this passage is another instance of the Master's being widely acclaimed and accepted. Since the master plan called for Christ's rejection, even those instances of his acceptance were practically all marred by some vitiating circumstance. This is seen in the efforts of those at Bethsaida to make him king by force, in the woman at Samaria's well having been a Samaritan of doubtful morality, and in the Gentile orientation of others. None can say how many Christ healed. ALL of their sick must have been a truly great number. What a blessing he bestowed upon that land. There were so many and suffering that sufficient time did not exist for him to give personal attention to them all, hence, their desire merely to touch the border of his garment. As many as touched were made whole! This seven-word jewel is one of the most illuminating and encouraging remarks in the sacred text. A mere touch is not much contact, but it is enough! Those who touched were not merely helped; they were made perfectly whole. No efficacy in his garment is implied; not the garment, but Christ healed. He needed no staff, as did Moses; he needed no mantle, as Elijah; he required no instrument except himself. His word alone cast out demons, stilled the tempest, changed the water into wine, and raised the dead! A number of infinities appear in these seven words: There is infinite compassion, evident when Christ allowed a multitude to throng him for a chance to touch him. There is infinite need, seen in the incredible number of those who came from that one tiny place on earth. There is infinite power. Both those who touched or were touched were made whole. There is infinite contrast. A touch, only for an instant, and only his garment at that; and the sufferer was made whole for life. That instant touch of Christ's garment contrasts with entire wholeness of the entire man for an entire lifetime! There is infinite encouragement. Spiritually, those who touch the Lord shall live. There is infinite privilege. Men today are not called merely to "touch" Christ but to be baptized into him, to become a part of his mystical body, and to let his mind be in them. There is infinite danger. With all one's speaking of Christ and open profession of his service, it may be that he never touches Christ at all, or, touching, touches not in faith! J.W. McGarvey CommentaryFor Matthew Chapter Fourteen Opinion of Herod, Matthew 14:1-12. (Mark 6:14-29; Luke 9:7-9)1. Herod the tetrarch.—Herod the Great left a will by which his kingdom was divided into four unequal parts. He gave Judea to his son Archelaus (2:22); Galilee and the region beyond Jordan, to his son Herod Antipas, the one here mentioned; Iturea and Trachonitis, districts north and northeast from Galilee, to his son Herod Philip; and Abilene, the extreme northern part, to Lysanias, of whom little is known. Each of these was called a tetrarch (ruler of a fourth), because he ruled over one of the four parts of the former kingdom. (Comp. Luke 3:1.) 2. This is John.—The opinion that Jesus was John the Baptist risen from the dead originated with others (Luke 9:7-9), but was adopted by Herod. So tragic an end as had befallen John, in early manhood and in the midst of so brilliant a career, was well calculated to startle the imagination, and the guilty conscience of Herod was ready to second any suggestions which might spring from the superstition of the people. His conception was not, as some have supposed, that John's spirit, according to the doctrine of transmigration of souls, had been born again in the person of Jesus; for John had but recently died, and Jesus was nearly as old as he; but it was the conception, as expressed in the text, that Jesus was John risen from the dead. therefore mighty works.—There was a prevalent idea among the ancients that departed spirits were endowed with superhuman powers; hence Herod's conclusion that the supposed resurrection of John would account for the mighty works in question. 3. For Herod had.—The for connects the statements which follow with the opinion of Herod expressed in the previous verse. In quoting that opinion, Matthew had indirectly introduced the fact of John's death, although he had not yet mentioned the fact in his narrative. For the double purpose of supplying this omission and accounting for the singular opinion which Herod formed concerning Jesus, he relates the following circumstances. in prison for Herodias' sake— The imprisonment of John had been mentioned before (4:13), but not the cause of it. Here the cause and the final result are given. 4. For John said unto him.—The singular impartiality and fearlessness of John are here exhibited. While rebuking the sins of the common people, and of the Pharisees and Sadducees, who had no civil power in their hands, he might be considered entirely safe; but when Herod, who was living in adultery with his brother's wife, and who had the power of life and death in his hand, came to hear him, the inquiry would naturally occur to the people, will he rebuke Herod, as he has rebuked us. To their surprise, no doubt, he administered the rebuke. The consequence was to be expected— he lost his liberty, and eventually his life. The time-servers of his day may have thought that he recklessly sacrificed his life and his continued usefulness; but subsequent ages, however they may fail to imitate him, have ever admired the nobility of his conduct. No man is worthy to stand before the people and call them to repentance, who can wink at sin in high places and show a truckling respect of persons. 5. feared the multitude.—It was only in consequence of the persistent entreaties of Herodias, that Herod "would have put him to death;" for his own inclination was to spare him. (See Mark 6:19-20.) He was restrained not only by his own respect for John, but by fear of a violent insurrection of the people— a result which would have occurred but for the refusal of Jesus to head the movement. (See below, 12, 13, and John 6:15.) 6-8. before instructed.—The girl was instructed by her mother, not before she went in, but after the promise was made to her by Herod, and she had gone to her mother for advice. (Mark 6:24.) 9, 10. the king was sorry.—He was sorry that the request was made, for the same reason which had restrained him before (verse 5); but his reluctance was overcome by the consideration of his oath, and by his respect for "those who sat with him at meat." The latter reason implies that the company insisted on his compliance, failing, as he did, to see that the proposed act was really not within the scope of his oath. It was a present of pecuniary value which he had promised, and not the commission of a crime. In his case, as in that of many other wicked men, the great sin of his life was committed in prosecution of a course of evil previously begun, and at the instigation of evil companions. 11. brought it to her mother, —Herodias had thirsted for revenge, and sought it persistently ever since John administered the fatal rebuke; but when the gory head was laid in her lap, instead of the pleasure which she anticipated, there must have been kindled within her heart the flames of a remorse, which, like the fires of hell, never shall be quenched. The crime stamped the names of the guilty couple with greater infamy than that for which John had rebuked them; and who can depict the scene when they shall meet John in the day of judgment? Such is revenge. Let all who allow themselves to thirst for it take warning. 12. went and told Jesus.—After decently burying the headless trunk of the great preacher, John's disciples went to Jesus, not merely to tell him the news, but to find in him a leader. As Herod had anticipated, they were greatly exasperated (verse 5); they knew the friendship of John for Jesus; they knew that the latter intended to set up a kingdom; they believed that this would involve the overthrow of Herod's power; and they were ready now to revolt and make Jesus a king. (See 13, and John 6:1-2; John 6:15.) Had their wish been gratified, they would have obtained revenge; but, like Herodias, they would have obtained none but bitter fruits therefrom. Admiration of the People, and Feeding the Five Thousand, Matthew 14:13-21. (Mark 6:30-34; Luke 9:12-17; John 6:5-14)13. into a desert place.—It was a moment of intense excitement. Jesus himself could not fail to be deeply moved by the mournful fate of John. The cruelty of the deed, the love which he bore to the victim, the thought of his own fate which it brought to mind, and the excitement of the people, all combined to stir within him a variety of emotions. These feelings must be held in abeyance, and the excitement among the people must be allowed to subside. To promote both of these ends, he sought the privacy of the desert, where, as the sequel shows (22), he intended to spend a long time in prayer. Thus did Jesus demean himself in a great crisis of his career. followed him on foot.—The people would not allow him to shake them off. As fast as they heard of John's death, they rushed out of their cities to go to him, so that when he reached the shore toward which his vessel had been headed, the multitude, who had some means of knowing his destination, were in great numbers awaiting him. 14. he healed their sick.—While the chief part of the multitude had been drawn together by the prevailing excitement, some had not forgotten to bring with them their sick and afflicted friends, that they might be healed. 15. and buy victuals.—So great was the excitement of the people, that they had come out many miles from home without the precaution of bringing food. Having fasted till late in the afternoon, they still seemed inclined to remain, when the compassion of the disciples prompted the request that they be sent away. 16. give ye them to eat.—This proposal was intended to try the disciples (John 6:6); yet it was also an earnest proposal which he intended that they should carry into effect 19. blessed and brake.—John says, "he returned thanks." (John 6:11.) He blessed the loaves and fishes by returning thanks for them. This and similar acts of Jesus are our precedents for giving thanks, or "asking the blessing," at our tables. 20, 21. the fragments.—These were gathered up not merely "that nothing be lost" (John 6:12), but also to exhibit more strikingly the extent of the miracle: for the quantity of fragments left after five thousand persons and more had been fed was much greater than the entire quantity at the beginning. The increase had occurred by the instantaneous restoration of the size of the loaf, as each man broke off a peace more than sufficient for himself. Thus the miracle was witnessed by each one of the five thousand, and it was really resolved into five thousand repetitions of the same miracle. On this account it was the most surprising miracle which the people had yet witnessed. Walking on the Sea, and the Faith of the Disciples, Matthew 14:22-33. (Mark 6:45-52; John 6:15-21)22, 23. into a mountain apart.—As we observed in the beginning of the previous paragraph (note on 13), Jesus started for the desert in the morning for the purpose of solitary prayer. His purpose had been frustrated throughout the day by the presence of the people; but now, having dismissed the people and sent his disciples away in their boat, he climbs the mountain side and remains in the coveted solitude until the fourth watch of the night (25), or till after three o'clock. Why he spent so long a time in prayer, it is difficult for us who know so little of the value of prayer, and so little of the inner life of Jesus, to understand. 24. for the wind was contrary.—It is a singular providential coincidence, that while Jesus was struggling with prayer on the mountain, his disciples were struggling with a wind on the sea. This wind detained them as if on purpose to give occasion for the miracle which startled them just before the break of day. 26. It is a spirit.— The scene occurred in the night; consequently, when Jesus first came into view, the disciples could see nothing but the dim outline of a man's form walking over the rough waves, and it is no wonder that they thought him a disembodied spirit, and that they were overcome with that unreasoning fear which all men experience in the visible presence of beings from the other world. 27, 28. bid me come unto thee.—Their fear was instantly removed when they heard the well known voice of the Master, exclaiming, "It is I; be not afraid," and Peter, with the impulsiveness of a boy, who always wants to attempt any surprising feat which he sees another person perform, requests the Lord to let him too walk on the water. 30. he was afraid.—Like other hasty adventurers, Peter soon found himself in a more trying situation than he anticipated. Too far from the vessel to catch back upon it, and not near enough to Jesus to seize hold of him, he thought of the strong wind and the rough sea, and being seized with fear he began to sink. 31. of little faith.—As Jesus steps forward and catches up the sinking disciple, he points cut to him the immediate cause of his danger. His faith was so weak that danger had turned it into doubt. The incident shows that fear is a source of doubt and an enemy of faith; and it illustrates the fact that those who possessed miraculous gifts could only succeed in working miracles when their faith was in lively exercise. 32, 33. the wind ceased.—The sudden cessation of the wind impressed the disciples as deeply as the walking on the water. They gathered around Jesus, and bowing down before him, exclaimed with one voice, "Of a truth thou art the Son of God." In the very hour in which Peter was rebuked for the weakness of his faith, the faith of the whole party gathered new strength and found a most emphatic expression. How curiously the great Teacher was playing on the chords of their hearts, and tuning them to the harmonies of heaven. Cures in Gennesaret, and Faith of the People, 34-36. (Mark 6:53-56) 34. Gennesaret.—The land of Gennesaret was a plane at the northwest curve of the lake of Galilee, which Josephus describes as about thirty furlongs in length by about twenty in average width, and bounded on the west by a semicircular line of hills. It was exceedingly fertile, and was thickly set with cities and villages. Capernaum was near its northern extremity and near the southern was the city of Magdala. The lake itself was sometimes called, from the name of this plane, the sea of Gennesaret. (Josephus, Wars, B. iii, ch. x, §§ 7, 8.) 35, 36. they sent out.—The prompt action of the people in sending out into every part of the plane for the sick, was the result of their previous acquaintance with Jesus, and their faith in his power and goodness. That the touch of the hem of his garment made many perfectly whole, was the surprising reward of their implicit faith. Questions by E.M. Zerr On Matthew 141. What ruler is introduced? 2. State the nature of his office. 3. Of what had he heard? 4. With whom did he confuse Jesus? 5. Where was this person living? 6. Then how could Jesus have been the same person 7. Who was responsible for John’ s death? 8. What indignity had been first put on him? 9. At whose demand had it been done? 10. What was her motive? 11. Was John’ s accusation true? 12. Tell what made it unlawful. 13. Why was John not immediately killed? 14. State what celebration was held. 15. What girl was present? 16. How did she inflame the passions of Herod? 17. For reward what did he offer her? 18. State what she asked? 19. Was this her personal choice? 20. What were Herod’ s feelings at her request ? 21. Why did he not deny her? 22. Where was John beheaded? 23. To whom was the head delivered ? 24. What did she do with it? 25. Tell what was done with the body. 26. On hearing of it, where did Jesus go? 27. By what mode of travel did he go ? 28. Who followed him to this place? 29. How did they travel? 30. State the feeling of Jesus toward them. 31. How did he show it? 32. In the evening who came to him ? 33. What did they suggest? 34. Why did they suggest this? 35. State what he told them to do. 36. From what supplies were they to do this? 37. What kind of work is now required? 38. State the orderly arrangement of the people. 39. What spiritual acts were then performed? 40. Tell what service the disciples rendered. 41. How complete was the meal? 42. What was left over ? ' 43. Tell what was done with it. 44. How many were fed? 45. Where did the disciples now go? 46. In meantime what was Jesus doing about the people 47. After that where did he go and why? 48. What is the condition of the disciples now? 49. Who approached them toward morning? 50. In what way was he traveling? 51. Hid they recognize him ? 52. State their impression of him. 53. What request did Peter make? 54. Why was he frightened? 55. To what did Jesus charge it? 56. What happened to the sea? 57. Tell what the passengers did. 58. What did they say ? 59. At what place did they land? 60. Relate the works of Jesus here. 14:1 The Herodian family was a prominent one in the days of Christ and the early years of the church. Its head was Herod the Great who had several sons by a number of wives. The name "Herod" became a family title and the various members had personal names that made distinctions between them. The different members of the Herodian family held offices of greater or lesser importance in Palestine and figured largely in the affairs of the church as well as the nation. The one in this verse was Herod Anti-pas, son of Herod the Great. Tetrarch originally meant "ruler of a fourth part of some territory," but finally came to mean one who had the ruler-ship over a small part of any district to which he might be assigned. 14:2 Hearing of the fame of Jesus, Herod thought he would have to make some kind of an explanation of it since he could not deny the facts. He doubtless had a sort of guilty feeling over the way he had treated John the Baptist and it gave him this weird-like impression. He explained the matter to his servants by saying that John had come back to life and was doing these mighty works in the person of Jesus. However, this return to life on earth to which Herod referred was not a part of the general resurrection that is taught in the Scriptures, but to a belief that many people had that is described in the histories and other works of reference as "transmigration." I shall quote Webster's definition of the word: "Act or instance of transmigrating; specifically, the passing of the soul at death into another body or successive bodily forms, either human or animal; also (often transmigration of souls), the doctrine that souls so pass." We know that such a doctrine did not originate with any true teacher from God, although many of His professed people took up with it. The idea of repeated transmigrations was based on the theory of Brahma, the Hindu name of the Supreme Being. I shall quote from Myers Ancient History (pages 99, 100) on this matter: "A chief doctrine of Brahmanism is that all life, apart from Brahma, is evil, is travail and sorrow. . . . The only way to redemption from evil lies in communion with and final absorption with Brahma. But this return to Brahma is dependent upon the soul's purification, for no impure soul can be reabsorbed into Brahma. . . . As only a few In each generation reach the goal, it follows that the great majority of men must be born again, and yet again, until all evil has been purged away from the soul and eternal repose is found in Brahma. He who lives a virtuous life is at death born into some higher caste, and thus he advances towards the longed-for end. The evil man, however, is born into a lower caste, or perhaps his soul enters some unclean animal. This doctrine of rebirth is known as the transmigration of souls." While this doctrine originated with the heathen teachers, it had become widely known in the time of Christ and the apostles and was reflected even in the opinions of some of the Jews. That made it necessary for our Saviour and his apostles to deal with it (Matthew 16:14; Mark 8:28; Hebrews 6:2), hence the reader should make himself familiar with this paragraph for future reference when the subject may be mentioned. 14:3 The imprisonment and slaying of John the Baptist had taken place several months before this but nothing was stated on the subject at the time. Now the remark of Herod being recorded by Matthew brought up the subject which might leave the reader in confusion, hence he interrupts his story and goes back to tell that incident, beginning with this verse and running through verse 12. The cause of the trouble was the marriage of Herod with the wife of his brother Philip I. 14:4. John the Baptist told Herod that it was unlawful for him to have her. That would have been a true accusation for more than one reason, but the most outstanding one was the fact that his brother Philip was still living. 14:5 Herod would have slain John in spite work, but was kept from it by the force of public opinion which held John in high esteem as a prophet of God. Besides, Herod might not personally have been inclined so harshly towards .him if he had not been influenced by his wicked wife. Mark 6:19 tells us that she quarreled with John and would have put him to death had she been able to do so. 14:6 But an unexpected event gave her the opportunity she wanted to accomplish her, wicked purpose that was prompted by an adulterous heart. Herod celebrated his birthday by a banquet to which he invited the high men of rank in his estate. The text does not state that his program included the following performance, but for some reason the daughter of his wife by a previous marriage danced before him and his guests. The word for dance is which Thayer defines simply, "to dance." Robinson defines it, "to lift up, to raise aloft; to leap, to dance." Young's definition is, "to lift up (the feet), dance." There is no intimation of any display of musical rhythm, but on the other hand from the definitions of the word in the lexicons, and also from the effects her dancing had on the adulterous mind of Herod, the conclusion is clear that the girl exposed herself before the eyes of that lustful king. It says it pleased Herod, and that pleasure overcame his better judgment. 14:7 Herod was so overcome by the effect of the girl's appearance before his eyes that he seems to have lost his reason. He told her with an oath and without any stipulation that she could have whatever she asked, and Mark's account says that Herod extended his offer to include half of his kingdom. 14:8 Before instructed of her mother. Herodias knew the nature of Herod, in that he was willing to marry her while her husband was living. Doubtless it was her suggestion that caused the girl to dance before the group and display .her charms in the way she did. She further prompted her daughter what to do in.case her dancing produced the effect she anticipated. Consequently she asked for the head of John the Bapist in a charger which means a large dish. The wicked woman would not risk merely request ing the death of John for she would never be sure that it was carried out. But if his head is severed from this body and brought to her she would know the deed was done. 14:9 The king was not expect-ing such a request as this and he was doubtless genuinely sorry because of it. But he had bound his promise with an oath in the knowledge of his royal guests, and pride as well as a 'false notion of the sacredness of an oath, though a sinful one, prevailed over his personal sentiments so that he commanded the wish to be granted and gave orders to the executioner to behead the righteous man. 4:10 John was in prison and the beheading was done there. 4:11 The head of John the Baptist was placed in a dish and brought to the damsel. The head of that forerunner of Christ, the one who had been foretold by the prophets, the man whose preaching aroused the multitudes of all Judea, was severed from his body because he dared to rebuke a lustful man and woman for their wickedness. Of course the damsel was true to the orders of her mother and delivered this reward of her own immoral actions to the vicious woman waiting for it. 4:12 His disciples means the disciples of John. They got possession of his body and buried it, then went and told Jesus because they knew that he would be concerned. 4:13 When Jesus heard it means what the disciples of John had just reported. Hence the whole narrative including the works of Jesus goes back to the time of the death of John and proceeds again from there. Jesus wished some privacy or at least some relief from the presence of the crowds after receiving the sad news, and hence he went into a ship and journeyed to a place not much inhabited. Notwithstanding, the people came in throngs on foot to follow him. 4:14 The patience and love of Jesus knew no bounds. He went out to this place for a little relaxation from the press of the multitudes, but when they came on after him his compassion asserted itself and he healed their sick. 4:15 It was getting on towards the close of day and the crowds were lingering in the presence of Jesus. Thinking they might not realize the hour and thus would let darkness find them without provisions, the disciples suggested that Jesus send them into the villages for food. 4:16 This situation provided the occasion of one of the most noted of the miracles of Jesus. The faith of the disciples was to be tested, also they were to receive a lesson on the subject of cooperation; Jesus told them to feed the people. 4:17 The reply of the disciples indicates they had no miraculous power, and that they thought they were expected to feed the multitudes from their own private stores. Hence they explained how scant was their supply of food. 4:18 The amount of supplies the disciples had would not have been even a taste for the crowds, but the lesson was that whatever man has, whether little or much, must be contributed to the cause if he expects the Lord to make the project effective. 4:19 Grass is mentioned which indicates that the place was not without moisture even though it was called a desert. The word means a territory that was not occupied generally by people. It would be more orderly to serve a large crowd if sitting than while standing. Looking up to heaven was a gesture of recognition of the source of the good things at hand. Blessed is from EULOGEO and Thayer's first definition is, "to praise, celebrate with praises." The clause means that Jesus took the bread in his hands before serving, then looked up toward heaven and "Praised God from whom all blessings flow." It was orderly to pass the bread out through the hands of the disciples, besides it made them partakers with Jesus in the service of the hour. 4:20 Even had the whole multitude been able each person to have tasted of the amount of bread the disciples had, it would not have been a miracle although a remarkable thing. They not only tasted but ate-not only ate but were filled; which could not have been accomplished naturally with five loaves. And to show that filled was not figurative there were twelve baskets full of fragments taken up. Why bother with these scraps when it was so easy to obtain bread with Jesus with them? John 6:12 reports the same event and adds the reason given by Jesus was "that nothing be lost." 4:21 It may have been only a coincidence that there was one loaf to each thousand men, but by leaving out the enumeration of the women and children that figure of pro rata was obtained. 4:22 Jesus constrained or commanded his disciples to enter a ship and go across the sea before him. He wished to dismiss the multitudes which would require some considerable time because of the large number of them. 4:23 Before Joining the disciples Jesus retired to a mountain to pray, so that by the time evening had come he was alone. That would be a very suitable situation for prayer with his Father. 4:24 In the meantime a storm had come up and the disciples were having difficulty with their ship. Wind was contrary means the wind was blowing against them or in the opposite direction to that in which they wished to row. Evidently Jesus was expecting such a condition and selected the occasion for one of his great miracles. 4:25 The fourth watch was the same as our three o'clock in the morning, as the twelve hours of the night were divided into four divisions of three hours each, beginning at six in the evening. Thus the hour that Jesus went toward the disciples was still in darkness although not very far from the time of daylight. 4:26 Peering out over the sea in the darkness the disciples saw an object on the surface of the water coming toward them. While it was still in the darkness of night, yet it was not total darkness, so that an object could be discerned but not very distinctly. The sight startled them and they cried out with fear because they thought it was a spirit. Ordinarily a spirit is not supposed to be something that can be seen, but the original for this spirit is which means a phantom or something that appears to exist but which belongs to the unseen world. There is enough of the superstitious in most people to make them have a weird or uneasy feeling in the presence of such an appearance, hence the disciples cried out in their fright. 4:27 They did not recognize Jesus from his appearance but did know his voice, hence the Lord spoke to let them realize who was coming to them. 4:28 We are not told the motive that Peter had in wanting to walk on the water. If it was from a desire to make a show, the Lord certainly knew how to humble him. 4:29 Peter actually got started walking on the surface of the sea and hence had evidence that it was Jesus who was dealing with him miraculously. This should have reassured him that no harm need come to him. 4:30 The power of the Lord is not affected by any apparent difficulties. Peter had started on his journey over the sea and had evidence that Jesus was there. He also should have remembered the previous event (chapter 8:23-27) in which the sea was calmed by the Lord's voice. But his human nature got the better of him and he began to sink. Of course Jesus would not let his disciple perish, but he used the occasion to rebuke him by allowing him to think he was going to sink and perish. 4:31 The Lord chastised him at the same time he was rescuing him by accusing him with having little faith. A good lesson may be obtained for all of us from this event. It does not require as much faith to appear firm when everything is favorable. The test comes when it appears that things are against us, and it is then that we should think of the words of Paul in Romans 8:31, "If God be for us, who can be against us?" 4:32 Whether it was the mere presence of Jesus in the ship that quieted the storm we are not told, or that he commanded it to be so as he did in the case referred to above. What we know is that when he entered the vessel the wind ceased. 4:33 The circumstance had a deep effect on the men in the ship and caused them to worship Jesus. See the comments on chaper 2:2 for the meaning of that word. The worship in this case took the form of a confession that Jesus is the Son of God. That was one purpose of the miracles that Jesus performed according to John 20:30-31, and not merely to gratify the curiosity of idle or disinterested people. 4:34 The storm being over, the ship resumed its journey and landed on the western shore of Galilee at the country of Gennesaret. 4:35 The fame of Jesus had become known in this territory. After his arrival the sick were sent for and brought into the presence of the man who was known as the healer of all kinds of diseases. 4:36 Touching the garment of Jesus had no curative effect in itself, but the act showed their faith and they were healed as a reward for it, on the same principle as that of the woman in chapter 9:20-22. Matthew 15 "THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Chapter Fifteen Religious leaders from Jerusalem took issue with Jesus’ disciples’ failure to observe certain traditions, which led Jesus to warn against the danger of traditions and that which causes true moral defilement (Matthew 15:1-20). After a quick trip to the region of Tyre and Sidon where He healed a Canaanite woman’ s daughter (Matthew 15:21-28), Jesus made His way to a mountain near the Sea of Galilee where He healed many and fed 4000 with seven loaves and a few fish. He then sailed to the region of Magdala, located on the west coast of the Sea Of Galilee (Matthew 15:29-39). POINTS TO PONDER * The danger of traditions and vain worship * That which causes true moral defilement REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter? - Debate over tradition and more defilement - Matthew 15:1-20- Jesus heals the Canaanite woman’ s daughter - Matthew 15:21-28- Jesus heals many and feeds the 4000 - Matthew 15:29-39 2) What tradition of the elders had the disciples of Jesus transgressed? (Matthew 15:1-2) - To wash hands before eating bread 3) According to Jesus, when do traditions of men become wrong? (Matthew 15:3-9) - When one keeps a tradition of man instead of a commandment of God - When one teaches as doctrine (that which is binding) a commandment of man 4) When does worship become vain? (Matthew 15:9) - When such worship is based on the teachings of men rather than of God 5) What constitutes true moral defilement? (Matthew 15:11; Matthew 15:16-20) - That which comes out of the mouth, i.e., evil thoughts and deeds from man’ s heart 6) What will happen to plants (religions, doctrines) not started by God? (Matthew 15:13) - They will be uprooted 7) How did Jesus describe the scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem? (Matthew 15:14) - As blind leaders of the blind 8) What moved Jesus to grant the Canaanite woman’ s request? (Matthew 15:28) - Her great faith 9) With what did Jesus feed more than 4000 people? (Matthew 15:34-38) - Seven loaves and a few little fish Matthew 15:1-39 Verse 1Mat 15:1-39 AND REAL ; THE WOMAN; JESUS RETURNS TO GALILEE; FEEDING THE FOUR Then there came to Jesus from Jerusalem Pharisees and scribes, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. (Matthew 15:1-2)This section (Matthew 13:54-58; Matthew 14:1-36; Matthew 15:1-39; Matthew 16:1-20) concerns the of various persons and groups to Christ and his teaching. The rejection at Nazareth, the popular acclaim at Bethsaida-Julius, the vast popularity of the multitudes whose sick he healed, and the powerful conviction growing, and actually stated once, in the hearts of the apostles that he was the Son of God, have already been noted. In this passage is the first raindrop in a gathering storm of opposition from the heads of the Jewish nation. This opposition by the powerful party of the scribes and Pharisees was launched against Jesus by the raising of what seems to be a very small and petty quibble about washing hands; but this opposition, so mildly stated here, was vicious and unrelenting and would never cease for an instant until these men would shout in a frenzy of hatred, "His blood be on us and our children!" There is more to the quibble than meets the eye. The tradition of the elders was considered the most sacred and binding of Jewish obligations, even ranking higher in their eyes than the word of God itself. Dummelow gave as their opinion that The words of the Law are weighty and light, but the words of the scribes are all weighty; the words of the elders are weightier than the words of the prophets; and he that shall say, There are no phylacteries, transgressing the words of the Law, is not guilty; but he that shall say, There are five divisions of a phylactery, adding to the words of the scribes, is guilty![1] There were numerous other traditions which are not worth repeating; but that punctilious platoon of mote-hunting Pharisees laid an outlandish burden of importance upon such minuscule spiritual doodlings! It must not be thought that there is any reference here to eating with dirty hands; it is not that, but neglect of a ceremonial procedure, which was resented by them. ENDNOTE:[1] J. R. Dummelow. One Volume Commentary (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 678. Verse 3 And he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?The genius of Christ is that he always referred issues to their highest level. Not their tradition, but the word of God, that was the truly important obligation; and Christ ignored their tradition and challenged them for their own disregard of God's commandments. Nor did he stop with a theoretical charge; he named cases and gave examples of their lapse. Verse 4 For God said, Honor thy father and thy mother: and, He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death.This and Matthew 15:6, below, prove that Christ considered God to be the author of the Old Testament, and of the Decalogue in particular. Also, in John 10:34-36, Christ referred to the Old Testament as "your law," "the Scriptures," and "the word of God," all in a single statement. Irenaeus wrote that "The true God (Christ) did confess the commandment of the law as the word of God."[2] Note too that Christ approved, as God-given, this law that prescribed capital punishment; and some of the ancients justified such a penalty for blasphemy on the basis that cursing the heavenly Father is a greater crime than cursing father or mother. Cyprian spoke of those who "still heap up evil words on the person of the Father, and sin with the unceasing wickedness of a blaspheming tongue."[3] In this verse, Christ focused attention upon the word of God rather than upon the traditions of the Pharisees, indicating this his primary concern was the former. [2] Irenaeus, Against Heresies in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (10 vols.; Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), Vol. I, p. 473. [3] Cyprian, Epistles in Ibid., Vol. V, p. 384. Verse 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is given to God; he shall not honor his father. And ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition.The Pharisees were making a secondary duty the excuse for denying a primary one, a device observed continually in all ages. By dedicating his properties to the temple, the selfish man, by reserving a life estate in his possessions, could legally deny any aid or support of needy parents, thus thwarting completely God's will relative to honoring father and mother. The Pharisees had a name for this device. They called it Corban! It had no origin or permission of God's true word but was one of their sinful traditions. What's wrong with tradition? Only one thing; it vitiates God's word. Any harm in it? Take the case presented here, relative to washing hands ceremonially, which was the basis of the Pharisees' assault on Christ. That ceremony was harmless in a sense, perhaps even helpful as cleans or hygiene; but it had been forced into the worship of God, solely by human authority, and eventually blinded the eyes of men so completely that they could not even see the Son of Righteousness! The tradition of washing hands was fortified by the unanimous consent and approval of religious leaders; it was supported by all the established institutions; it was honored by the most widespread and extensive observance of it by all the people; and it had been in vogue for many centuries; yet all this did not and could not make it right to inject even so innocent a thing as washing hands into the worship of God. Why? God accepts only those things as worship which he himself has authorized and commanded. Furthermore, given a choice between the word of God and the human tradition, the universal experience of the human race is to the effect that the tradition wins acceptance and the word of God is violated. Mark's account of this place has the words, "Full well do you reject the commandment of God that you may keep your tradition" (Mark 7:8-9). In the case at hand, the scribes and Pharisees rejected Christ in order to keep their tradition. Behold the life cycle of tradition: (1) First appears the innovation, something new, clothed with specious plausibility, riding the crest of some unusual occasion, some exceptional circumstance, or emergency. (2) It is repeated and moves into a place of acceptance as something allowed, occasionally at first, invariably afterwards. (3) It becomes appreciated as an "aid" to the worship, something helpful. (4) Eventually, it is stressed and emphasized to the detriment of what it is supposed to "aid." (5) It achieves, through long usage, a status of equality with God's word. (6) It is finally performed, occasionally, but later, always, instead of God's commandment. (7) Finally, it blooms as a presumptuous, rebellious contradiction of God's word, and is constantly honored in place of it. In the light of Christ's word, "In vain do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men," one is compelled to view innovations in Christian worship as extremely sinful and hurtful. Verse 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, This people honoreth me with their lips; But their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men. - Isaiah 29:13. This prophecy from Isaiah 29:13 contains in its last four words the key to failure in religion, "the precepts of men." If worship of God is to be undertaken on any basis that assures acceptance and ultimate reward, it must be on the basis of revelation. The precepts of men are without any value at all in this whole area. "Is it from heaven or from men?" (Matthew 21:25). That is the most important and relevant question that can be confronted with regard to any doctrine or practice connected with religion. There are literally hundreds of things widely observed in Christian worship throughout Christendom which should be challenged and rejected in the light of this teaching. Verse 10 And he called to him the multitude, and said unto them, Hear and understand. Not that which entereth into the mouth defileth the man; but that which proceedeth out of the mouth, this defileth the man."This he said, making all meats clean" (Mark 7:19). Strangely, people are still trying to get to heaven on some kind of diet! Some won't eat pork; some eat only fish on certain days; and some are actually vegetarians! Novation said, "God is not worshipped by the belly nor by meats. ... He who worships the Lord by meats, is merely as one who has his belly for his Lord."[4] Paul declared every creature of God is to be "good, and not to be rejected, for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer" (1 Timothy 4:4 ff). Here is also a bold emphasis on the defilement that comes out of a man. These are identified as murders, fornications, thefts, and all crimes conceived in the heart and effected through the use of speech. In the second century, Clement of Alexandria, in admonitions to the heathen, said: From filthy speaking, we ourselves must entirely abstain, and stop the mouths of those who practice it by stern looks and averting the face ... "For what proceedeth out of the mouth," he says, "defileth a man." - shows him to be unclean, and heathenish, and untrained, and licentious.[5] [4] Novation, On Jewish Meats in Ibid., Vol. V, p. 648. [5] Clement of Alexandria, Exhortations to the Heathen in Ibid., Vol. II, p. 250. Verse 12 Then came the disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, when they heard this saying? But he answered and said, Every, plant which my heavenly Father planted not, shall be rooted up.There is a suspicion that the disciples themselves may have had some sympathy for the Jewish teaching on meats. Long afterward, Peter was able to say, "I have never eaten anything common or unclean" (Acts 10:14). They had not learned the lesson in this place yet, but they would learn eventually. They seem to be taking the Pharisees' part, ever so mildly, in this gentle remonstrance. Christ's magnificent reply showed that the Pharisees were not merely wrong, but totally so, that they would be plucked up, and that they were blind leaders of the blind, destined for the ditch. Jesus' reply concerning the plant which the heavenly Father had not planted has an immense amount of application. It is true of all evil, of every rebellious thought, and of every institution that rises in time and by time is destroyed. In its context, the "rooting up" applies to: (1) evil men, the Pharisees in this case. Cyprian spoke of excommunicating "the crafty impostor" that he may seek again the church, "from which by divine authority he deserved to be expelled,"[6] attributing the basis of excommunication upon the words of Christ in this Matthew 15:13. (2) It applies to doctrines, teachings, and practices founded in human precepts, rather than in the word of God. ENDNOTE:[6] Cyprian, Epistles in Ibid., Vol. V, p. 326. Verse 14 Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind guide the blind, both shall fall into a pit.Let them alone - that is the admonition of Christ with reference to the worldly wise, socially prominent, sophisticated, unscrupulous, hypocritical religious leaders. The apostles would have been able to do the Pharisees no good, and there was a grave possibility the Pharisees would do the apostles harm by damaging their faith. The child of God today should heed the same admonition with reference to the same kind of persons. Spiritual darkness and sin are set forth in this place under the figure of blindness, a symbol often so used in the Bible (2 Peter 1:9, etc.). Verse 15 And Peter answered and said unto him, Declare unto us the parable.The illustration of the blind leading the blind is here called by Peter a parable, but it would probably be as well named a proverb, short indeed, but full of meaning. The overwhelmingly significant fact about the blind leading the blind is that BOTH the leader and the led are blind, the success of blind leaders in every generation depending entirely upon the degree of blindness in their followers. Only the blind will follow the blind; every soul must bear its own responsibility to know the truth. The same proverb is in Luke 6:30. Verse 16 And he said, Are ye also even yet without understanding? Perceive ye not, that whatsoever goeth into the mouth passeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But the things which proceed out of the mouth come forth out of the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, railings: these are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not the man.Behold in this a ray of light on transubstantiation. It being true, as Jesus said, that nothing entering the mouth defiles the man, it is equally true that nothing entering his mouth can sanctify and bless him. "Whatsoever," said Jesus, that enters the mouth proceeds to the belly and thence to the draught; therefore, it cannot be anything literal in the bread or the wine of the Lord's Supper that can either defile or bless him. Thus it is clear that the bread and the wine are emblems or symbols of the Lord's blood and body. It cannot be the physical and material substance of those sacred tokens which either blesses or procures condemnation; but, on the other hand, it is the act of obedience, the answer of a good conscience toward God, the spiritual perception of the saving truth certified and memorialized by those tokens - it is these that bless the man. Origen stated it thus: "If this were not so, it would sanctify him who eats unworthily of the bread of the Lord."[7] A slight problem occurs in that Peter inquired about one thing, the blind leading the blind; and Jesus answered with emphasis on another thing, the things that defile a man. This was often done by Christ as for example in Luke 13:23. In that case, the disciples asked, "Are there few that be saved?" But the following dissertation never touched that question but focused on the need for every man to "strive to enter the narrow door." In this case, Christ replied by giving Peter the information he needed, rather than by replying in the same vein as the question. ENDNOTE:[7] Origen, Commentary on Matthew in Ibid., Vol. X, Book 11, Sec. 14. Verse 21 And Jesus went out thence, and withdrew into the parts of Tyre and Sidon.Jesus made a long, circuitous route, passing up the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea in the vicinity of Tyre and Sidon, thence eastward through Decapolis, and cross-country to the sources of the Jordan river. Ancient opponents of the faith were sometimes critical of Christ for avoiding an open confrontation with Herod at this time. Celsus in 170 A.D. charged the Lord with cowardice. The unfairness of this is seen in the later actions of Christ during his Passion, although he might have avoided it by calling for the legions of angels. Two reasons for the Lord's conduct attest its honorable nature. These are: (1) It was not yet time for him to die. Too much work remained undone. The disciples were not fully grounded. (2) He was teaching the disciples by this action the necessity for prudence in avoiding always, if possible, unnecessary conflict with the state. It was in line with this policy that Jesus had instructed the Twelve to flee to another city when persecuted (see under Matthew 10:23). Verse 22 And behold, a Canaanitish woman came out from the borders, and cried, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a demon.Even the remotest parts of ancient Palestine knew of the wondrous power of Jesus, as witnessed by the prayer of this woman of a strange and distant city. Also, the proper designation of Jesus as the Messiah in the term "thou Son of David" was also known to her; and her use of the expression shows how widely the conviction prevailed that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. Verse 23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.The true understanding of this entire difficult incident depends upon understanding the antecedent attitude of the apostles. THEY, not Jesus, were the ones who had no feeling for this woman of another race. They detested this foreigner and sharply requested Jesus to get rid of her. They knew of Jesus' great power and of the thousands he had healed, yet they did not want her to be healed. In view of her cries, and her obvious willingness to hail Jesus as the Messiah, which in fact she did, it does seem that such should have more favorably disposed the disciples to her plea; but no! they requested the Lord not to heal her daughter but to get rid of her. "Send her away," they said in effect, "she is a nuisance to us!" It is in the light of this attitude of the Twelve that this place must be understood. Christ answered not a word, perhaps hoping that the disciples might, through human love and kindness, say a word on her behalf. It was a vain hope. Christ's first reply only confirmed the Twelve in their attitude but served the double purpose of giving the woman a chance to demonstrate her faith and prompting the disciples to express their feelings openly. Verse 24 But he answered and said, I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.This reply doubtless pleased the Twelve. The rabbis often called the Gentiles dogs; and Christ's word at that moment seemed to them to be grounded in the traditional attitude of the Jews of that era. The interview, however, was destined to take an unexpected turn. Verse 25 But she came and worshipped him, saying, Lord help me.One cannot contemplate the thought of this poor, distraught woman, pleading for the life of her child, without a catch in the throat, even yet. How could the disciples have been so heartless as not to intercede in her behalf at that instant? Jesus had not refused; he had only said he was sent to Israel; could not Israel have allowed one gracious act to one of another race, especially one who at that moment was kneeling or prostrated before him, worshipping him, and crying for his assistance? Not at all; the Twelve were unfeeling witnesses as they stood by, watching Jesus get rid of the woman, or at least so they thought. But he was NOT getting rid of her but was about to get rid of an ugly attitude in THEM! Verse 26 And he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread and cast it to the dogs.Still keeping attention upon the Twelve, note what they must have thought of such a reply as this. Yes, Jesus really told her, in the bluntest manner possible, that she was a Gentile dog, unworthy of a crumb from the children's (Israel's) table. That surely will do it, must have been the thought of the Twelve; "but then the earthquake happened!" Verse 27 But she said, Yea, Lord: for even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master's table.Christ, at that very moment, was a fugitive from his own race and nation; and the wondrous faith and humility of that foreign woman of Canaan thus brought into sharpest focus the contrast with the bigots in Jerusalem who, even then, were planning to murder the Lord. There is a play on words in the woman's reply. Christ used the word "dogs"; but the woman came back with another word (also translated "dogs" but with a slightly different meaning). The word she used means "little dogs" or "puppies." It is as though she said, "Yes, Lord, I am indeed a dog, but not a very big one, only a tiny one; and since the little dogs stay under the master's table and eat the crumbs the children drop, surely you must be able to help me. It is only a crumb that I ask." It may be that the apostles, even that late, did not see the full truth of what Jesus was doing; certainly, it took a miracle later on to convince Peter that the Gentiles should be admitted; but, when at last he knew, how his heart must have burned when he thought of this incident. There is another remarkable discernment in the woman's reply, in that she held the table to be not the children's, but the Master's, showing that she was aware of the hostile attitude of the Twelve and was bypassing them in a direct appeal to the Lord, placing Christ above them! Verse 28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it done unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was healed from that hour.This woman's faith was a pledge of an ultimate ingathering of Gentiles. The time would come when the great mission of the church would be to them that were held as dogs by the Pharisees. This impressive deed must have had a profound effect upon the apostles. As for the woman, what must have been her joy when returning home, she inquired of her daughter and learned she had been healed in the very hour of Jesus' promise. Faith had triumphed over every difficulty, even the seeming indifference of the Master, and had claimed the prize. Note that this woman presented herself to the Lord and clung to him for hope in spite of the intolerable attitude of his disciples, even in spite of his seeming indifference. When her attitude is contrasted with some in later generations who become offended, puffed up, and repelled by the slightest suspicion of indifference in God's ministers, it is perfectly clear that many nominal seekers simply do not have the faith ever to be saved, or having it, are so full of egotism and pride that it can never do them any good. Verse 29 And Jesus departed thence, and came nigh unto the sea of Galilee; and he went up into the mountain and sat there.Again, Jesus, in danger, repaired to the mountains. From Mark it is learned that the place was near the northeastern corner of Galilee lake. And sat there indicates an attitude of teaching, as in the sermon on the mount. Verse 30 And there came unto him great multitudes, having with them the lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and they cast them down at his feet; and he healed them."Dumb" is better understood as "mute," and the words "many others" refer to many other types of illness. The mention of the maimed in this place shows that Jesus healed people who had suffered atrocities or accidents. Verse 31 Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb speaking, the maimed whole, the lame walking, and the blind seeing: and they glorified the God of Israel.Reference to "the God of Israel" indicates that those multitudes were largely heathen, or Gentile, corresponding to the population of the area. Significantly, Christ related his mighty works to the Father, gave him the glory, the credit, and the honor, and in fact did them in the Father's name. He said, "I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive" (John 5:43). Christ always emphasized the origin of his work as being with God. In this perfect trait, he was "the messenger of the covenant" (Malachi 3:1). He was God's plenary representative on earth; indeed, he WAS God in flesh, reconciling the world unto himself. Verse 32 And Jesus called unto him his disciples, and said, I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days and have nothing to eat: and I would not send them away fasting, lest haply they faint on the way.The unusual circumstance was that for a period of three whole days and nights Jesus had engaged in one continuous healing service. The throngs would not leave as long as there was a chance of others being healed. Food could wait, and it did. This was a powerful testimony to the ability and extent of Jesus' work among the Gentiles on the fringes of Israel. Compassion and pity in the heart of Jesus were evident in all his works. Verse 33 And the disciples say unto him, Whence should we have so many loaves in a desert place as to fill so great a multitude?This remark has occasioned some commentators to view this as the same as the other similar miracle in which the five thousand were fed; but Matthew and Mark both record Jesus' reference to both these wonders as separate events (Matthew 16:9-10; Mark 8:19-20). The unbelief, or apparent unbelief, of the Twelve showed how little they truly understood the power of the Saviour, although they were witnesses to it every day. They not only missed the lesson in the first case, but subsequent events showed that they missed it here also! Verse 34 And Jesus said unto them, How many loaves have ye? And they said, Seven, and a few small fishes. And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the ground; and he took the seven loaves and the fishes; and he gave thanks and brake, and gave to the disciples, and the disciples to the multitudes. And they all ate and were filled: and they took up of that which remained over of the broken pieces, seven baskets full. And they that did eat were four thousand men, besides women and children.There are so many similarities between this and the feeding of the five thousand, that much of what is said there (Matthew 14:13-21) is pertinent here. Both strongly suggested Christ as "that Prophet" like unto Moses, and as "the bread of life." Verse 39 And he sent away the multitudes, and entered into the boat, and came into the borders of Magadan.Madagan, or Dalmanutha, as Mark has it (Mark 8:10), is an unknown site. Eusebius, in the fourth century, placed Magadan on the east side of Galilee near Gerasa; but this does not appear correct for two reasons: (1) Christ was already on the east side of lake Galilee,[8] and a crossing to the western shore seems indicated by the text; although it is allowed that he COULD have gone by boat to a location farther south on the eastern shore; and (2) the immediate confrontation with the Pharisees and Sadducees, as soon as they came to land, showed he was then back in their territory, which was the western side. As for the skeptic's contention that Mark and Matthew accounts are contradictory, the explanation is simple: (1) Christ might easily have gone to both places. The only possibility of finding a contradiction would have to lie in the discovery that one of the gospels had said he did NOT go to one or the other of the two places; and, of course, no such statement exists. (2) It is far more likely that the village, so small as to have been lost to history, actually had two names, Dalmanutha and Magadan! If this appears unreasonable to anyone, the author would like to register the following example of such a case. In the state of Texas, near the city of Eastland, is a small town, widely known under THREE names. The post office is Desdemona; the railroad station bears the name of Jake Hammond; and the roughnecks in the oil fields for a hundred miles in all directions refer to the place as Hogtown! Nor is the habit of multi-naming confined to villages. These words are being written in Lenox Hill, Yorkville, Manhattan, New York City, also known as Gotham! It surely must be a malicious and spiteful heart that has the evil impulse to allege a contradiction in Matthew and Mark on the basis of separate names assigned to an ancient village. ENDNOTE:[8] Eusebius, as quoted by Dummelow, op. cit., p. 679. J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Matthew Chapter FifteenOpposition of Scribes and Pharisees, Matthew 15:1-9. (Mark 7:1-13)1. were of Jerusalem.—The career of Jesus in Galilee, together with the two visits which he had made to Jerusalem (John 2:13 John 5:1), had arrested the attention of the leading minds in that city. The scribes and Pharisees here mentioned were in all probability sent up by their associates in Jerusalem to counteract his influence. They expected to put him to a severer test than had been applied by the less cultivated scribes and Pharisees of Galilee, and they entered the contest with confident hope of success. 2. transgress the tradition.—Not being able to find any ground for denying the miracles of Jesus, or any violation of the law in either himself or his disciples, they make the best attack in their power by charging the latter with transgressing the tradition of the elders. (For a statement of their doctrine on this subject, see note on 3:7.) The tradition that a man should not eat without first washing his hands, was an extension by human authority of the Mosaic law of uncleanness. Other traditions belonging to the same category are mentioned in Mark 7:3-4. It could not be denied that the disciples transgressed this tradition, and as the accusers held the traditions to be equal in authority to the written word, they thought they had certainly convicted Jesus of sin in allowing this transgression. 3. transgress the commandment.—Tacitly admitting the charge, Jesus defends his disciples by attacking tradition itself; not this particular tradition, but all tradition. He charges that they, by their tradition, transgressed the commandment of God, and that the tradition itself was therefore sinful. 4-6. For God commanded.—In order to sustain his charge, he specifies their tradition in regard to the support of indigent parents. The commandment, "Honor thy father and thy mother," requires a son to support his parents when they become dependent. And the statute, "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death," required the death of any son who would practically curse his aged parents by casting them off into beggary or starvation. But they had taught that a son could say of that part of his estate by which his parent might be profited, It is a gift; that is, a gift to God (Corban, Mark 7:11), and thereby free himself from the obligation. Thus the commandment was made of no effect by freeing from it every ungrateful son who was mean enough to desire such freedom. This example did not touch the quid pro quoquestion of uncleanness, but it proved that tradition was an unauthoritative and mischievous guide, and as the objection of the scribes was based on the authority of tradition, it destroyed the force of the objection. The particular tradition about eating with unwashed hands is discussed on its merits in the next paragraph: principles are settled first, and details afterward. 7. Ye hypocrites.—There was hypocrisy in the device of the traditionists, because in proposing to honor God by vowing to him what should go to the poor parent, there was the false pretense of doing for his honor what was really done to gratify avarice. All similar substitutions of human expedients in the place of God's appointments are prompted by some improper desire, and are therefore liable to the same charge. (See on verse 9.) 7, 8. i.—To prophesy is to speak by inspiration, whether of the future, the past, c the present. Isaiah did not prophesy these words with special reference to these particular persons; but he spoke primarily of the Jews of his own age. (Isaiah 29:13.) In prophesying of them, however, he spoke what is equally true of all others who are guilty of the same hypocrisy, and on this account Jesus applied the words to his accusers. 9. in vain they do worship.—This verse is rather a conclusion than a quotation. The words of Isaiah are, "Their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men." Fear toward God, if pure and rightly inspired, springs from the word of God, and not from the commandment of man. So far, therefore, as a man's worship of God is the result of human authority, it springs from an improper source, and is vain. Every human addition to the commandments of God, so far as it induces any worship at all, induces vain worship, and there is probably not one such addition which does not, to a greater or less degree, make some commandment void. Thus the tradition of infant baptism, to the extent that it is adopted, makes of no effect the commandment concerning the baptism of believers, by baptizing persons in their infancy; and if it should become universally prevalent, by the baptism of all persons in their infancy it would bring to an end forever the only baptism commanded of God. Christ's Law of Uncleanness, Matthew 15:10-20. (Mark 7:14-23)10, 11. he called the multitude.—In the preceding paragraph Jesus did not touch the question of uncleanness raised by the Pharisees, but performed the more important task of showing the want of authority and the mischievous effects of all tradition; in this, he defends the conduct of his disciples by stating that a man is defiled, not by that which goes into his mouth, but by that which comes out. He gives this explanation, not to the Pharisees, who were captious objectors not willing to hear any defense, but to the more teachable multitude; and he makes the statement on the naked authority of his own word, relying on their good sense for its acceptance. Such appeals to the common sense of mankind, when the proposition affirmed is true, are often more effective than a process of reasoning, and they were often employed both by Jesus and the apostles. 12. Pharisees were offended.—The disciples were pained at the offense given to these highly respectable strangers from Jerusalem; for, like many Christians of the present day, their respect for the feelings of men was greater than their zeal for the truth. The "say ing" (λογον) which had given offense was the entire speech. He had proved that by their tradition they were nullifying the word of God; he had charged them with hypocrisy; he had declared that all of their worship based on the authority of tradition was vain worship; and he had swept away the entire fabric of their traditionary law of uncleanness, by declaring that a man is not denied by that which goes into his mouth. He had not only defended himself, but he had turned their own weapons with irresistible effect against them, and it is not surprising that they were offended. 13. Every plant.—In reply to the modest complaint of the disciples, Jesus compares the Pharisees to plants in a garden that were not planted by the owner of it, and declares that they shall be rooted up. They were teaching without divine authority or approbation; and what he had said was intended not to please them, but to root them up. 14. Let them alone.—Let them alone, not in the way of ceasing to expose their errors, but in the sense of making no effort to appease them. The disciples were to be regardless of them as Jesus was, making no change in either the matter or manner of discourse for their sake. Sometimes the best way to move men is to be totally indifferent to them; and when men stand opposed to the truth from corrupt motives, the only possible chance to do them good is to offend them, for when you please them you only confirm them in their wicked ways. both fall.—It is sometimes thought, that if a man is misled by his teacher, he will be excused for going astray; but Jesus here teaches that the blind man who is led will fall into the ditch with his blind leader. This is clear enough in reference to the literally blind, and Jesus asserts it in reference to the spiritually blind. If a man, knowing himself to be blind, allows another blind man to lead him, he deserves to fall into the ditch. He should choose a leader who can see, and as there is no leader who can see all the way that we have to travel except Jesus, let us take his word as our only guide, going only as it leads us. The word of God must be our pillar of cloud by day, and of fire by night; we move when it moves, and stop where it stops. 15, 16. the parable.—The disciples were themselves so much under the influence of tradition, that they supposed the remark about that which defiles to be a parable. They had been blindly led by the blind guides. 17-19. they defile the man.—Here the Christian idea of uncleanness is fully stated, and the disciples were the better prepared for it by the gradual manner in which it was approached. In this entire paragraph Jesus treats of that which the uncleanness of the law typified, and not of legal uncleanness itself. Although, according to the law of Moses, eating with unwashed Lands did not defile a man, yet some things entering into the mouth did have this effect. (See Leviticus 11:40.) But the Pharisees, confounding the type with the antitype, taught that the soul was defiled by that which caused only legal uncleanness. Jesus corrects this mistake, and in giving the true significance of the type, gives the true conception of uncleanness under the Christian dispensation. Argument of Section 11 Several arguments for the claims of Jesus are involved in the facts of this chapter. First, it is made manifest that the opinions adverse to his claims originated either in envy, as in the case of the Nazarenes; in the workings of a guilty conscience, as in the case of Herod and his courtiers; or in the prejudices which resulted from hypocritical practices, as in the case of the scribes and Pharisees. Opposition arising from such sources argues, with strong probability, the righteousness of the cause against which it is arrayed. Second, it is made to appear that all attempts to justify the opposition by condemning the conduct of Jesus were foiled and made to recoil on the heads of their authors. The two examples recorded are those in which the opposition was most likely to be successful if success were possible; the first being an attempt of the 12 Nazarenes who had been familiar with his conduct from his childhood; and the other, that of a company of scribes and Pharisees from the religious capital of the nation, who visited Galilee for the purpose, and who were supposed to have the best qualifications for this task. Third, it is also apparent from the section, that even those who held opinions adverse to the claims of Jesus, either admitted the reality of his miracles, or made no effort to deny it; and that it was on account of his oft repeated and wonderfully varied miracles, wrought under such circumstances that men could not be mistaken about them, that the disciples and the multitude believed in him. His claims, then, were unquestionably sustained by miraculous evidences. The Canaanite Woman's Daughter, Matthew 15:21-28. (Mark 7:24-30)21. coasts of Tyre and Sidon.—The term rendered coasts (μέρη)— more literally parts— means those parts of the country which belonged to these two cities. Jesus was now on Gentile soil, in Phoenicia, northwest of Galilee. He was remote from his usual places of resort, and among &people to whom he was a stranger. 22. a woman of Canaan.—The Canaanites were the founders of Sidon (Genesis 10:19), and the Phoenicians were their descendants. (For another designation of this woman, see Mark 7:26.) O Lord, thou son of David.—These words in the mouth of a Gentile woman on Gentile soil are remarkable. They show that she was acquainted with the Jewish idea of the Messiah, and they indicate the spread of Jewish ideas and hopes among surrounding nations. Jesus had never been here before, nor had this woman, in all probability, ever visited him in Galilee; but his fame had spread through all Syria (Matthew 4:24), of which Phoenicia was a part, and she had doubtless longed for an opportunity to bring his healing power to bear on her child. Her great need of him caused her to know of his presence, though "he would have no man to know it." (Mark 7:24.) 23. answered her not.—Contrary to his uniform custom hitherto, Jesus appeared to be deaf to the woman's entreaties, until the disciples, annoyed by her cries, and pained by his apparent indifference, besought him to send her away. They did not mean that he should dismiss her without granting her request; but that he should send her away by granting it. 24. I am not sent.—This answer was made to the disciples, not to the woman. It was the response to their request that he should send her away. It is true that his ministry was limited to the Jews, and that to extend it beyond them, except in extraordinary cases, would be going beyond his general plan. This limitation was imposed, because, in the wisdom of God, it was seen to be the very best method for the final evangelization not only of the Jews, but of the Gentiles themselves. 25. and worshiped him.—Still persisting in her efforts to arrest his attention, and determined, notwithstanding his apparent indifference, to extort from him a response, the woman now comes near and prostrates herself (προσκύνει) before him, as if to block up his path, and utters the piteous cry, "Lord, help me." 26, 27. Truth, Lord.—The woman's faith was put to a still severer test, when, with unfeeling look and tone, as if his heart were made of adamant, he at last looked down on the pleading face and said "It is not meet to take the children's meat and cast it to dogs." Many a woman, at such a speech, would have risen in despair, and gone away in anger. In her inimitable reply, "Truth, Lord, yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table," we know not which to admire more— the readiness of her wit, or the depth of her humility. 28. great is thy faith.—The chilling silence of Jesus had gained its purpose in drawing out from the woman this admirable expression of her faith, and now his tone and manner undergo a change. He is like himself again. We can readily see that her humility was great; but where is the evidence of her great faith? Men who have no faith in Jesus, look on him as beneath themselves. Those who have little faith in him, regard him as only a little their superior; but an faith increases, he goes up and we go down, so that the greatest humility before him is one evidence of the greatest faith. He looked into the bottom of her heart, and commended that which was the source of all of her humility and her perseverance. even as thou wilt.—The earnest perseverance of the faithful woman gains its point, and her. mother's heart is made to rejoice. Less love for her child, or less faith in Jesus, would have caused a failure. The entire scene is often repeated in pious households. How often a pious mother, with a child previously vexed with the demon of sin, cries piteously and long to the blessed Savior, saying, "Lord, help me." And how often does Jesus appear, for awhile, to give no heed to the cry, until even a cold world begins to pity the wretched petitioner. But finally, when a mighty faith has been developed out of sorrow and weeping, the unheard answer comes, "Be it unto thee as thou wilt." The story of the Canaanite woman is a type, and it is written for our admonition on whom the ends of the world have come. It is another illustration of the Savior's doctrine, that "men ought always to pray, and not to faint." (Luke 18:1-8.) Cures near the Lake Shore, Matthew 15:29-31. (Mark 7:31-37)29. came nigh unto the sea.—Jesus is now again near the lake of Galilee, and as we learn from Mark (Mark 7:31), near the southeastern shore, having come through Decapolis. The last paragraph located him northwest of Galilee, and the present locates him on the opposite side of Galilee, without noting the route by which he had made the transit. 30. great multitudes came.—Only once before, when he cured the man with the legion of demons, had Jesus been in this district; and then the people had requested him to go away. (8:34.) But now, influenced partly by their own reflections, and partly by the preaching of the demoniac (Mark 5:19-20), they flock around him with their "lame, blind, dumb, and maimed." 31. glorified the God of Israel.—This was naturally the first effect of witnessing the miraculous cures, after fear of him who wrought them had passed away. The people saw clearly that the power by which Jesus worked was the power of God; but being Comparatively ignorant in reference to the Messiahship, they formed no definite conception at first of his person and office. Feeding the Four Thousand, Matthew 15:32-39. (Mark 8:1-9)32. three days, and have nothing to eat.—The statement is not that they had been three days with nothing to eat, but that they had been with him three days, and now had nothing to eat. His compassion was excited, not because they were now suffering, but because, if he sent them away fasting, they would "faint in the way." 33. Whence... so much bread.—The disciples had forgotten the feeding of the five thousand under similar circumstances; or, at least, they did not expect a repetition of the miracle. 34. How many loaves.—It was only when he sent the disciples out on their first hurried mission, that they were told to carry no scrip with them (Matthew 10:10); ordinarily, as on the present occasion, they had more or less food about them. (Comp. Matthew 16:5.) 37. seven baskets full.—The baskets were different from those used when the five thousand were fed, the two kinds being called by two different names in Greek (κοφινους, and σπυριδας). It is probable that the latter, the kind used on the present occasion, were the larger, as it was one of them in which Paul was let down from the wall of Damascus. (Acts 9:25.) 39. into the coasts of Magdala.—Magdala was on the western shore of the lake and when Jesus reached its vicinity, he was again in his former field of labor, having completed his tour to Tyre and Sidon, and his return through Decapolis. The points named in the tour are places which he had seldom or never visited before. Question by E.M. Zerr For Matthew 151. Who came to Jesus from Jerusalem? 2. Of whom did they complain to him? 3. Of what did they complain?. 4. What particular item did they complain? 5. Did Moses say anything about this? 6. State the countercharge Jesus made. 7. To what commandment did he Tefer? 8. What was the penalty for violation? 9. State the substitution they had made. 10. What did Jesus call them. 11. Who had prophesied of them? 12. What kind of service did they render? 13. Tell what was said of their heart. 14. How was their worship rendered vain? 15. Whom did Jesus call to give explanation? 16. Against what tradition was the explanation? 17. In which direction does the defilement proceed? 18. From what source does it come ? 19. Who took offense at the teaching of Jesus? 20. Did he apologize to them ? 21. Whose plant will be permanent? 22. State the fate of the others. 23. Whose danger is greater, blind or their leaders? 24. What is the ditch? 25. To what community did Jesus next go? 26. Who came to him in distress? 27. What was their trouble? 28. State his reply? 29. Who expressed complaint to Jesus? 30. What was their suggestion? 31. Repeat his statement to the woman. 32. Did this discourage her? 33. How did she reinforce her request? 34. State the reply of Jesus to this. 35. Repeat his reasoning upon this? 36. Tell the outcome of the conversation. 37. On what did Jesus base his action? 38. Where did he next go? 39. Who followed him? 40. What indicates helplessness of some of them? 41. How did Jesus favor them? 42. This made what impression on the multitude? 43. To whom did they give the glory? 44. Whom did Jesus then call to him? 45. State the information he gave them. 46. What difficulty did the disciples see? 47. State the amount of their supplies. 48. What order was observed? 49. How many were fed? 50. What shows they had a full meal ? 15:1 See the comments on chapter 13:52 for a description of the scribes. The Pharisees were a leading sect of the Jews who made great pre-tentions of righteousness. They, with the scribes, were enemies of Jesus and frequently tried to get him into trouble with either the Sanhedrin or the Romans. 15:2 The Pharisees and others who stood with them doctrinally placed great stress on the traditions of those who were the elders or forefathers in the Mosaic system. In most cases they held these traditions to be of more importance than the written law of Moses, and where there was a disagreement between them they perverted the written law in favor of the tradition. One of such rules had to do with washing the hands at certain specified times. This was not done as a necessary act of sanitation but was one of the self-imposed rituals of the elders among the Jews. The disciples were busy with the important affairs of their work with Jesus and did not observe such ceremonies. But the critics thought they had a cause for accusation against them and came to Jesus with their complaint. 15:3 It was a much worse fault to set the traditions of the elders against the positive requirements of the Mosaic law than it was to ignore the customs of the fathers, and that was the accusation that Jesus made against these critics. 15:4 The law of Moses plainly required a man to honor his parents (Exodus 20:12). The word honor in the commandment to which .Jesus referred comes from the Hebrew word KABED which Strong defines, "In a good sense (numerous, rich, honorable): causatively [as a cause], to make wealthy." The definition of the word which Moses wrote, as well as the reasoning of Jesus on the subject, shows that honoring one's parents included the financial support of them also. 15:5 A man's parents are in need of the good things of life and look to their son for help. But he puts them off with the excuse that the money that he would otherwise have spent on them so that they would have profited by it, had been "earmarked" for the Lord's treasury. This was hypocrisy on their part for they never carried out their claim of devoting the money to the cause of the Lord. Besides, the law never intended that money should be put into the public treasury that was needed for dependents. 15:6 The Pharisees taught that if a man withheld his support of his parents on the pretense of giving it to the Lord, he would be exempt from the commandment in Exodus 20:12, thus putting their tradition above the law. 15:7 A hypocrite is one who professes to be what he knows he is not. See the comments at chapter 6:2 for the lexicon definition and other accounts of the word. Well did Esaias prophecy means the prophet did well in predicting these characters. 15:8 Generally speaking, the lips and mouth pertain to the fleshly or cuter man, and the heart refers to the inner man. The Biblical heart is the occasion of so much confusion among religious teachers that I shall give the reader a description of it as will be taken from the lexicon definition of original Greek. With one exception (PSUCHE in Ephesians 6:6) the word in the New Testament is from KARDIA and I shall quote Thayers definitions (the part in italics) for it in its various applications: "1. a. the vigor and sense of physical life. b. the soul or mind, as it is the fountain and seat of the thoughts, passions, desires, appetites, affections, purposes, endeavors. Specifically of the understanding, the faculty and seat of intelligence. Of the soul so far forth as it is affected and stirred in a bad way or good, or of the soul as the seat of the sensibilities, affections, emotions, desires, appetites, passions. 3. used of the middle or central or inmost part of any thing, even though inanimate." This Greek word occurs 158 times in the New Testament and is not rendered by any term but "heart" in the Authorized Version. From the extended definition as well as by the various connections in which it is used, it is plain that when "heart" is not used figuratively it means the mind or intelligence of man. This ex plains how a person's mouth or lips can say one thing while the heart does not really mean it, and thus he is acting hypocritically. 15:9 Worship is from SEBOMAI which Thayer defines, "to revere, to worship." The people of whom Jesus was speaking professed to have great respect for him and that is the sense in which he said they worshiped him. In vain is defined "fruitlessly" and means that the pretended reverence they had for Jesus would not bring them any favor from him as long as they taught the doctrine of human authority instead of that of the man they claimed to honor but whose teaching they were rejecting. 5:10 He called the multitude. This was not for the purpose of explaining a parable of the church, but to show them why he had accused them of inconsistency in their undue emphasis on washing the hands. 5:11 Jesus was not ignoring the need for cleanliness, but was teaching the lesson of putting moral and spiritual matters above the physical. If a man permits a particle of dirt to enter his mouth and into the stomach it cannot do him any harm for the system will take care of it. Jesus will explain this subject to his disciples a few verses farther on in the chapter. 5:12 Were offended denotes that they stumbled at the saying of Jesus, and because of it they were unwilling to recognize him as having the wisdom or authority to make a declaration upon the conduct of others. 5:13 Jesus was willing to stake his right to speak and the correctness of what he said on the outcome. Every plant not planted by his Father was to be rooted up. If the work of Jesus was not authorized of God, then it would not stand and he would be exposed as an impostor. On the other hand, if his work holds fast it will prove him to have been a true teacher and one over whom the Pharisees had no reason to stumble. This statement had special reference to the church or kingdom that he was about to set up, for in Ezekiel 34:29 a "plant" is predicted and the context there (verses 20-31) plainly shows that it has reference to the church. 5:14 Let them alone is defined by Thayer, "c. to let go, let alone, let be; to disregard." It means for the disciples not to lose any time or spend any efforts on them as it would be useless. A further reason for ignoring them was the danger involved in following or associating with them. They were blind leaders and those who would follow them are as blind as they. That would mean that all of them would share the same fate and fall into the ditch or go astray. 5:15 Peter called the teaching of Jesus about washing and eating a parable. However, it was not a parable of the kingdom (chapter 13:11), hence Jesus had called the multitudes to him to give that lesson. But it was somewhat indirect or figurative and the apostles did not understand it. 5:16 The expression of Jesus sounds as if he were surprised at the lack of understanding shown by his disciples, when he was supposed to know all about man and not to be surprised at anything. That is not the point, but he said this to them as a mild rebuke for their slowness in thinking out the matter. 5:17 Mere filth that is not in the nature of disease germs goes through the stomach and other digestive organs and is separated from food particles the same as the other waste matter, and it is then discharged from the body without having done it any harm. A draught corresponds with our modern sanitary stool. 5:18 The things that come out of the mouth orginate in the heart, and if they are evil it indicates an impure and a defiled heart. (See chapter 12:34.) 5:19 See again the definition of the heart at Matthew 15:8 and it will be observed why the things mentioned in this verse are said to come from it. 5:20 Certainly no man can entertain an interest in murder and the other things named in Matthew 15:19 and not be defiled. They affect his character while the soil passing from the hands into the mouth has no relation to that. 5:21 Coasts means region and Jesus went to that surrounding these cities. 5:22 Woman of Canaan is indefinite because all the land west of the Jordan was generally known as Canaan, and there were both Jews and Gentiles living there. However, the term was used to designate this woman as outside the class recognized as Jews. This woman not only recognized Jesus as Lord hut also as a son of David. The latter term was specific and meant that she believed him to be the descendant of David according to the prophets, for many of the Gentiles were acquainted with the Old Testament. This woman's daughter was possessed with a devil which is explained at chapter 8:28. 5:23 Jesus had his own way of trying out the faith of those who sought favors of him, and he used it here by appearing to ignore the woman. But she was not to be discouraged by this seeming indifference, for she continued crying after him until the disciples became impatient and asked Jesus to send her away. 5:24 Instead of directly doing as the disciples requested, Jesus merely gave the woman to understand that she was not in the class to which he was sent. See the comments at chapter 10:6 for the meaning of lost sheep. 5:25 This did not entirely discourage the woman for she repeated her plea accompanied with an attitude of worship towards Jesus. 5:26 Jesus made his answer much more in the nature of an argument in figurative form. Dog is from which Thayer defines, "a little dog." No special disrespect was intended to her personally by this term, for it was commonly known that the Jews were regarded as God's children, and the Gentiles would logically be in a lower class. Besides, Jesus knew the heart of the woman whose faith he was drawing out, and purposely furnished her the illustration by which she could make one of the most touching appeals I have ever known. With all this in view, he compared the Jews to God's children, the favors he was bestowing on them to the bread provided by the Father, and the Gentiles to the little dogs that might be playing at the feet of their master. 5:27 The woman was not discouraged nor even hurt at the Lord's comparison. Instead, she accepted the classification as a good basis for her persistence. After the children have been abundantly fed, the scraps are generally gathered up and given to the dogs. She would be satisfied with a temporal favor from Jesus in the healing of her (laughter ,even though it would be like the crumbs compared with the loaves of spiritual blessings that he was daily bestowing on his disciples. 5:28 Great is thy faith. This was indicated by her patience or endurance. She had full confidence at the start in the ability of Jesus to perform her request, but her persistence showed her faith in his willingness to do so if she did not give up too soon. In this she has set an example for those of us who profess to believe in the goodness and power of God. We are often too apt to "lose heart" and cease looking to the Lord for his grace. This is the subject of one of the parables of Jesus recorded in Luke 18:1-8. The faith of the Canaanite woman was rewarded with the immediate recovery of her daughter. 5:29 The region of Tyre and Sidon where Jesus was teaching and working bordered on the Sea of Galilee but was an area a mile wide and several miles long. He now came nearer to the sea and went up into a mountain where he received the multitudes. 5:30 As usual Jesus had a great following because his fame had gone all over the country. Afflicted people who were unable to travel alone were brought to Jesus and cast down at his feet. This word might give us an unfavorable impression as it seems to indicate an act of impatience if not indifference. It is from the Greek word RHIPTO and Thayer's definition at this place is the simple phrase, "to set down." He then explains his definition to mean, "(with the suggestion of haste and want of care), of those who laid their sick at the feet of Jesus, leaving them at his disposal without a doubt that he could heal them." They were not disappointed for the text says and he healed them. Matthew 15:31 Again Jesus proved his ability to work all kinds of miracles and did not have to select his cases as do the pretenders of miracle-working today. A remarkable thing about the event is that they glorified the God of Israel. Everyone knew that an ordinary man could not accomplish such wonderful works, hence they attributed it to the God of Israel (not any of the gods of the Gentiles). That was the main purpose Jesus had in performing his great deeds according to John 20:30-31. 5:32 Once more the compassion of Jesus asserted itself in behalf of the multitude whose interest had kept them in his presence for three days. Of course there would be no oppor- nity for procuring food out there in that mountainous area. Fasting is from NESTIS and Thayer's definition is, "fasting, not having eaten." The mere fact of being without food during the time necessary to reach a market would not cause them to faint in the way, but they would already be weak, having not eaten for three days. 5:33 It is strange the disciples seem to have forgotten the event of chapter 14:15-21; probably they had not forgotten it but took that way of asking Jesus to take care of the case in hand as he did the other time. 5:34 The supply of food in the possession of the disciples was nothing compared with the needs of the multitude, but Jesus was still inclined to require his disciples to have a part in the good work. 5:35 For the sake of orderliness the multitudes were told to sit down. 5:36 In this case Jesus gave thanks, in the instance of chapter 14:19 he "blessed" which was virtually the same meaning as was explained at that place. 5:37 And were filled. See the comments on this phrase at chapter 14:20, also John 6:12 as to why the scraps were taken up. 5:38 No disrespect was intended by the writer in giving the number of men and only an indefinite reference to the women and children. In old times it was the custom to list families and other groups of human beings according to the men only. 5:39 The multitudes were given sufficient nourishment to overcome the effects of their three-day fast and were dismissed. Magdala was a city on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee and it is sometimes mentioned by other names. Matthew 16 "THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Chapter Sixteen Pharisees and Sadducees asked Jesus for a sign. Exposing their hypocrisy, Jesus once again offered the sign of Jonah (cf. Matthew 12:38-40). He then warned His disciples to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matthew 16:1-12). At Caesarea Philippi, Jesus asked His disciples who people were saying that He was. When asked who they thought He was, Peter confessed Him to be the Christ. Jesus commended Peter and spoke of his role in His church, but then told the disciples to tell no one He was the Christ (Matthew 16:13-20). Jesus then spoke of His death and resurrection, the cost of discipleship, and coming in His kingdom (Matthew 16:21-28). POINTS TO PONDER * The confession of Peter and Jesus’ response * The cost of discipleship REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter? - The hypocrisy and leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees - Matthew 16:1-12 - Peter confesses Jesus as the Christ - Matthew 16:13-20- Jesus predicts His death and resurrection, and the cost of discipleship - Matthew 16:21-28 2) When asked for a sign, what sign did Jesus say would be given? (Matthew 16:1-4) - The sign of the prophet Jonah (i.e., His death and resurrection) 3) When Jesus warned of leaven, what did He mean? (Matthew 16:5-12) - The doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees 4) Who did Peter confess Jesus to be? (Matthew 16:16) - "The Christ, the Son of the living God" 5) What did Jesus say He would build? Upon what would it be built? (Matthew 16:18) - "I will build My church" - "this rock" (possibly Peter as an apostle, cf. Ephesians 2:20, or the truth of Peter’ s confession) 6) What did Jesus promise Peter? Was it limited to him? (Matthew 16:19; cf. Matthew 18:18) - The keys of the kingdom, to bind and loose; it was also granted to the other apostles 7) What did Jesus begin to predict at that time? (Matthew 16:21) - His suffering in Jerusalem, death, and resurrection on the third day 8) What did Jesus demand of His disciples? How valuable is one’ s soul? (Matthew 16:24; Matthew 16:26) - To deny self, take up one’ s cross and follow Him; more than the whole world 9) What promise did Jesus make regarding His kingdom? (Matthew 16:28) - Some would not die before seeing the Son of Man coming in His kingdom Matthew 16:1-28 Verse 1Mat 16:1-28THE ASK A SIGN FROM HEAVEN; THE OF THE ; PETER'S OF CHRIST; THE FIRST OF THE PASSION AND And the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and trying him asked him to show them a sign from heaven. (Matthew 16:1)This indicates that Christ was at that time back on the west side of Lake Galilee, which was Pharisaical territory. The request of those enemies of Jesus for a sign from heaven was actually intended to cast a reflection on the mighty miracles Christ had performed, which, as interpreted by those hypocrites, were not "from heaven." They were utterly wrong, of course. A sign in the skies, or from above, would have been no more convincing than raising the dead or walking on the sea. As a matter of fact, Satan's destruction of Job's sheep (Job 1:16) was explained by some as "The fire of God is fallen from heaven"; but it was no such thing; it was a lying miracle of Satan. Thus, the basis of their request for a sign from heaven was a prior falsehood in the theology of the Pharisees, classifying signs as "from heaven" or from earth. They were wrong on both counts. Origen said: They erred in regard to both, in regard to signs upon earth as well as to signs from heaven, ... not knowing how to distinguish between the spirits that are working, which kind are from God, and which have revolted from him.[1] Note that longstanding enmity between the Pharisees and Sadducees was submerged and muted while they made common cause against the Lord of glory, a pattern often observed. Herod and Pilate became friends as a result of the common cause they made against Christ (Luke 23:12). Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 24:7); Tirhakah and Sennacherib (2 Kings 19:8), in spite of being enemies, made league against God's people. Again to quote Origen, "Those who hold the most divergent opinions appear to be of one mind that they may scoff at and attack Jesus Christ in the person of his disciples.[2] [1] Origen, Commentary on Matthew in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Company, 1951), Vol. X, p. 450, [2] Ibid., p. 450. Verse 2 But he answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the heaven is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather today: for the heaven is red and lowering. Ye know how to discern the face of the heaven; but ye cannot discern the signs of the times.This was not an endorsement of the Pharisees' method of predicting the weather, but was a glaring contrast, pointed out by Jesus, between their supposed sagacity in material things and their blindness to far more important spiritual things pertaining to the kingdom of heaven. What are "the signs of the times"? (1) The prophetic weeks of Daniel were about to expire. (2) The great herald of the new age, John the Baptist, had appeared according to prophecy, "in the spirit and power of Elijah." (3) The scepter had departed from Judah and the lawgiver from beneath his feet (Genesis 49:10). (4) Even a "sign from heaven" had already been given at the baptism of Christ when God spoke out of heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:17). (5) It had been revealed to Simeon that he should not die until he had seen the Lord's Christ; and it must be presumed that Simeon, by that time, was long since dead and buried. (6) All the world was expecting the coming of some Great One. (7) The Christ himself, "that Prophet like unto Moses," had appeared upon the banks of the Jordan and had been identified by John the Baptist as "the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world"! And John was the only authentic prophet Israel had had in half a millennium. Yes, it must be admitted that the Pharisees missed the signs of the times, however skilled they might have appeared as weather prophets! Verse 4 An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of Jonah. And he left them, and departed.For notes on the "sign of Jonah," see under Matthew 12:38-40. What is called the first announcement of the Lord's passion and resurrection is recorded later in this chapter, but it must be admitted that Christ's "sign of Jonah" is embryonically a statement of the same thing. The relation between God and Israel had long been described as a marriage contract in which God was the husband and Israel the bride, hence a charge of adultery was a reflection upon Israel's fidelity to God. That unequal marriage God would shortly dissolve through his own death, in the person of Christ, upon the cross (Romans 7:4). It is also doubtless true that that generation was "adulterous" in the ordinary sense as well. Christ had already explained the sign of Jonah and did not repeat it on that occasion. The impact of the word "desired" in Matthew 16:1 above (King James Version) reveals that the Pharisees had urgently pleaded with Christ to give them one final, decisive "sign from heaven" that he was the Christ. Jesus knew it would be useless, because he knew their hearts; and their request rose from a desire to tempt him (Matthew 16:1, King James Version), and not from any honest wish to know the truth. The addition of the words "O ye hypocrites" in Matthew 16:3 by some of the older versions was in line with the facts of the situation. The utter perversity of those blind, evil leaders in presuming that God would make them, in all their wickedness, the final arbiters and judges of the Messiahship of God's only Son, is amazing. Christ very properly refused to be placed upon examination by them. Christ's statement that no sign would be given, except that of Jonah, did not mean that light would be withheld from them or that they were without light; but it meant that more than sufficient light was already theirs. The one cosmic exception to the "no sign" policy would be the resurrection of Christ, which would more than meet even their specifications as a "sign from heaven." To be sure, even that was of no avail because, instead of accepting it, they bribed witnesses to deny it! Christ fully knew the character of those evil men; and the sad words concluding Matthew 16:4 show the finality of Christ's judgment upon them. He never more worked any miracle or taught in that place again. Verse 5 And the disciples came to the other side and forgot to take bread. And Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.Christ and the apostles re-crossed Lake Galilee to the vicinity of Bethabara-Julius, where, in temporary safety from the Pharisees, he could continue to instruct the Twelve. Christ's warning of the "leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees" was necessary. They had formed a powerful, socially prominent, politically dominating alliance against him and were advocating his rejection with every cunning and lying argument possible. They argued: (1) that Christ could not be the Messiah, because Elijah had not yet come; (2) that his signs were not "from heaven," but from earth; (3) that the demons he exorcised were, in truth, cast out by the power of the devil; (4) that he was a violator of sacred traditions; (5) that he profaned the sabbath; (6) that the Scriptures "proved" the Messiah could not come from Galilee, but from Bethlehem (John 7:41); (7) that none of the rulers of the people believed on him (John 7:48); (8) that they KNEW him to be a sinner (John 9:24); (9) that he was a glutton and a winebibber; (10) that he was a Samaritan; (11) that he was a friend of publicans and sinners; and (12) that he was a deceiver. (For more on this and for Scripture references on the Pharisees' charges, see under Matthew 11:18-19). Considering WHO THEY WERE, one must allow that they had indeed mounted a formidable attack against the Christ, so strong in fact that Christ saw fit in this instance to warn even the apostles against it. "Leaven" in this case stands for something evil, the usual meaning in Scriptures, although an exception exists (Matthew 13:33). The Sadducees were materialists, denying any spiritual life, any possibility of a resurrection (Matthew 22:23), and the existence of angels. The Pharisees were hypocrites, dealing in falsehood. Both were secular, dominated by earthly considerations exclusively. They were full of snobbery and pride and made every possible appeal to selfishness, prejudice, and bias. They even tortured the Scriptures to invent arguments against him; and, finally, they relied upon force to achieve their ends. Even at that moment, they were plotting to kill Christ. No group of leaders in human history ever surpassed their right to be denominated as "the sons of the evil one." Verse 7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, We took no bread. And Jesus perceiving it said, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have no bread?The need of Jesus' warning appeared in the fact that, even at that late hour, the apostles were far too literal in construing the words of Christ. The Saviour's warning against the Pharisees might have gone unheeded if Christ had not explained it. Far from catching the significance of his words, at first they thought that they were being scolded for forgetting to buy bread. Just where the above conversation took place is a matter of different opinions. It might have been on board en route to Bethabara-Julius, or after they landed; what difference could it make? Like disciples of old, men can still find a lot to be concerned about, besides the point! Christ knew what was in the disciples' minds, no less than he knew what was in the Pharisees' minds. Only God has such power. Verse 9 Do ye not yet perceive, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?Christ's mention of BOTH the miracles in which so many were fed is certain proof that there were in fact two miracles, however similar, and that these are not merely two accounts of the same wonder. Christ was amazed that after all the disciples had seen, they would still have considered their failure to provide bread a matter of sufficient importance that Christ would have rebuked them for it. "O ye of little faith!" Verse 11 How is it that ye do not perceive that I spake not to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Then understood they that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.Here is an extremely important example of how the word of Christ, or of the Scriptures, should be interpreted. Note that Christ did not change a syllable of what he had said, indicating that the misunderstanding of the Twelve did not arise from any fault in what Christ had said but in their application of it. Note that if he had meant "bread," he would have said "bread." The word he used was "leaven," and his use of it in connection with the Pharisees and Sadducees showed that a literal meaning of the term was not indicated, since a man does not have literal "leaven" in him. In outlining the qualifications of elders and deacons, the Scriptures speak of "believing children"; to insist that that must invariably mean "baptized children" is to fall into the error of the apostles noted above. Does anyone suppose that the Holy Spirit did not know the term "baptized"? In all cases where the truth of God's word is sought, the strictest attention must be paid to the exact words that are used. The true understanding by the apostles of what Christ meant was obtained, not by his repeating the admonition in different words, but by their more particular attention to what he had actually said. That proved that what Christ had said was intelligible to them on the basis of what they already knew, provided only that they had applied themselves to know it. The same truth holds today. Verse 13 Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Who do men say that the Son of man is?Dummelow identified Caesarea Philippi as that built by Philip the Tetrarch, situated at the sources of the Jordan, near the foot of Mount Hermon (9,000 feet), in the midst of magnificent scenery. It was a Gentile city, often called Paneas (now Banias), because the god Pan was worshipped there. The other Caesarea on the sea coast, was called, for distinction, Caesarea Palestina.[3] Christ was about to reveal further insight into his glorious identity; and he began by taking the popular beliefs concerning himself as the basis, or platform, from which to elevate their minds to the higher and nobler conception of the Christ as the Son of God. ENDNOTE:[3] J. R. Dummelow, One Volume Commentary (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 680. Verse 14 And they said, Some say John the Baptist; some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.How amazing that none of the popular beliefs at that times identified Christ as the Messiah! That showed how effective the Pharisees had been in their evil campaign against Christ. Many had at first recognized him as the Messiah (John 1:42; John 4:30); but Satan, in the manner of the parable, had come and stolen the truth out of their hearts. Satan had sufficiently eroded the image of the Lord that no popular opinion prevailed to the effect that he was the Christ. Unbelievers still use that temporary advantage which Satan had gained, as noted in the perennial objection alleged by skeptics and infidels that the synoptics are in conflict with John's gospel. As Robertson stated it: They hold that the other gospels here utterly conflict with John, who represents the first disciples as believing that Jesus was the Messiah. ... But it is easy to suppose that their early faith in his Messiahship was shaken by his continued failure to gather armies and set up the expected temporal kingdom.[4] Dummelow made the same analysis: This belief (that he was the Messiah) no longer existed. Those who held it had abandoned it because of his continued refusal to declare himself and to do what was expected of the Messiah.[5] That erosion and blurring of the truth that Christ was the Messiah had reached such proportions that Christ, as we have just seen, even warned the apostles to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Even in the remaining popular opinions of Jesus, however, the splendor and glory of his wonderful life were reflected in the fact that popular fancy had recourse to the annals of the righteous dead to find one worthy of comparison with Jesus. Elijah, John the Baptist, Jeremiah, along with the other prophets, constituted the roll of Jewish immortals, the mighty heroes of the people. Thus, the opinions of the people were unanimous in according high status to Jesus. They failed only in this: they did not accord him the HIGHEST status. Satan's devices at that point had triumphed for a while. Satan was perfectly willing for Christ to be "some great one," as long as he remained unrecognized as the Greatest One. Origen's commentary on Matthew has an elaboration of the false opinions concerning Jesus, showing that if the people had attended what Jesus had publicly said, their errors would have been avoided. For example, those who held that Christ was Elijah should have known that Christ had identified John the Baptist as "that Elijah" who was to come. [4] A. T. Robertson, Harmony of the Gospels (New York and London: Harper and Brothers, 1922), p. 99. [5] J. R. Dummelow, loc. cit. Verse 15 He saith unto them, But who say ye that I am?Christ in that question came to the heart of his heavenly mission. Everything, repeat, depends upon the answer to that question. Who is he? That was the question asked by Paul on the Damascus road when he said, "Who art thou, Lord?" (Acts 22:8). It is the question every man must ask, AND ANSWER , before any such thing as salvation can be had. It is not enough to know the popular opinion of the Christ; the question demands, and will receive, a personal answer by every man coming into the world. The progression from things general to things particular was a common procedure in Christ's method of teaching. It will be recalled that in the Sermon on the Mount he said, "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake," and followed a moment later with "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you and persecute you ..." (Matthew 5:10-11). The same pattern is here. "Who do men say that the Son of man is," followed by "Who say ye that I am?" Verse 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.This is called the Great Confession. It is no mere acknowledgment that Jesus is the Messiah of the Hebrews but also declares Jesus' unique filial relationship to God. Dummelow aptly pointed this out, saying, Son of God, here, is no mere equivalent of "the Messiah." ... This is shown by the deep emotion with which the speaker makes, and Jesus receives, the confession; and the fact that the confession is perfectly satisfactory to Jesus, and is forthwith made the dogmatic foundation of Christianity ("Upon this rock I will build my church.").[6] The ancients noted the expression, "Son of the living God," making those words the basis of Jesus' blessing of Peter. Thus, Origen said, "He is pronounced blessed not merely because he said, `Thou art the Christ,' but with the addition, `Son of the living God'."[7] Origen reinforced his argument by pointing out that Mark and Luke, omitting the words "Son of the living God," also omitted reference to Christ's blessing Peter on that occasion. [6] Ibid. [7] Origen, Commentary on Matthew in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. X, p. 460. Verse 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven.Jesus' confession and blessing of Peter in this place is best understood in the light of a promise Jesus previously made to the effect that he would confess those who confessed him (Matthew 10:32-33). Note the parallel: "Christ, Son of God" and "Peter, son of John" (that is the meaning of Bar-Jonah). Note also the attribution of divine initiative in providing Peter that information. The great truth that Jesus is God's Son is not taught by human wisdom but in that wisdom which is from above. To the contrary, human wisdom is ever active and diligent to blur and erase that truth from men's minds and hearts. A witness to Christ's divinity is also contained here. Who but Christ himself had taught Peter and the others this epic truth? Yet Christ flatly declared that God had taught it. This is a powerful, though incidental, corroboration of Peter's confession from the lips of Christ himself. Verse 18 And I also say, unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.Some have made much of the fact that the word "Peter" means rock, and from this have affirmed that Christ built the church upon Peter. This text is inscribed in letters of gold four feet high inside the massive dome of the Basilica of St. Peters; and it is feared that many have been deceived by this false claim. It is true, of course, that the word [@Petros] (Greek for Peter) means "stone" (John 1:42); but the Greek text itself dispels any possibility of Peter's having been the rock upon which Jesus built the church. In appealing to the Greek, this author does not defer to the opinions of learned men, nor, for that matter, profess any knowledge of Greek; but God's truth is not subject to the arcane and ambiguous dissertations of the learned. Even an ignorant man, in relative terms, can, with the aid of a Greek lexicon or a common device such as the Emphatic Diaglott, see for himself that Christ did not build the church upon Peter. In Matthew 16:18, above, the rock upon which Christ proposed to build the church is not the same kind of "rock" that constitutes the name of Peter. There are several differences of the most marked and significant nature; and attention is called to the little diagram herewith which sets forth those differences, emphasizing the impossibility of their being under any conditions .Jesus said, "Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church."The words "Peter" and "rock," as used above, are translated from two different Greek words: [@Petros] and [@petra] This word has six letters This word has five letters This word is masculine This word is feminine gender gender This word means PEBBLE This word means LEDGE Yes, the words are similar, but what of it? Similarity of words does not even imply similarity of meaning, much less identical meaning. An old rancher requested his son to take one of his favorite horses and have him SHOD. A little while later he heard gunfire back of the corral and learned to his dismay that his son had shot the horse! The son said, "I'm sorry, Dad, I thought you said have him SHOT, and I thought I could do it as well as anyone else!" Certainly, there is more resemblance between the two key words in that mix-up than there ever was between the two Greek words noted above. Yet it is on the preposterous premise that those words are that the whole fallacy of the church on Peter is made to depend. Nor do we allow that the conscience of Rome is easy about this. The well known truth that the Greek text does not allow, and indeed refutes, their contention gives rise to all kinds of speculations and appeals to the so-called Aramaic Original (see introduction); however, it must be allowed by all that the Greek text of the New Testament is all that has come down from antiquity. Therefore, all arguments from the Aramaic should be rejected until it can be produced and authenticated. Certainly, it is evil to make an argument, upon so vital a point as this, from a version that does not exist except in theory, which has never been seen, and which, in all probability, if it were to appear, would doubtless confirm rather than deny the difference in those two words. All appeals to the Aramaic are, by implication, a repudiation of this text; and why repudiate it if, as some say, it makes Peter the rock on which Jesus built the church? He that has eyes to see, let him see! What, then, is the rock upon which Christ proposed to build the church? It is the supreme fact of faith just confessed by Peter, namely, that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God. A moment later Christ mentioned Peter, giving him (and later the others) the keys of the kingdom of heaven, thus making him, not the foundation, but the door-opener of the kingdom. To have made him both the foundation and the porter of the same building would have been a gross abuse of metaphor. The gates of Hades, mentioned by Christ, is variously understood, as follows: (1) Some believe they refer to death and the fact that death would not prevent our Lord's carrying out the noble design announced on that occasion. (2) Others think they refer to the various sins by which men go to their spiritual doom. Thus, Origen made the gates of Hades to be such things as fornication, blasphemy, and other sins. (3) Another thinks they refer to Satanic opposition to the church throughout history, and that they contain a prophecy that Christ will triumph, not Satan. The meaning and import of the passage are so profound that there is more than enough room for all of these views without violence to the word of God. There may even be other meanings which men cannot know until the judgment. Verse 19 I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.This promise, emphatically delivered to Peter here, was also the property of the Twelve and not Peter's exclusively (see under Matthew 18:18). Origen, under the sub-title, "The promise given to Peter, not restricted to him, but applicable to all disciples like him," asked, But if you suppose that upon one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the apostles?[8] "Bind" and "loose" refer to the power of deciding what was lawful or unlawful to be done in the church or what was orthodox or unorthodox to be believed. That power was (and is) exercised by all the apostles, and the New Testament is the instrument by which that binding and loosing are effected. The objection may be raised that if all the apostles exercised that authority, the words lose their meaning as applied by Christ to Peter in the instance before us. This is not the case. A certain preeminence DID pertain to Peter: (1) He preached the first gospel sermon (Acts 2:14 ff). (2) He unlocked the secret of the Davidic kingdom (Acts 2:31). (3) He unlocked the secret of HOW people enter the kingdom (Acts 2:38). (4) He unlocked the door of faith to the Gentiles (Acts 10:1 ff). (5) He unlocked the door of return for backsliders (Acts 8:13; Acts 8:22). (6) He unlocked the mystery of the new name (1 Peter 4:16). (7) He expounded the mystery of the new birth (1 Peter 3:21). (8) He revealed the ultimate fate of the earth (2 Peter 3:11-13). These remarkable options exercised by Peter might be said to be his use of the keys, solving, unlocking, and revealing great mysteries of the kingdom of heaven in those important aspects. Surely such does constitute great honor and dignity conferred upon Peter by our Lord by reason of his having been the first to ascertain the holy truth of God in Christ, and then confess it; and the distinctions noted herewith are far more than enough to fulfill Jesus' words without resort to the monstrous notion that Peter was to be made, in any sense, the head of the church, which by its very nature can have only one head - CHRIST. THE PRE- OF PETERThe Scriptures make it clear that, whatever preeminence was enjoyed by Peter, it was well within the framework of his stature as a fellow apostle, and not, as some affirm, as a president over the apostles. Thus: (1) There is not one throne in Christ's kingdom, but twelve thrones (Matthew 19:28). (2) The Holy City that comes down out of heaven does not have merely one foundation, engraved with Peter's name, but twelve foundations, engraved with the names of the Twelve (Revelation 21:14). (3) Peter himself included the rest of the apostles when he admonished men to heed the commandment of Christ, "through your apostles" (2 Peter 3:2). (4) Even when Peter opened the gates of the kingdom of heaven on the day of Pentecost, he did so, not alone, but "standing up with the eleven" (Acts 2:14). (5) When the Jewish high priest moved against the church, he moved not against Peter only, but against the Twelve (Acts 5:17-19). (6) Peter's authority was actually equaled by that of Paul (Galatians 2:7-8). (7) Peter's dignity was, on occasion, made secondary to that of the Twelve, as when, for instance, he was "sent" by the Twelve as a messenger (Acts 8:14). (8) Peter's dignity was no greater than that of James (Galatians 2:9); and, in fact, James is mentioned first. All of the plain words and necessary inferences of the New Testament are at variance with any supposition that Peter's preeminence contained the slightest vestiges of any authority not conferred upon the other apostles also. A TO PETER IS NOT Here is an appropriate place to view the doctrine of a successor to Peter. Note the following: (1) Peter knew that he would have no legitimate successor and indicated it in 2 Peter 1:13-15 where he WROTE the word of God in order for it to be available, as he said, "after my decease"! If a successor had been contemplated, that would have been unnecessary. (2) No mention whatever of a successor to Peter may be found anywhere in the New Testament, although the successor to Judas Iscariot is named. And, if it is supposed that the difference was due only to the fact that Peter's death is not recorded in the New Testament, then let it be further recognized that James' death is recorded, and that no successor was chosen for him. Why did only Judas receive a successor? Death did not and could not remove an apostle from office. It did not remove Judas, whose removal was not due to death, but to (Acts 1:25, KJV). All of the apostles (except the one removed by transgression) are still reigning with Christ and discharging the office of their apostleship (Matthew 19:28). (3) If there had been a successor to Peter, why was God's Revelation given through the apostle John and not through the successor, especially since the Revelation was written at a time long after the death of the apostle Peter? (4) What could a successor to Peter do which has not already been done? The Lord guided the apostles into "all truth" (John 16:13). Peter himself said "all things that pertain to life and gods" had already been given (2 Peter 1:3). (5) Christ taught that no earthly head of his spiritual body (the church) was possible, even though that earthly head was Christ himself "in the flesh." He said, "It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you" (John 16:7). If it was expedient for the true head not to remain on earth in the flesh, and if the presence of the Christ himself, in the flesh, would thwart the residence of the Holy Spirit in his spiritual body, how could any successor fulfill a need impossible to be met even by Christ "in the flesh?" (6) No person in subsequent ages could meet the qualifications of a true apostle. Apostles were primarily "witnesses"; and witnesses, by the very nature of things, cannot have successors (Acts 1:22). Moreover, that prime qualification was not waived, even for Judas' successor. (7) Basic requirements of the apostolic office disqualify any claimant of Peter's office. For example, the apostles were empowered by the Holy Spirit to be able to "remember" and faithfully report the words of Christ. See John 16:13-15; John 14:26. What successor could possibly "remember" anything that Jesus said? As to the heresy that the Spirit would operate independently of the word of Christ, it was struck down by Jesus himself who said of the Holy Spirit, "He shall not speak of himself" (John 16:13). The English Revised Version (1885) has "He shall not speak FROM himself." (8) Delegated authority is not transferable. In the very nature of plenary authority, it must originate in each new holder of it with the conveying authority. No ambassador ever named his successor. Overwhelming evidence to the effect that this principle was recognized as valid, even in the apostolic age, appears in the attempt of Simon the sorcerer to purchase the gift of God, not from Philip (who had it and was personally and more intimately known to Simon), but from Peter, one of the apostles who had conferred the gift on Philip. (9) Historically, the whole idea of a successor to Peter is fantastic in its long progression through the ages, exhibiting two popes on the throne at once, another refusing the office, and with Italians holding a virtual monopoly, and providing practically the whole list upon whom this distinction was said to be conferred by God (!). What have we here, another chosen people? Many other Scriptural refutations to the great heresy of Peter's successor might be pointed out, but these are sufficient to allow the truth to appear in honest hearts. ENDNOTE:[8] Ibid., p. 456. Verse 20 Then charged he the disciples that they should tell no man that he was the Christ.This admonition came because any indiscreet disclosure of Christ's true and total heavenly identity would have compromised Jesus' purpose, which was to accomplish his death in Jerusalem in such a manner that the true reason for that death could not be clouded or distorted by Satan. Significantly, at once, after the great confession, Christ began to instruct his disciples concerning the passion and resurrection. John Locke, whose writings had such influence on Alexander Campbell, noted that the difficulties confronting Christ were almost insurmountable. It was his purpose to die for the sins of the whole world; but if, at the instigation of Satan, evil men could make it appear that he died in an attempt to take Caesar's throne, the will of God would have been circumvented. Jesus took note of that situation when he said, "But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!" (Luke 12:50). The exceedingly narrow line that Jesus walked was marked on one side by the fact that all men, insomuch as was possible, should be instructed that he was the Messiah and Savior of the world; and, on the other side, by the danger that they would misunderstand his mission, which they were prone to do, and would crucify him for sedition. Only the wisdom of God could have enabled Jesus to negotiate that narrow road so successfully as he did. The overriding consideration of Christ to reveal himself, and yet not so ostentatiously as to defeat his purpose, illuminates much of what is otherwise arcane in the gospel narratives. Thus, Jesus told the Samaritan woman plainly that he was the Messiah (her word, as a Samaritan, was not any good in court), but on other occasions instructed his followers to reveal the truth to no man (at that time). The grand design of Christ's purpose called for him to die, not as a seeker of the secular throne, but as the Son of the living God. Since the Son of God is the rightful ruler of all men, it was hard to distinguish between them, especially in the environment provided by that generation. Christ succeeded so well in achieving his purpose that when the Sanhedrin finally condemned him, their charge of sedition, as alleged before Pilate, would not stand up; and they were compelled to admit at last that their real reason was not a suspicion of disloyalty to Caesar, but "because he made himself the Son of God" (John 19:7). VTHE AND DEATH OF CHRIST ; THE OF THE FOR THE PASSION (Matthew 16:21-28; Matthew 17:1-27; Matthew 18:1-35; Matthew 19:1-30; Matthew 20:1-34)In section four, the Messiah's kingdom was accepted by some, rejected by others. A summary of each class in that section is thus: He was accepted by the disciples (Matthew 14:33), by the woman of Canaan (Matthew 15:22), by a great multitude (Matthew 15:30), by Peter (Matthew 16:16); he was rejected by the Nazarenes (Matthew 13:57), and by the Pharisees and their sympathizers (Matthew 15:12; Matthew 16:4). In section five, the sufferings and death of Christ make up the burden of the message, especially the prophecies of his passion. There are three of these: First announcement (Matthew 16:21); second announcement (Matthew 17:22-23); third announcement (Matthew 20:18). Verse 21 From that time began Jesus to show unto his disciples that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up.THE FIRST CLEAR OF HIS PASSION AND This marvelous prophecy of his own death and resurrection is without parallel in human history. Some have considered the Old Testament prophecies of the resurrection of Christ to be not as explicit as could have been wished, but believers find them adequate. It would be hard to imagine a more categorical prophecy of resurrection than that of Psa 16:10, "For thou wilt not leave my soul in Sheol; neither shalt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption." Now, pray tell, to whom could such a word apply, if not to Christ? And what is a resurrection unless it may be described as coming out of Sheol (the grave) before the body sees corruption? But even the suspicion of ambiguity which evil men have alleged against the Old Testament prophecies of the resurrection of Christ was dispelled by Christ, who singled out the Old Testament prophecy of his resurrection, expanded it, embellished it with all kinds of pertinent details, and emphasized it beyond all other predictions concerning himself. Certainly that was an unheard-of thing for one to do if he had not known who he was and possessed absolute certainty of the fulfillment of those things in himself. For Christ did not merely say, "I will rise from the dead." His graphic description of what would occur included these points: His death would occur at Jerusalem. The scribes, chief priests, and elders would have a part in it. He would suffer "many things" at their hands. He would not merely die, but "be killed," a far different thing. He would rise from the dead. The resurrection would occur "the third day." Proof that this prophecy of Christ was known throughout Palestine before the events took place is manifest in the sealed tomb and posted watch to guard his body and prevent any rumors that such a glorious thing actually occurred. Such a procedure on the part of Christ's enemies stands absolutely alone and unique, throughout the records of history. Where is there another case like it? Oh yes, graves have been sealed and watches set, but not for the purpose of preventing any rumors of a resurrection (see Matthew 20:17-19). Verse 22 And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall never be unto thee.Peter's intention in this case was commendable; nevertheless, his ignorance made him a tool of the devil, whose double purpose regarding Christ was either to cause the Master to commit sin, or to make his death such a horrible and detestable thing that Christ would reject it (see under Matthew 26:53); thus, by one means or the other, Satan would thwart God's purpose of redemption for men. Peter's rejection of any thought of the death of the beloved Saviour was perfectly in line with Satan's purpose. Note too that in this case Peter assumed a new role, that of an instructor of his Lord. At that point, he appeared no longer as a disciple but as one to rebuke and contradict what Christ had just said. How easily do men slip into unbecoming postures! Nor did Peter easily shake that temptation to get out of line; he did it again and again. We shall note another case in the next chapter; and, in the book of Acts, one finds the words, "Not so, Lord!" attributed to Peter (Acts 10:14). Verse 23 But he turned and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art a stumbling block unto me: for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men.There was kindness (and a reprieve) for Peter in the Lord's reply. Instead of saying, "Get thee hence? as he said to Satan previously (Matthew 4:10), he said, "Get thee behind me!" Peter was commanded to forsake his role as instructor and resume that of a follower. Peter's place was behind Christ, as a devoted disciple, not in front of Christ, a position as assumed when he objected to Christ's words about his approaching death and resurrection. One may feel a certain pity for Peter. With all his God-given insight into the total identity of Christ as God's Son, he must yet awhile remain ignorant of how Christ's death was necessary and was the "sine qua non", without which no man ever born could have the forgiveness of his sins. Peter was apparently thinking that, from the earthly viewpoint, Jesus surely did not deserve anything to happen to him which the Lord had just mentioned. From the earthly view, Peter was right; and Christ correctly diagnosed his mistake by saying that Peter was thinking of the things of men rather than of the things of God. The things of God would be clear to Peter much later, when he would write, "Who his own self bare our sins in his body upon the tree, that we, having died unto sin, might live unto righteousness" (1 Peter 2:24). One lesson of stark and overwhelming power that flows out of this strange rebuke of Peter is that temptation does not always come through one's enemies, but may also come through the most faithful and intimate of earthly companions. Peter's sad role in this incident shows how easily the best of friends and the most intimate of loved ones may become the instruments of evil, however unintentionally. Jesus' firm words to Peter suggest that the temptation to himself in that case was sharp and persuasive, since it was founded in earthly logic, fortified with the natural repugnance to death in the mind of Christ, and rejected out of hand by his best disciples. The temptation, conveyed through Peter's words here, remained and was present in that bitter cup in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:39). Verse 24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.Christ had just commanded Peter to get behind him; and immediately, Christ made the cross a necessary condition of discipleship. Not Peter, nor any other man, nor even Christ himself (as a man) can avoid it. Cross-bearing is widely misunderstood. It is not old age, poverty, taxes, illness, or bad weather, or any other discomfiture of life that comes unavoidably into the lives of men. It is the acceptance, for the sake of the will of God, of some burden or burdens, otherwise avoidable, but which are undertaken out of a pure desire to fulfill the Master's purpose. The centrality of the cross in Christ's religion was here affirmed by Christ at the very moment when one of his most beloved apostles had spoken against it. Verse 25 For whosoever shall save his life shall lose it: and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall find it.What emperor or general ever announced a proposition like that? These words forcibly imply, even demand, an understanding that Christ is God. Only God could make good on such a promise. Origen said: If anyone, as being a lover of life, and thinking that the present life is good, tends carefully his own life with a view to living in the flesh, ... this man ... will lose it, placing it outside of the borders of blessedness.[9] The total dedication of the total man to God's total purpose, though it might (and sometimes does) result in death, nevertheless leads to eternal life. This is not merely saving one's life but gaining eternal life at the same time. ENDNOTE:[9] Ibid., p. 464. Verse 26 For what shalt a man be profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and forfeit his life? or what shalt a man give in exchange for his life?The true meaning of this appears clearer in the King James Version which uses "soul" instead of "life." Man possesses a body, but he is a soul. A soul is of more value than the whole world, as Jesus said. The truth of this appears through the application of any of the common criteria for determining value: COST: It cost the blood of Christ to redeem one soul. : A soul will exist until the worlds have passed away. : God loved the soul enough to reclaim it. : No two souls are identical. Verse 27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds.Christ stated above that he would come in the glory of God with his angels. Could a mere man have said that? This can be nothing less than a prophecy of the general resurrection and judgment of the last day. The basis of that judgment shall include (1) the word of Christ (John 12:48), and (2) the deeds done in the body (2 Corinthians 5:10). No number of angels is indicated in this place, but "ten thousand" is the number given in Jude 1:14. Even that could be a perfect number signifying an infinitely greater number. Verse 28 Verily I say unto you, There are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.Mark's account of this statement is, "Verily I say unto you, there are some here of them that stand by, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power" (Mark 9:1). Both the Herald and Christ preached the kingdom as "at hand." The passage here supplemented that information by making it certain to appear during the lives of "some" of the apostles. Why not merely "during their lives?" that is, the lives of all of them? That was because both Judas and Christ would die before the kingdom came. Thus, the words are circumstantially accurate and precise. Incidental to the assertion here, but inherent in it due to the terminology used, is the revelation that the kingdom would not be set up during the personal ministry of Christ, but afterwards. The kingdom did appear on the day of Pentecost, during the lives of "some" of them, just as Jesus had said. The reference to the kingdom in the passage here makes its establishment in the future; but after the day of Pentecost, all references to God's kingdom are in the present tense, speaking of it as a reality, or in the past tense, making it already in existence. See Colossians 1:13; Hebrews 12:28; Revelation 1:9 for examples of this. Remember that the church and the kingdom are one. This chapter brings us to the heart of Matthew's gospel. Christ's deity was recognized and confessed. Satan's effort to thwart the crucifixion was countermanded (even though suggested by Peter), and the cross of Jesus was made central in his holy religion. The outline of the passion and resurrection, as well as a revealing glimpse of the day of judgment, are given by Christ in this portion of his word. This chapter has been called the hub of the gospel of Matthew. J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Matthew Chapter SixteenA Sign from Heaven Demanded, Matthew 16:1-4. (Mark 8:10-12)1. with the Sadducees.—This is the first and only time that the Pharisees and Sadducees are mentioned as acting in concert against Jesus. Their extreme jealousy toward each other, and the very different grounds on which they were opposed to Jesus, rendered concert of action almost impossible. The chief cause for which the Pharisees opposed, was his disregard of their traditions; and in this the Sadducees sympathized with Jesus, because they also denied the authority of tradition. In regard to his miracles they occupied common ground, and hence their agreement in asking for a sign from heaven. tempting.—That is, testing the extent of his miraculous powers. As they could not deny the miracles which he had wrought, they wanted to be able to say that there were some miracles which he could not work. Once before a demand like this had been made of him (Matthew 12:38), and his refusal then inspired them with greater boldness in making the demand again. Thus, with ingenuity truly devilish, they sought an apparent advantage over him before the people. 2, 3. discern the face of the sky.—These signs are good at the present day, and in our own country. It is an almost unfailing sign of foul weather to see clouds about the sun in the morning, and an equally unfailing sign of fair weather to see the sun set clear and fiery. signs of the times.—The times of the Messiah, and the miraculous evidences which he had given that they were at hand. These were as plainly to be seen as the clouds at sunrise and at sunset, but the Pharisees and Sadducees failed to see them in their real significance. 4. adulterous generation.—From this and similar remarks elsewhere, it has been thought that the Jews of the Savior's time were a very adulterous people. They certainly were when compared with a perfect standard, but not when compared with the heathen nations about them. The severe penalties of the law against vices of this class placed a wholesome restraint on the passions of the people, and made them very zealous for the punishment of the guilty. (Comp. John 8:3-5.) but the sign of Jonas.—As on the occasion of their previous demand for a sign (Matthew 12:39), he meant that no sign should be given of the kind which they demanded. He gave many more of the kind which he had been giving. The reference to Jonah was an enigma to both the friends and the foes of Jesus; for neither party as yet anticipated his death, burial, and resurrection. It is one of a number of remarks which Jesus let fall, the very obscurity of which caused them to be remembered and talked about until subsequent developments made them intelligible, and then they furnished very surprising proofs of his foreknowledge. Leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, Matthew 16:5-12. (Mark 8:13-21)5. the other side.—The incident of the last paragraph was located in the vicinity of Magdala (Matthew 15:39), which was on the western side of the lake. When they came "to the other side," then, they were on the eastern side, and as they were on the way to Cζsarea Philippi (Matthew 16:13), they were probably near the northern extremity of the eastern shore. forgotten to take bread.—This remark shows that they were in the habit of taking bread with them when they went on journeys like the present. 6-7. beware of the leaven.—Jesus was still thinking of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and Sadducees, which, like leaven, spreads through society when practiced by influential persons; but the disciples had fallen into other trains of thought, and hence their awkward mistake of supposing that he was reproaching them for bringing no bread. 8-11. O ye of little faith.—Their mistake implies weakness of faith, because Jesus had given abundant evidence of his ability to feed them whether they had with them much bread or little. If they had remembered the feeding of the five thousand and of the four thousand, they would not have been much concerned about bread. 12. Then understood they.—As soon as they learned that he was using the term leaven in a metaphorical sense, they understood the remark, for the metaphor was simple and familiar. Conversation near Cζsarea Philippi, Matthew 16:13-20. (Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-21)13. Cζsarea Philippi.—This city was situated at the foot of Mt. Hermon, which rises some seven or eight thousand feet above it, and at the more eastern of the two principal sources of the Jordan. It was built on a limestone terrace, and was strongly fortified. It was a very ancient city, and had been Known by the name of Panium; but it had been recently improved by Philip, tetrarch of Trachonitis, and called by him Cζsarea Philippi, in honor of himself and the reigning Cζsar. It is the most northern point mentioned in the travels of Jesus. Who do men say.—The world's greatest question is the one here propounded, Who is Jesus? In answer to it the Nazarenes had said that he was only the son of the carpenter; yet they acknowledged that on this hypothesis they could not account for his wisdom and his mighty works. Throughout the other parts of Galilee it was admitted that he was something more, but what he was more than this was a matter of dispute then, and it has been ever since. Concerning Jesus alone, of all the men of history, has such a question existed. 14. Some say.—The different opinions as to who he was, are accounted for partly by the circumstances of the men who uttered them and partly by the different aspects presented in the career of Jesus. The opinion that he was John the Baptist raised from the dead, as we have already seen (14:2), arose from the superstition of the people, and was adopted by Herod, as a natural result of his guilty fears. Some thought that he was the prophet Elijah returned again to earth, because of the boldness with which he denounced the sins of the age; while this characteristic, combined with the sorrowful tone of his speech, suggested to others that he was Jeremiah. Others, unable to decide which prophet he most resembled, thought that he was "one of the prophets." None regarded him as less than a prophet, and therefore all were inexcusable for not accepting the account which he gave of himself. Their unbelief on this point was the result of preconceived opinions as to the character and career of the Messiah, which they held tenaciously, and which were not verified in Jesus. 15. whom say ye.—This is the first time that Jesus formally presented to his disciples this question. He had reserved it until he had given them the means of forming a matured judgment, and until this judgment had actually been formed. 16. Simon Peter answered.—Peter, always first to speak, answers for the whole company. His answer contains two propositions: first, that Jesus was the Christ; second, that he was the Son of the living God. The former identified him as the long-expected deliver of whom the prophets had written; and the latter declared him, what the Jews had not expected their Messiah to be, the Son of God. This was an intelligent confession of the whole truth concerning the personality of Jesus. 17. Blessed art thou.—Simon was blessed because the truth which he had expressed and which he believed, was his as a source of happiness, both temporal and eternal. The statement that flesh and blood had not revealed it to him, but God, is the proof that he was blessed. That it was a revelation from God, and not a discovery made by unaided human reason, was proof that it was a blessing from heaven. God had revealed it through the works and words of Jesus. Bar-jona.—Son of Jona, a reflection of Peter's expression, Son of God. 18. upon this rock.—To what the term rock refers, whether to Peter, to Christ, or to the truth which Peter had just confessed concerning Jesus, has been a matter of much disputation. In a highly figurative passage like this, it is important that we take into view all of the imagery employed; otherwise we are likely to overlook the significance of some parts, and to form distorted conceptions of others. This important consideration has not, we think, received due attention from expositors in considering the present passage. Observe, then, that the leading image of this and the following verse is that of two opposing cities, one representing the kingdom of heaven, and the other representing hades. The former is represented as about to be built on a rock, its builder, its gatekeeper, and its keys are mentioned, and the assurance is given that the gates of the latter city shall not prevail against it. Of the former city Jesus is the builder; Peter is the gatekeeper, for to him the keys are given; and the foundation on which its walls were to be erected, like that of Cζsarea Philippi, which was close at hand and in all probability supplied the imagery, is a solid rock. Now, it is impossible, without throwing this imagery into confusion, to make either Jesus or Peter the rock; for Jesus assigns to himself the position of the builder, or chief architect, and he assigns to Peter that of gatekeeper, or holder of the keys. We can realize this more vividly if we will suppose the entire imagery to be thrown upon canvas. On one side of your picture you see the dark city of hades, out of whose gates are pouring the grim legions of death, led to the assault by Satan himself. On the other, you see a beautiful city in process of construction, with Jesus standing on a finished portion of the wall and superintending the labor of all the workmen, while Peter stands at one of the gates with the keys in his hand, ready to open at the Master's bidding. You also see that this city is built on a ledge of rock, the precipitous face of which is seen beneath the walls. In gazing on this picture, and seeking to ascertain the symbolic meaning of its parts, you would never conceive that the rock beneath the city symbolizes either Jesus or Peter; for you see them both clearly represented in the picture and occupying positions altogether different. The rock, then, must represent some other object of thought in the context, and this can be no other than the truth which Peter had just confessed concerning Jesus. This truth, that he is the Christ, the Son of the living God, is the most fundamental truth in the Christian system— it is that on which the whole superstructure depends; and it is therefore most appropriately represented by the rock in the Savior's picture. It is objected to this interpretation, that the name of Peter in the original means a stone (John 1:42), and that when Jesus says to him, "Thou art Petros (a stone), and on this rock I will build my church," the term this identifies rock with the stone just mentioned, or the person of Peter. But there are two insuperable obstacles in the way of this objection: first, after saying, "Thou art Petros," he changes the phraseology, as if for the very purpose of avoiding this meaning, and says, "on this petra I will build my church." If he had intended to identify Peter with the rock, he would have repeated the term Petros, instead of introducing the new term petra, which means a ledge of rock, while Petros means a stone. Again, if he had meant that he would build on Peter, it is inconceivable that he adopted so unnatural a method of expressing the idea, instead of saying, "Thou art Peter, and on thee I will build my church." It is urged by Alford as an objection to our interpretation, that in the New Testament usage, "not doctrines nor confessions, but men are uniformly the pillars and stones of the spiritual building." This is true; but in the passage before us neither the pillars nor stones of the spiritual building are spoken of, but the solid rock on which all the pillars and stones of the spiritual building are erected. The objection, therefore, misses its aim. If it be asked, why did Jesus say "Thou art Peter," unless he intended to make him the rock, we answer, that, like the expression Bar-jona, it was a very natural reechoing of Peter's own mode of address. Peter had said, "Thou art the Christ," giving Jesus his official title, and "the Son of the living God." Jesus answers, "Simon, son of Jona," "Thou art Peter"— the symbolical name which had long since been given him (John 1:42), and which referred to the solidity of character he was yet to acquire though he showed very little promise of it at present. As for the supposition that Jesus is himself the rock, there is nothing in the context to even suggest it. It is suggested by other passages in which he is called a stone or a foundation. But in those passages it will be found that the imagery is entirely different. When Paul says, "Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 3:11), the image is not that of a city built on a natural rock, but that of a single building (verse 9), and of its artificial foundation which Paul had laid. Furthermore, the way in which Paul had laid Jesus as a foundation in Corinth was by proving him to be the Christ the Son of God, so that the idea taught in this passage is not materially different from that in our text. When Paul says that the Gentiles are "built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone," the image is that of a temple with the apostles and prophets for the layer of stones at the foundation, and Jesus for the chief cornerstone on which the two walls, Jewish and Gentile, meet, and by which they are held together. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 16:2 Jesus referred them to their own study of the heaven in which they professed to know how to figure out the future by the present indications. 16:3 The signs of the times were as clearly portrayed in the Scriptures as were the weather signs, yet they pretended there was nothing on record to indicate the work and purpose of Jesus. Since this was only a pretended necessity for additional evidence Jesus called them hypocrites. 16:4 This subject of the sign of Jonas is explained at chapter 12:40. 16:5 The preceding verse says that Jesus departed from the multitude. He and his disciples had been in the vicinity of Magdala which is on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. They then crossed over the sea, and verses later in the chapter show that, they were to spend some time in an uninhabited territory where there would be no opportunity to purchase provisions. Jesus knew the disciples had forgotten to attend to that matter (Mark 8:14 says they had one loaf), and decided to use the fact as a basis for a test of their faith in him as one who could and would care for them. 16:6 Without mentioning bread directly, Jesus warned them against the leaven of the Pharisees and Sad-ducees whom they knew to be two evil groups of Jews. 16:7 There is no logical connection between literal leaven and these sects as far as the disciples were considering it. But a guilty conscience sometimes interprets an unrelated statement as a rebuke and that is what they did about Christ's remark. 16:8 Jesus accused his disciples of small faith because they were disturbed over as trival a matter as a shortage of bread. Had there been no visible prospects for food at all for the present, their general knowledge of past experiences should have given them confidence that nothing serious would be allowed to happen to them. 9-10 It seems that man needs to have his faith renewed from time to time on account of his unreliable memory. Moses had seen all the mighty works of God in Egypt and the Red Sea, yet when he was told that nation was to be given an abundance of flesh to eat he wondered where the Lord would get it. (See Numbers 11:18-23.) 6:11 Jesus needed only to state that he was not considering bread when he used the term leaven, for the disciples then concluded rightly that he had used if figuratively. 6:12 The disciples made the correct interpretation of the comparison and applied it to the dootrine or teaching of those two sects. I shall give the description of these prominent groups of the Jews as may be learned from reliable works of reference. "What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers which are not written in the law of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sad-ducees reject them, and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory [binding] which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers." Josephus, Antiquities, Book 13, Chapter 10, Section 6. "In addition to the books of the Old Testament, the Pharisees recognized in oral traditions a standard of belief and life. They sought for distinction and praise by the observance of external rites and by the outward forms of piety, such as ablutions, fast-ings, prayers, and alms-giving; and, comparatively negligent of genuine piety, they prided themselves on their fancied good works. . . . A Sadducee, a member of the party of the Sadducees, who, distinguished for birth, wealth, and official position, and not averse to the favor of the Herod family and of the Romans, hated the common people, were the opponents of the Pharisees, and rejecting tradition acknowledged the authority of the Old Testament alone in matters pertaining to faith and morals; they denied not only the resurrection of the body, but also the immortality of the soul and future retribution, as well as the existence of angels and spirits." These last two quotations about the Pharisees and Sadducees are the historical remarks of Thayer in his Greek lexicon, the original words being and . Having given an extended account of these two sects for the information of the reader, I shall summarize it by saying that the false doctrine of the Pharisees was that the tradition of the fathers was of equal authority with the written Scriptures. That of the Sadducees was that there would be no resurrection of the body and consequently no future life. 6:13 Jesus and his disciples having landed on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee they journeyed northward until they came into the coasts or vicinity of Caesarea Philippi. This is to be distinguished from the Caesarea that was on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. The place got its name by the desire of Herod Philip who wished to honor Caesar and himself both by a twofold name. That was accomplished by the name which we have just read as the double name includes both Caesar and Philip. Jesus concluded it was time to introduce the most serious phase of his own authority and purposes. He opened the subject by inquiring about the current opinions concerning himself; not of his doings but of his identity. He had been out among the people long enough for them to have formed some kind of ideas as to his real standing as a public teacher. He could not have asked this question for information for he already knew what was in man (John 2:24-25). Hence it was asked to bring out the contrast that should be existing between the opinions of the common people and that of the men who had been chosen to be the apostles after .Jesus was ready to leave this world. 6:14 All of the persons named had died, hence the reference to them in connection with Jesus was on the theory of the transmigration of souls. See the explanation of that subject with the comments on chapter 14:2. 6:15 Jesus then came out with the climax of the conversation. The answer to the question he was going to ask would be read by future generations. The apostles had been with him and seen his work and heard his teaching. It remained to be shown by the answer whether that association had made any better impression on them than was expressed by the common people. Jesus asked them (all of the apostles) for their estimate of him regarding his identity. 6:16 Jesus had addressed his question to all of the apostles, but it would not be expected that all of them would speak at once in answering the question. Peter was generally the spokseman for the others, and if what he said did not agree with them they would have made it known. The reply that Peter gave to the question embraced all that Jesus claimed to be. The word Christ means "anointed" and as it applied in this case it meant that Jesus was the one that God would recognize as a ruler in the kingdom. The Son is equivalent to the phrase "only begotten Son" in John 3:16. God has numerous sons from a spiritual standpoint, but Jesus is the only one who is the offspring of the person of God. The living God signifies that he is not the offspring of the idol gods for they are lifeless objects. 6:17 Bar-jona means son of Jona, and the full name is given to distinguish him from others who were named Simon. Flesh and blood hath not revealed it. Peter could not have received this information from any human source, hence it had to come from the Father in the way of divine inspiration. 6:18 I do not believe it is necessary to trouble ourselves about a grammatical basis for arguments that are frequently made over the original Greek words for Peter and rock. It is true that they are different from each other to some extent. But if we should consider them only in their literal meaning they are similar. But we know that Jesus did not mean to tell Peter that he was to be "the rock" on which the church would be built. It is also clear from other passages that Peter is in the foundation of the church but so are all the apostles (Ephesians 2:20). Then we cannot single out this one apostle and say that he is the foundation rock as the Romanists teach. The rock on which Christ intended to build his church was his own divinity that was embodied in the confession that Peter had just made. Much questioning also is done as to the antecedent of it; but that, too, is needless for we know that Jesus meant everything that would be necessary to accomplish his purpose of building his church. Gate is from PULE and Thayer defines it, "access of entrance into any state." Hell is from HADES and means the state or place of the soul after death. Jesus knew he must die and that his soul would go through this entrance to Hades, but that those gates would not be able to retain him, for he would come out from within them into life again so that he could perfect his work of setting up his church. 6:19 Keys is from KLEIS which Thayer defines, "a key. Since the keeper of the keys has the power to open and to shut, the word is figura- tively used in the New Testament to denote power and authority of various kinds." There is -nothing significant about the plural form of the word, but it is a part of the same figure that Thayer uses in his definition. The man who has charge of a building carries a group of keys, hence the word is used in the plural form; literally there is but one key to the kingdom of heaven and that is obedience to the requirements of the Gospel. Jesus was speaking directly to Peter because he was the spokesmen for all the rest. We know it was not meant that Peter alone was to have the keys, for Jesus said virtually the same thing in John 20:21-23 and he was talking to all of the apostles. Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, etc. This is Christ's own comment on the keys of the kingdom. He intended to send the Spirit upon the apostles to "guide them into all truth" (John 16:13), so that they would make no mistake in telling men what they must do to be saved. Being thus inspired, their teaching to men would be according to the will of heaven and hence it would be ratified there. Whatsoever thou shalt loose, etc., means the like thought on the negative side of the subject. No one has the right to bind any doctrine on men that was not required by the apostles. While on this verse it should be observed that in this conversation with the apostles, Jesus speaks of the church and the kingdom of heaven in the same sense, showing that no distinction is to be made today, for the kingdom is afterwards spoken of as being in existence (Matthew 26:29; Romans 14:17; Colossians 1:13; Colossians 4:11; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; Hebrews 12:28; Revelation 1:9). 6:20 A command similar to this one is in chapter 17:9, except that a certain time was set before which the disciples were not to make the specific announcement of the divinity of Christ. The crowning fact that was to prove that great claim of Jesus was to be his resurrection after three days. The public ministry for the general teaching about the kingdom that was at hand was drawing nearer to its close, and Jesus did not wish to release this fundamental truth unto the world prematurely. 6:21 See the remarks of the preceding paragraph about the progress of the ministry of Jesus. Since it was in that stage, it was time to begin preparing the minds of the apostles for the tragic events not far ahead, including the death and resurrection of their Lord with whom they had been so closely associated in the work. 6:22 The idea that Peter had in this impulsive speech was that something certainly would be done to prevent the thing Jesus had predicted. His own action recorded in John 18:10 indicated that he was willing to help prevent the tragedy. 6:23 The primary meaning of Satan is "adversary," and when Peter intimated that he would try to prevent the thing that Jesus declared would be done he became an adversary to him. Savourest means to be thinking about some subject of personal interest, and in this case it was the idea of an earthly kingdom that occupied the mind of Peter. He wanted such a kingdom to be set up because of what it would mean to him, and certainly such an event would require the living presence of the king. A part of Thayer's definition of the original for offence is, "an impediment placed in the way." Were Peter to have his wishes carried out in this matter it would have been an impediment to the great plan that Jesus had in view. 6:24 After is from OPISO and Thayer explains the word at this place to mean, "to follow any one as a guide, to be his disciple or follower." Deny is from which Thayer defines, "to deny," and explains the definition to mean in this passage, "to forget one's self, lose sight of one's self and one's own interests." Figures of speech are based upon some literal fact. Take up his cross is a reference to the rule of compelling a condemned man to carry his own cross to the place of execution. If the victim became unable to bear it alone, someone would be made to take up the rear part and help carry it, walking after the other to the place of execution. (See Luke 23:26.) The present verse means that a professed follower of Jesus must be willing to help bear the trials and self-denials that were practiced by him. 6:25 This verse is explained at chapter 10:39. 6:26 World and soul are used in the same sense as the two kinds of life in the preceding verse. The thought is that the things of this world are altogether not as valuable as the soul of man, and that if one were to exchange his soul to gain this world it would be a transaction without profit. 6:27 It has been nineteen centuries since Jesus uttered the words of this verse, but he wished his disciples to have something to look for as a reward for their sacrificing everything necessary to save their soul and gain that which is worth more than all this world. They were expected to rely on the promise of Christ because of their faith in him, because the reward would not come in their lifetime. 6:28 The preceding verse gives the promise of reward for faithful work at the second coming of Christ. As a guarantee of the surety of that promise, Jesus told them that some of them in his presence would live to see the great event that was to prepare men for that last day of accounts. They were promised the honor of seeing the Son of man in another manner; he was to be seen spiritually in his kingdom. We incidentally may obtain an important truth by this statement. The kingdom was set up in the time of those apostles, and that disproves the heresy taught by some today that the kingdom is still in the future. Matthew 17 "THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Chapter Seventeen The events recorded in this chapter begin with Jesus transfigured on the mountain (Matthew 17:1-13), referenced to later by Peter in his epistle (2 Peter 1:16-18). Afterward Jesus healed a demon-possessed boy when His disciples were unable due to a lack of faith and prayer (Matthew 17:14-21). Back in Galilee, Jesus once again predicted His death and resurrection (Matthew 17:22-23). Upon arriving in Capernaum, Jesus expounded on the payment of the temple tax (Matthew 17:24-27). POINTS TO PONDER * The significance of the transfiguration * The reason for the failure of a miracle REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter? - The transfiguration of Jesus Christ - Matthew 17:1-13- Jesus heals a demon-possessed boy - Matthew 17:14-21- Jesus again predicts His death and resurrection - Matthew 17:22-23- The payment of taxes - Matthew 17:24-27 2) When was Jesus transfigured on the mount? (Matthew 17:1) - After six days of saying some would not die before seeing Him coming in His kingdom (cf. Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1-2; Luke 9:27-28) 3) Who appeared when Jesus was transfigured? What might they represent? (Matthew 17:3) - Moses and Elijah; the Law and the Prophets 4) What did the voice from the cloud say about Jesus? What might it indicate? (Matthew 17:5) - "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!" - That Jesus would have priority over the Law and the Prophets 5) When were the disciples to tell others what they had seen? (Matthew 17:9) - Not until Jesus had risen from the dead 6) Who did Jesus say had come? Who had fulfilled that prophecy? (Matthew 17:10-13) - Elijah (cf. Malachi 4:5); John the Baptist 7) Why were the disciples unable to heal the demon-possessed boy? (Matthew 17:19-21) - Because of their lack of faith and prayer 8) What did Jesus predict for the second time to His disciples? (Matthew 17:22-23) - His betrayal, death, and resurrection from the dead 9) Did Jesus teach His disciples to pay taxes? How did He pay the tax? (Matthew 17:24-27) - Yes (cf. Matthew 22:15-22); by having Peter catch a fish with a coin in its mouth Matthew 17:1-27 Verse 1Mat 17:1-27THE ; THE COMING OF ELIJAH; THE ' FAILURE WITH THE DEMON- BOY; THE PASSION AGAIN; JESUS PAYS TRIBUTE WITH THE MONEY IN THE FISH'S MOUTHAnd after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart. (Matthew 17:1)Luke makes the time interval "eight days" (Luke 9:28); but there is no discrepancy from Mark and Matthew. Luke used the inclusive method of reckoning time, counting the portion of a day at either end of the period, whereas Mark and Matthew counted only the complete days. A suggestion of this is in the precise terminology used. Matthew has it "after six days," and Luke stated that it was "about eight days." Today people might say, "six or eight days." Matthew was omitted from that inner circle of three disciples who witnessed the marvel here related, and one can find only amazement at the complete detachment and objectivity of his narrative. Peter, James and John formed a kind of inner committee, or cadre, within the Twelve, and were the exclusive witnesses of the transfiguration, the raising of Jairus' daughter, and the agony in Gethsemane. Peter would take the lead in establishing the church; James would be the recognized leader of the church in Jerusalem; and John would receive the final revelation. The experience on the mount of transfiguration would better equip them for future duties and responsibilities. The Saviour's prophecy of his approaching death and humiliation had doubtless imparted some measure of shock and disappointment to the Twelve, and that event was possibly designed to lift their spirits, strengthen their faith, and lead them into an acceptance of the approaching passion of our Lord. The location of the wondrous unveiling of his glory is not given; but there are excellent and convincing reasons for placing it at Mount Hermon, or one of its supporting peaks. Robertson stated that "The tradition that places the transfiguration on Mount Tabor is beyond question false."[1] He would appear to be correct for these reasons: (1) Tabor does not qualify as a "high" mountain, being only 1,800 feet in elevation, compared with Hermon's 9,000 feet. (2) Tradition favoring Tabor, first advocated by St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the fourth century,[2] is much too late to have much weight. (3) Mount Tabor was populated, having a fortress on top, during the time of Christ,[3] and was not suitable for such an event as the transfiguration. To have ascended Tabor would not have taken them "apart," as Matthew expressed it. (4) Mount Tabor was three days journey removed from the last named geographical placement of Christ and his disciples; and, although a sufficient time interval of six or eight days had elapsed, none of the gospel narratives mentions a journey of any kind. Hermon, on the other hand, was nearby and is the most likely site. (5) Furthermore, when the gospels again take up the narrative, they were still in the vicinity of Hermon. Peter, in after years, called it the Holy Mount (2 Peter 1:18), and in the words of A. L. Williams, "We may conclude that we are not intended to know more about it, lest we should be tempted to make more of the material circumstances than of the great reality."[4] [1] A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1922), p. 102, footnote. [2] A. Lukyn Williams, Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1961), Vol. 15 II, p. 171. [3] J. R. Dummelow, One Volume Commentary (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 683. [4] A. Lukyn Williams, op. cit., p. 172. Verse 2 And he was transfigured before them; and his face did shine as the sun, and his garments became white as the light.The glory of Christ was revealed. The effulgence of the Godhead made his face luminous and shone through his garments. Again from Williams, It is a subjective vision that is here related, no mere inward impression on brain or nerve with nothing external to correspond, but a real objective occurrence, which was beheld by mortal eyes endued with no supernatural or abnormal powers, except insofar as they were enabled to look on this partial emanation of the divine effulgence.[5] The heavenly glory of Christ irradiated his face and clothing, demonstrating his eternal nature in a way to make the apostles who witnessed it absolutely certain that Christ was God in human form. The profound impression made by the event was permanent. Long afterward, John wrote, "We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:14). ENDNOTE:[5] Ibid. Verse 3 And behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elijah talking with him.How did the apostles recognize Moses and Elijah? The conversation seems to be the most logical source of that information. It may be concluded from this incident that the saints will know the redeemed of all ages in their glorified state in heaven. The appearance of Moses and Elijah with Christ was strong proof of his deity, since Christ was able to recall from the hosts of righteous dead those typical representatives of previous dispensations. Moses the great lawgiver, and Elijah the great prophet, were there summoned from the dead to resign their commissions and to lay their homage at his feet. Then the apostles KNEW that Christ was not merely some great Elijah or other notable, and they were certain beyond all doubt that he was the One greater than all others, superior even to Moses and Elijah. Verse 4 And Peter answered, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, I will make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.Again Peter was wrong, not so completely wrong as when he rebuked the Lord, but still wrong. Luke added the words, "not knowing what he said" (Luke 9:33). Peter was still thinking of Jesus AND Moses, or of Jesus AND Elijah, or of Jesus AND both of them. The suggested tabernacles were small booths used by the Jews for the feast of tabernacles. What Peter had in mind is not clear, but his error is glaring enough. He was proposing some kind of for Jesus to share with Moses and Elijah. Christ did not rebuke Peter, but what followed exposed his error in the most astonishing manner. Verse 5 While he was yet speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold, a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.The triple "behold" is significant. Miracle was piled upon miracle in the succession of astounding occurrences. Here is a manifestation of the Trinity almost as definite as that at the baptismal scene in Matthew 3:16. Christ was present, radiant in heavenly light; the Father spake out of heaven; and the cloud strongly suggests the Holy Spirit, although it is not so identified. The frightened apostles fell on their faces in abject terror at that overwhelming display of divine power. The exact nature of the bright cloud is not known, but Peter called it "the excellent glory" (2 Peter 1:17). The words out of the cloud were the same as those at Jesus' baptism, except that the words "Hear ye him" were added. Like all of God's commandments, this is exclusive and means "Do not hear Moses; do not hear Elijah, etc." Verse 6 And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid. And Jesus came and touched them and said, Arise, and be not afraid.Christ's touch was that like he used in healing and raising the dead. It imparted power and strength. It emphasizes the state of utter incapacity into which the apostles' terror had plunged them. The message "Be not afraid" was the same which came to them over the storm-tossed waters of Galilee, dispelling their apprehensions and indicating the end of the experience. Verse 8 And lifting up their eyes, they saw no one, save Jesus only.The big words in this whole passage are "Jesus only." Moses and Elijah were no longer visible, having been caught away in the cloud; thus, the message was definite and emphatic, "Jesus only!" The significance of this is apparent in the consideration of other possibilities. They might have seen no one after the cloud lifted. How unhappy would have been their lot if all the glory had departed, leaving no one. In such a case, no salvation, no hope would have been indicated. They might have seen MOSES ONLY. This would have indicated the Law as still supreme, and forgiveness would yet have remained impossible. They might have seen ELIJAH ONLY. What a catastrophe that would have been. James and John could have called down fire upon the villages; Herod would have been slain like Ahab; the Pharisees would have met their match; Herodias would have fared like Jezebel. They might have seen all three, as suggested by Peter's rash proposal. His statement, "Lord, it is good for us to be here," seems to indicate that he thought it was better to be there with Jesus, Moses, and Elijah, than to be there with Jesus only. At first glance, this may appear to have been an attractive possibility. It certainly was so for Peter; but such could not possibly be true. Some things bespeak better conditions by their absence than by their presence. If one were able to see the sun, moon, and stars all at once, it would be a dreadfully dark day! Jesus only! This is the message humanity needs. He is the only Saviour, the only Mediator, the only Authority in heaven or upon earth. He is the only means of access to God (John 14:6), the only hope of the world, the only Judge of the world, and the only Atonement for man's sin. Verse 9 And as they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen from the dead.Silence was commanded because nine of the apostles had not witnessed the transfiguration, and there was a possibility of jealousy developing among them, as indeed it did a little later; also the primary reason, as noted earlier, was the need not to compromise the Saviour's death which he would soon accomplish in Jerusalem. An extremely important supplement to Matthew's account is in Luke who gave the subject matter of the conversation between Jesus and Moses and Elijah. "(They) spake of his decease which he was about to accomplish in Jerusalem" (Luke 9:31). This conversation was calculated to encourage and reassure the apostles who had been severely shocked and disheartened by the Saviour's revelation of his death and sufferings, to be followed by his resurrection. It seems that the apostles focused all their attention upon his death and continue not to realize, though they had been told, that he would also rise from the dead. The subject matter during the transfiguration showed that the death of Christ was a part of the Master Plan and that it was of the utmost concern and interest on the part of all previous generations as represented by Moses and Elijah. It also revealed Christ as the Great Architect of the crucifixion. Evil men, dominated by Satan, would have their part in it, but only Christ would accomplish his death. These events, coupled with the sublime conversation, should have enabled the apostles more readily to accept the somber events of his approaching passion. Verse 10 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elijah must first come?This question shows that the evil insinuations of the scribes had done their work even in the apostles' hearts. Their recognition of Elijah on the mountaintop probably caused them to think that Elijah would "restore all things" as was expected of him; but then, upon reflection, it appeared that such a momentary appearance as they had just witnessed would not allow time for such a mission. They promptly asked Jesus about it. Verse 11 And he answered and said, Elijah indeed cometh, and shall restore all things: but I say unto you, that Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but did unto him whatsoever they would. Even so shall the Son of man also suffer of them. Then understood the disciples that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.A difficulty, to some, appears in the use of the future tense in Matthew 17:11, causing the conjecture that there are two fulfillments of the prophecy of Elijah's coming, the first being in the coming of John the Baptist, the other to come near the end of time when Elijah will appear (so goes the speculation) and "restore all things," before the second advent of our Lord. Interesting as this speculation is, it is rejected on the simple words of the text to the effect that Christ was speaking of John the Baptist. The tense, whether future or not, should give no concern. In assigning a study of the Old Testament, a professor is well within the bounds of legitimate speech when he says, "Now Abraham comes before Moses, and Moses comes before David." The utmost accuracy of our Lord's word must be allowed; but the possibility of just such a misunderstanding was anticipated and eliminated by the plain assertion, "He spake unto them of John the Baptist." Also, "Elijah is come already!" Verse 14 And when they were come to the multitude, there came to him a man, kneeling to him, and saying, Lord have mercy on my son: for he is epileptic, and suffereth grievously; for oft-times he falleth into the fire, and oft-times into the water.The word "epileptic" as used in the English Revised Version (1885) is an error, as may be seen by consulting any Greek lexicon or commentary. The word is "lunatic." This class of disease was given separate listing in Matthew 4:24, and doubtless many of this kind were healed. In the case here, there is the additional complication of demon possession. The fact that there was a double affliction could have accounted for the difficulty the disciples had in healing the boy, failing, in fact, to do so. (See on Matthew 8:28). Verse 16 And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him.The latent doubt planted in the apostles' hearts by the Pharisees must surely have played a part in the inability to heal the lunatic. Their faltering faith, coupled with the double difficulty at hand, made them powerless to effect a cure. These same disciples had once returned with joy over the fact that demons were subject to them in the name of Christ (Luke 10:17 ff); but then they were powerless in the presence of that lunatic boy. This indicates the difficulty the apostles had in maintaining their faith under the rising attacks of the Pharisees, the revelation that Christ would suffer death, and the temporary absence of Jesus with three of their number on the Holy Mountain. Verse 17 And Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I bear with you? bring him hither to me.This blanket indictment of all present, including the Twelve, especially the nine who had failed, gives an insight into the frustration which threatened the Master's heaven-born mission to men. How long was this to continue? Had all the miracles and wonders gone for nothing? Instead of growing in faith, the apostles were obviously weakening under the withering climate induced by Pharisaical opposition to the Master and the waning of his popularity that resulted from the campaign of his foes in Jerusalem. Nevertheless, he did not lose patience with them but prepared to perform another mighty wonder before their eyes. Verse 18 And Jesus rebuked him; and the demon went out of him: and the boy was cured from that hour.Christ succeeded, of course, even though his apostles had failed; thus his name and honor were vindicated. A strange sidelight on this cure is the obvious fact that not all demon-possessed persons were morally corrupt. There is no suggestion of such in the case here. Just how Satan's servants were able to possess even innocents on some occasions is not revealed. The verse here is Matthew's first intimation that a demon was involved, but Jesus' words immediately afterwards left no doubt. Christ rebuked, not the disease, but the demon. As Trench observed, all disorders in nature are traceable to their fountain source in the kingdom of evil, whose head is Satan. Other graphic details are given by Mark, describing Jesus' conversation with the father and the final tearing of the child as they brought him to Jesus. (See also Luke 9:42). Spurgeon saw in the intensified activity of the demon a pattern of Satan's vigorously increased opposition against those who are in the act of coming to Christ for salvation. He wrote, "Sinners, when they approach the Saviour, are often thrown down by Satan and torn, so that they suffer exceedingly in their minds, and are well nigh ready to give up in despair."[6] Any gospel minister can recall instances of mighty oppositions to souls on the brink of decision for Christ. ENDNOTE:[6] Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Sermons (New York: Funk and Wagnalls), Vol. 2,297. Verse 19 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast it out?They discreetly waited until they were alone with Christ, avoiding embarrassment that might have resulted from asking him publicly; and, in view of the reasons Jesus gave, they were correct in the exercise of such prudence. Verse 20 And he said unto them, Because of your little faith: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.The reasons for the apostles' failure were (1) their lack of faith, (2) the double difficulty of the case at hand, and (3) their failure to exercise the privilege of prayer and fasting. At this place in Matthew, some very ancient authorities include Matthew 17:21 which reads, "But this kind goeth not out save by prayer and fasting." Mark 9:29 reads, "This kind can come out by nothing, save by prayer." The disciples had some faith, else they would not have tried to cast it out. The fact that they had previously cast out demons but could not cast out that one shows that some demons are more malevolent and stubborn than others. This opens a whole field of questions regarding the character and variety of demons, but the Scriptures afford little information on such a point. The necessity for prayer (certainly) and fasting (perhaps) was stressed. The child had long been possessed by the demon, and the usual pattern of demonic destruction was evident in the danger incurred from falls into the fire and into the water. It is noteworthy that Satan's purpose, wherever revealed in Scripture, invariably appears destructive. In the cases of Job (Job 1:16), Judas (Luke 22:3), the swine (Matthew 8:32), and in many others, death and destruction always resulted quickly when Satan or his emissaries had a free hand to work their will. Nothing shall be impossible unto you, is a very strong statement by the Lord. One is tempted to make our Lord's remark about removing mountains mere hyperbole, but no such restriction seems justified from the text. To the true believer, and especially to the apostles, all things were possible through faith. To every true child of God, all moral and material difficulties vanish. The tragedy is that most disciples, like the nine in the case here, are hindered by seeds of doubt and unbelief, and perhaps also by the lack of fervent and devoted prayer. Verse 22 And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be delivered up into the hands of men; and they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised up. And they were exceeding sorry.THE SECOND OF JESUS' PASSIONOne additional and very significant detail is added by this recapitulation of the prophecy of his Passion. That is that he would be "delivered up," or "betrayed" as the word is translated in Matthew 10:4 (English Revised Version (1885) margin). From Mark, it is known that Christ at that time had returned to Galilee and was in retirement there, using every possible means to instruct and prepare the apostles for the awful events looming so near in the future. The fact that they were "exceeding sorry" shows what enormous difficulty attended this revelation for them. It was, in fact, incomprehensible; and most of the things Christ taught them on that subject were to remain unrealized by them until after the events. Looming nearer and nearer were the dark scenes of Calvary, blotting out their view of the oft-repeated promises of his resurrection. The ability of finite men to understand so gargantuan a fact as God in Christ dying for the sins of the whole world was strained to the breaking point. Never was there a better example of the weakness of the flesh (all flesh) than in the shocked and perplexed attitude of the Twelve. They had been given all the facts, but full realization would come afterwards. The curtain rings down on the retirement in Galilee. We may suppose that Jesus stressed over and over the sad out of the Passion; and the apostles, unable to comprehend it, nevertheless remembered his words which would spring up in their hearts unto eternal life as soon as the gloom of Calvary was drowned in the light of his resurrection. Verse 24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received the half-shekel came to Peter, and said, Doth not your teacher pay the half-shekel?This half-shekel was a Jewish poll tax levied annually for the support of the temple, a tax which Jesus perhaps had paid often in the past; but the appearance of the solicitors with an inquiry placed a different face on things. IF Christ paid the tax, it would mean, in a sense, that he was laying claim to no special dignity but was accepting the status of an ordinary Jew, rabbis being exempt. To be sure, Jesus might have claimed exemption as a Jewish rabbi, or teacher; but to have done so would have compromised his higher claim to be the Messiah, which claim was widely known, though disputed by his enemies. A refusal to pay it would have involved him as a technical lawbreaker; and it is likely that the dilemma involved in these various facets of the problem was what prompted the inquiry in the first place. The poll tax was generally left to voluntary compliance; for centuries no enforcement structure existed and no penalties for default were prescribed or enforced. However, about the time of Christ, regulations had been posted, with mild penalties; but these were rarely enforced.[7] ENDNOTE:[7] A. Lukyn Williams, op. cit., p. 179. Verse 25 He saith, Yea. And when he came into the house, Jesus spake first to him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? The kings of the earth, from whom do they receive toll or tribute? from their sons, or from strangers? And when he said, From strangers, Jesus said unto him, Therefore the sons are free.Peter was probably completely unaware of the dilemma posed for Christ in the matter of payment, or non-payment, of the half-shekel; but, in his quick and ready impulsiveness, he accepted the obligation for Christ and himself also. Jesus' speaking to Peter first showed that he knew what had taken place without need of any report from Peter. Only God has such omniscience; and this is therefore another instance in which the deity of Christ is implied and affirmed by all that was said and done. Where did Christ learn the skilled Socratic method of teaching by asking questions, thus drawing from Peter's own mouth the essential truth he sought to convey? His wisdom was from above, and he needed not that any man teach HIM. Peter had already confessed Jesus as God's Son, making him a Son of the King, in the highest and truest sense of those words. The well-known fact that the children of kings' palaces were exempt from taxation was thus elicited from Peter that he might see that Jesus was exempt from the half-shekel tax. The tax was for God, the true King; Jesus was his Son, therefore Jesus was exempt. Furthermore, the half-shekel was in the nature of a ransom or atonement; and how could he who came to give himself a ransom for all be required to pay this trifling temple tax as ransom for himself? Though Christ had perhaps paid this tax in the past (based upon Peter's ready acceptance of the obligation), he was now the declared Messiah, and to pay it then would involve some inconsistency, hence the necessity for Jesus to be absolutely sure that Peter recognized his true status of exemption. In spite of all this, and to avoid focusing on an insignificant detail, Christ paid it anyway, although in such a manner that he could never be charged with having done so in any sense of renunciation of his high office as the world's only Redeemer. Verse 27 But, lest we cause them to stumble, go thou to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a shekel; that take, and give unto them for me and thee.In paying that temple tax, Jesus did so out of charity and good will, not out of obligation. Trench wrote: Christ was a Son over his own house, not a servant in another's; the head of the Theocracy, not one of its subordinate members - so that it was TO HIM in his Father that offerings were to be made, not FROM HIM to be received.[8] Christ's submission to this tax reminds one of his request for baptism at the hands of John the Baptist. There, he might likewise have claimed an exemption, which fact John strongly affirmed, but he did not claim it. It was his perfect observance of all obligations and, as in the case here, his going beyond all true obligations in order to do that which was becoming, thus leaving no cause for offense, that enabled him to say that he had come to "fulfill" the law and the prophets. Born under the law, he came not to destroy, but to fulfill, its every provision in the most perfect and exacting sense. The miracle of the coin in the fish's mouth does not appear to be one of outright creation, but rather one of absolute and perfect control over all things in nature. The existence of a fish with a coin in its mouth, which it had swallowed and was too large to go down, is not hard to understand. There have been many examples similar to this; and Wilson tells of a cod caught with a watch in its stomach, and the watch was still running![9] The miracle is seen in the absolute power and knowledge of the Master who directed the fish to Peter's hook and at the precise moment required. Trench wrote: We see here, as at Jonah 1:17, that in the lower spheres of creaturely life, there is unconscious obedience to him; that these also are not out of God, but move in him, and are, without knowing it, for grace or for judgment, the active ministers of his will.[10] Note also that Christ never touched the money. There is no evidence that he ever did. On the occasion of the question about the tribute money, he said, "Show me the tribute money!" Money was apparently something that others touched, but not the Saviour. [8] Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Miracles (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell, 1953), p. 409. [9] A. Lukyn Williams, op. cit., p. 181. [10] Richard C. Trench, op. cit., p. 164. J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Matthew Chapter SeventeenThe Transfiguration, Matthew 17:1-13. (Mark 9:2-13; Luke 9:28-36) 1. after six days.—Six days after the time of the conversation last mentioned. Peter, James, and John.—There were two objects to be considered in selecting witnesses of the transfiguration; first, to insure the desired secrecy (verse 9); and second, to insure from the event itself the best final results. On account of the preeminence which these three apostles now had and were yet to acquire, they were the most likely to turn to good account the impression which the scene would make on themselves, and they were probably the most likely to keep the event a secret until the time should come for making it known. The present increase of their faith would also bring an indirect advantage to the entire company, even though the others knew not what had caused it. biThe scene of the transfiguration was formerly supposed to be Mt. Tabor, a very beautiful conical mountain west of the lake of Galilee; but as Jesus was on his tour to Cæsarea Philippi, which town was situated at the base of Mt. Hermon, it is now generally believed that the latter is the mountain mentioned in the text. Moreover, Mt. Hermon better corresponds to the designation "a high mountain;" for it is the highest mountain in Palestine, being about 10,000 feet above the level of the sea. Its top is covered with almost perpetual snow, and is visible from high points in all parts of Galilee and Judea. Some lofty terrace on its side would have been in every way a suitable spot for the transfiguration. 2. transfigured before him.—Transfigured means changed in form, yet the description indicates only a change in the appearance of his person. Though "his face did shine as the sun," we suppose that the features maintained their natural form; and though "his raiment was white as light"— that is, light reflected from some polished surface— we suppose it was unchanged in other particulars. It is impossible for us to realize his appearance until we shall be like him and see him as he is. (1 John 3:2.) 3. Moses and Elias talking.—It must have been from the course of the conversation that the disciples learned that the visitors were Moses and Elias; for they could not have known them by sight. They talked, as we learn from Luke, about his decease, which he should accomplish at Jerusalem. 4. Then answered Peter.—There was a divine attraction in the scene, a foretaste of heaven's own glory, and no wonder that Peter exclaimed. "It is good for us to be here." But his proposition to build tabernacles (σκήνας, booths made out of branches from the trees) for the three glorified persons to dwell in, was hasty and inconsiderate. The best excuse for it is the one given by Mark: "He knew not what he should say: for they were frightened." It shows that men in the flesh are not pro pared to judge of the fitness of things in the spiritual world. In all probability many of our most cherished conceptions of that world are as incongruous as that of the frightened Peter. 5, 6. While he yet spake.—The scene had been witnessed long enough by the disciples, and it was abruptly terminated by the introduction of another. The entire transaction, as we may safely infer from Luke's narrative, occurred in the night. (Notice, that Jesus had been praying until the disciples were "heavy with sleep;" and that they came down from the mountain "on the next day." Luke 9:28 Luke 9:32 Luke 9:37.) Out of the womb of darkness had suddenly appeared the three glowing forms of Jesus, Moses, and Elijah, and now, while the disciples were trembling at that sight, there floats near to them out of the same darkness a cloud all radiant with light like that which shone from the face of Jesus, and as it begins to overhang them, they hear that voice which has never yet been heard by mortals except with fear and trembling. It came just as Peter's incongruous proposal had escaped his lips, and it is no wonder that the three fishermen "fell on their faces and were sure afraid." This is my beloved Son.—The words uttered are a repetition of the oracle which was heard at the Jordan (3:17), with the addition of the significant words, "Hear him." This command contains the chief significance of the entire scene. Uttered in the presence of Moses the lawgiver, and of Elijah the prophet, it meant that Jesus should be heard in preference to the law and the prophets. In the exalted preeminence thus bestowed on Jesus, accompanied by a change of his appearance harmonious with the glory of his position, his divine majesty was displayed in a manner never witnessed on earth before or since. Peter afterward presented this view of the transaction, when he wrote, "We followed not cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard when we were with him in the holy mount." (2 Peter 1:16-18.) 7, 8. they saw no man.—Their prostration when they heard the voice of God prevented them from seeing the departure of Moses and Elias, and the disappearance of the glory. When Jesus touched them and told them to arise, he alone was before them, and he was there in his natural appearance. 9. Tell the vision to no man.—To have published abroad the vision could at that time have done no good; for the people would have discredited the story and would have reflected adversely on the veracity of the three disciples. But to lock up the secret in the breasts of these three was to cause them to reflect on it much and to converse with one another about it often. Furthermore, the more intensely and the longer it burned within them as a secret, the more joyously would they speak of it when the proper time arrived, and their own miraculous powers rendered credible all that they said of it. That they told it then is evident not only from Peter's words above quoted, but from its being recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, none of whom were witnesses of the event, and all of whom wrote before the publication of Peter's epistle. 10-13. the disciples asked him.—Expecting a literal fulfillment of Malachi's well known prediction concerning the coming of Elijah (Malachi 4:5-6), the disciples were surprised that when he appeared on the mountain he did not remain to do the work predicted of him; hence their question. Jesus teaches them a second time that Malachi used the name Elijah figuratively to represent John the Baptist. (12, 13. Comp. note on 11:14.) An Obstinate Demon Cast Out, Matthew 17:14-21. (Mark 9:14-29; Luke 9:37-43)14. to the multitude.—From the expression "When they were come to the multitude," we infer that Jesus and the three had left a multitude when they went into the mountain, and that they now return to the same. 14-16. have mercy on my son.—The father's description represents the son as a lunatic subject to fits. The term lunatic (moonstruck), and the Greek word which it here represents (σελνιαζω), came into use from the superstitious belief that the affliction was caused by a malign influence of the moon; and this idea arose from the fact that in some cases of insanity the symptoms vary at monthly intervals. But although the term originated in this way, it is applied in usage to all kinds of insane persons; consequently we can not infer from its use in this case that the young man's insanity was periodic, or that his father supposed it to be caused by the moon. On the contrary, as we learn from Mark's account, the father believed, as our text represents (18), that the affliction was caused by a demon. The failure of the disciples to cast out the demon increased the distress and anxiety of the father as he came to Jesus and kneeled down before him with his petition. 17. O faithless and perverse.—This lamentation, showing that Jesus had become wearied and saddened by the constant manifestations of insufficient faith among his disciples, was not addressed to the father of the youth, but to the disciples and the multitude. Some infidel writers have represented this speech as a manifestation of impatience and irritation inconsistent with the perfection of character ascribed to Jesus. If it were true that the speech exhibits impatience and irritation, it would still be a question whether these feelings, kept under proper restraint, are inconsistent with a perfect human character. The rebuke itself was certainly just, and, under the circumstances, altogether proper; then why should the feeling which naturally accompanies such a rebuke, be improper? The perfection of human character consists not in the impassiveness of a statue, but in the just and harmonious exercise of all the emotions which belong to our nature. 18. the child was cured.—The unsuccessful attempt of the disciples argues nothing against the miraculous powers of Jesus, seeing that the demon departed immediately when commanded by him. It proves only that the disciples did not at this time fully exert the power over demons which Jesus had imparted to them. 19, 20. Because of your unbelief.—In order to work a miracle it was necessary not only to have a miraculous endowment, but also to exercise faith. This is declared in the Savior's answer, and it had already been indicated to the disciples at the time of Peter's attempt to walk on the water. (14:31.) The faith in question was the belief that what was commanded would be done— faith in the power with which they were endued. When they spoke doubtingly to the demon he had power to resist them. faith as a grain of mustard seed.—Faith comparable to a mustard seed is very weak faith; and if this would enable them to remove "this mountain" (the lofty Mt. Hermon), how weak must be the faith they had exercised! This remark added a rebuke to the explanation. 21. by prayer and fasting.—As weakness of faith was the point of failure, we understand that the prayer and fasting would be effective, not by imparting directly the power in question, but by intensifying their faith, and thus enabling them to fully exert the power which had been imparted to them. That "this kind" goes not out but by prayer and fasting, shows that it was more difficult to cast out this kind than some other kinds. Demons, like spirits in the flesh, are characterized by different degrees of will-force, and the one in question was an obstinate demon. (See the parallel in Mark, where the account is more circumstantial.) Second Prediction of His Death, Matthew 17:22-23. (Mark 9:30-32; Luke 9:43-45)22. while they abode.—While they were yet abiding in Galilee, subsequent to the transfiguration, and before their departure into Judea. Again, as on the first occasion (see note on Matthew 16:21), Jesus makes the discouraging announcement of his death at a time when their faith in him was in liveliest exercise. Three of them had just witnessed his transfiguration, and all had seen a demon, whom they could not cast out, depart promptly at his command. 23. exceeding sorry.—The effect of the second prediction was quite different from that of the first. Then Peter rebuked his. master, and uttered an expression of incredulity (Matthew 16:21-23); but now they were exceedingly sorry. Their sorrow arose partly from the disheartening thought of his death, and partly, no doubt, from the fact that he persisted in repeating an announcement which they knew not how to credit. Argument of Section 12We have now reached the close of the tour to Cæsarea Philippi; for the first verse of the next paragraph (verse 24) locates Jesus again in Capernaum. The history of this tour and of the one to lyre and Sidon, contains proofs of the claims of Jesus not only conclusive but overwhelming. The casting out of two demons, one from the girl near Tyre and Sidon, and the other from a boy at the foot of Mt. Hermon, the innumerable cures at the lake shore, and the feeding of four thousand hungry men with seven barley loaves and a few little fishes, have once more exhibited his divine power; while his compassion for the woman of Canaan, and his unwillingness to send the four thousand away hungering, have exhibited once more his goodness. It is also shown, by the conversation at Cæsarea Philippi, that no one in Galilee, not even his enemies, counted him less than a prophet, while his immediate attendants, who had the best opportunity for judging, had reached the assured conviction that he was the Christ, the Son of the living God. The two predictions of his own death proved his divine foreknowledge, and his consciousness of being engaged in a mission of self-sacrifice; while the vision of the transfiguration at once displayed his divine majesty, and proclaimed him the supreme lawgiver and the prophet of prophets. Matthew here brings to a close his account of the public career of Jesus in Galilee, reserving for the next and last section of this general division of his narrative only a private conversation between him and his disciples. We think that the reader who will carefully review the arguments of the several sections will realize that they present an array of evidence that could not be honestly resisted; and that the Galileans who had seen them all, but still refused to believe and repent, most richly deserved the woes that Jesus uttered against them. And if the sentence pronounced on them was just, what shall be said of those in our day who repent not though they see all that the Galileans saw, and all yet to be related by Matthew and the other New Testament historians, and see all in the light which the accumulating evidence of centuries has thrown upon them? "How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?" The Temple Tribute, Matthew 17:24-2724. Doth not your master pay.—The question of the collectors implies that the tribute was not compulsory, but voluntary; and that consequently it was not the Roman poll-tax, for it was compulsory. (See further below, on 25, 26.) 25. Jesus prevented him.—The word prevent has here its primary, but now obsolete sense. Derived from the Latin prevenio, to go before, or to precede, it means here to anticipate. From the fact that you get before a man to hinder him, the word acquired the sense in which it is now currently used— a sense which it has acquired since our English translation was made. Everywhere in the Bible it means to precede, or to anticipate. 25, 26. of whom do the kings.—The argument is this: As the kings of the earth take tribute from strangers, and not from their own children, so I, being a Son of the King for whom this tribute is collected, should be free from paying it. It is clear from this argument that it was the Jewish temple tribute which was in question; for the force of the argument depends on the assumption that Jesus was a son of the king for whom the tribute was collected. (For an account of this tribute, see 2 Chronicles 24:5-6; Exodus 30:12-16.) 27. lest we offend them.—Basing his compliance now on the ground of expediency, and not on that of absolute right, Jesus tells Peter how to get the money, and directs him to pay it. When the hook was cast and almost instantly brought up a fish with a piece of money of the required value in its mouth, Peter saw another proof that Jesus was truly the son of the king for whom the tribute was demanded. His foreknowledge that Peter would catch the fish, and his power in putting the coin there were both exhibited. piece of money.—The Greek word (στατ́ηρ) is indefinitely translated, because the value of the coin would not be known to the common English reader from its name. It was the Attic stater, about equal to the Jewish shekel and to the American half-dollar. As this paid for Peter and Jesus both, the amount of the tribute for each person was the same that had been prescribed by Moses— a half-shekel. (Exodus 30:13.) Questions by E.M. Zerr For Matthew 171. How many days till the next event? 2. Who were the witnesses? 3. To what place were they brought ? 4. What happened to Jesus? 5. Describe the appearance of his face. 6. And of his raiment. 7. Who appeared next? 8. What showed they were conscious ? 9. Where had Moses been? 10. What happened to Elias? 11. How was Peter impressed? 12. State his proposition. 13. What interrupted his speech ? 14. Repeat the words they heard. 15. How did they differ from those at his baptism ? 16. At this scene what did the disciples do? 17. How were they revived? 18. When it was done who were to be seen ? 19. What were they to keep secret? 20. Until when were they to do so? 21. Whom were they still expecting to come? 22. What subject would he talk about? 23. Would that have violated the charge just heard? 24. How was the confusion explained? 25. What experience like John’ s was Jesus to have? 26. Rejoining the multitude who came to Jesus? 27. What was his trouble ? 28. How did he show his respect for Jesus ? 29. What previous relief had he sought? 30. How did Jesus describe that generation? 31. He then performed what work? 32. What was the result ? 33. Who were puzzled by all this ? 34. State the explanation Jesus gave. 35. How should their faith have been manifested? 36. Are any miracles impossible because of greatness? 37. Where were they abiding? 38. Of what treachery did Jesus inform them? 39. After betrayal what would be done? 40. What about the third day? 41. How were they affected? 42. To what city did they come? 43. Who approached Peter ? 44. What was their inquiry? 45. State his answer. 46. Was Jesus aware of this conversation? 47. State the question he asked Peter. 48. And the answer. 49. Was it correct? 50. Why did Jesus not take advantage of the fact ? 51. How was the situation met? 17:1 After six days means after the last conversation Jesus had with his disciples. There seems to have been a peculiar nearness between Jesus and these three apostles, for they are mentioned as a sort of trio a number of times (Mark 5:37; Mark 14:33). Jesus selected them to be witnesses of the unusual scene that he knew was coming, and took them with him into a high mountain. 17:2 Transfigured is from META-MORPHOO which Thayer defines, "To change into another form, to transfigure, transform," and he comments on the word as follows: "To be resplendent with divine brightness; used of the change of moral character for the better." It is the word for "transformed" In Romans 12:2, and for "changed" in 2 Corinthians 3:18. It is the source of our English word "metamorphosis" which Webster defines, "2. A striking alteration in appearance, character, or circumstances." With all this authoritative information before us, we understand the meaning of our verse is that Jesus underwent a change in his appearance so that his face shone, and even his raiment was glistening white. However, his body was not replaced literally, and the change in his appearance did not prevent the apostles from recognizing him. 17:3 We have a very interesting assemblage here. The apostles had not died and hence represented the fleshly state. Elias (Elijah) had been transferred to heaven without death and represented the eternal state. Moses had died and represented the intermediate state. There were good men from each of the three states of intelligent creatures, thus representing the whole universe of beings responsible to God for their past or present conduct. A person in the flesh cannot see spiritual beings ordinarily, but God can adapt all circumstances to whatever purpose the case demands. He wished the apostles to see these men from the intermediate and eternal states and performed such miraculous changes as were necessary. That was (lone either upon the eyes of the apostles or the form of the other men. 17:4 In Mark's account of this event he states that Peter "wist not [knew not] what to say." He was overcome by the scene, yet had a feeling of reverence towards the three great persons in the group; Jesus, Moses and Elias, and proposed providing a suitable housing place that they might be retained longer. 17:5 This announcement was like the one that God made at the baptism of Jesus with the additional word hear ye him. (See chapter 3:17.) At the time of his baptism Jesus had not performed any of his great works nor done any of his teaching. He now was nearing the close of his earthly work and the apostles were supposed to be ready for an authoritative declaration concerning the rank and position of him with whom they had been so closely associated. The setting of the conversation was significant due to the importance of the main characters in the scene. Moses was the lawgiver of the Old Testament system and Elias (Elijah) was one of the great prophets who lived under that system. Those men were not to be regarded as the authorities under whom the apostles will be expected to work, but instead they were to take their instructions from the Son in whom the Father was well pleased; they were to hear him. 17:6 Afraid is from PHOBEO and Thayer says the word in this place means, "to be startled by strange sights or occurrences." The appearance of the two men from the other states did not overcome them, but this mighty voice and its announcement struck them with a feeling of awe so that they prostrated themselves on the ground. 17:7 Jesus assured his apostles that nothing would harm them. 17:8 The purpose of the great scene was accomplished and Moses and Elias returned to their proper places. They saw no man. The last two words are from OUDEN which Strong defines, "Not even one, i. e., none, nobody, nothing." This indefinite form of speech was appropriate in view of the unusual manner in which Moses and Elias had appeared, for they were evidently not just like other men except to such a degree that they could be recognized by the apostles. 17:9 For the explanation of this verse see the comments at chapter 16:20. 7:10 The disciples mistook the Elias spoken of by the scribes to be that prophet literally, who was to announce the mission and divinity of Jesus. Now they were forbidden to make a like statement until after that divinity has been proved by the resurrection. If they were not allowed to make statements on that subject, why should Elias be permitted to do so. 7:11 Shall oome is future tense in form but Jesus was only quoting the prophecy of Malachi. To restore means to bring about a reformation in the lives of the people of Israel (Malachi 4:6; Luke 1:16-17). 7:12 Jesus then explained that it was not in person that Elias was to come. In other words. by describing the treatment that "Elias" received from the people who did not recognize his place in God's plan, the disciples perceived the point of the Lord. 7:13 The disciples did the proper kind of reasoning and it gave them the correct conclusion, and was a demonstration of the thoughts offered at chapter 13:1G, 17. 7:14 The act of the man kneeling down to Jesus was one form of worship. The reader should see the various meanings of the word in the comments at chapter 2:2. 7:15 Being possessed with a devil did not affect all people alike. That could be caused by either of two things; the peculiar condition of the victim at the time or the kind of devil that had entered into him. In the present case it caused the son to become a lunatick according to the Authorized Version. This word is from which Thayer defines, "To be moon-struck; to be epileptic," and in commenting on the word be says, "epilepsy being supposed to return and increase with the increase of the moon." Of course the people named the condition according to their theories as to the causes of disease, not knowing that it was the presence of the devil. 7:16 Could not cure him denotes the belief that the son had some serious disease as was explained in the preceding verse. It is true that the being possessed with a devil would sometimes result in a disease, in which case the casting out of the devil would be equivalent to performing a cure. 7:17 This criticism concerning the lack of faith was meant for the disciples as we shall see at verse 20. How long, etc., was an expression of displeasure at the amount of long-suffering he was called upon to show towards them. Then addressing the father of the child he told him to bring the afflicted one to him. 7:18 When anyone is being dealt with because of some condition brought on by his own sin, he is the person who is rebuked. Being possessed with a devil was not a sin but an affliction, hence the Lord rebuked the- devil. The child was cured from that very hour which was unlike the performances of professed miracle workers today who insist on having "plenty of time." 7:19 When Jesus chose his twelve apostles and sent them out to preach, he told them also to perform certain miracles. Among them was that of casting out devils (chapter 10:8), hence it was natural for them to be concerned about their failure. 7:20 The charge of their unbelief means their faith did not go far enough; it did not grow as it should. Jesus then used the mustard grain for an illustration of that subject. It will help us to grasp the meaning of the comparison if we consider the same event as recorded in Luke 17:6. The apostles asked the Lord to "increase" their faith, and in answer to the request he made the comparison to the grain of mustard seed. We also should remember the comparison between this grain and the kingdom of heaven in Matthew 13:31-32. It is clear, therefore, that the reference to the mustard seed was on the principle of growth. Their faith should have grown instead of their expecting Jesus to "increase" it by some special means independent of their own part in the matter. Of course a grain of mustard seed or any other seed could not grow had not the Creator furnished it with the materials necessary for that growth in the earth and air. And likewise, Jesus had given abundance of evidence by his miracles and teaching to have caused them to have increase in their faith to the point where they could not only cast out this devil, but also remove a mountain if such needed to be done. 7:21 Howbeit is an obsolete word meaning "nevertheless," indicating that some special point is about to be made. This kind is from GENOS which Thayer defines, "The aggregate of many individuals, of the same nature, sort, species." Goeth out is from which Thayer defines, "To go forth, go out, depart." He explains the definition to mean, "demons, when expelled, are said to go out (to wit from the human body): Matthew 17:21." Robinson defines the word, "To go out of, to go or come forth," and he explains it to mean, "Spoken of demons, absolutely Matthew 17:21." We do not know why this class of devils required the special performance of prayer and fasting before yielding and coming out of human beings. We are certain, however, that at some time Jesus had given his apostles the instructions that should have induced them to show the faith necessary to be patient and use the weapons of prayer and fasting against the devil. Their faith had not led them that far and hence they failed to overcome the devil. 7:22 Before leaving Galilee Jesus predicted his betrayal. 7:23 Not only was Jesus to be turned over to wicked men of the world, but he was to be killed and raised the third day. The apostles were exceeding sorry because of the prediction of his death, and that sorrow seemed to blind their minds to the other prediction of his resurrection. When the sad affair had taken place the disciples showed such forgetfulness as we may learn in Luke 24:13-27. 7:24 Capernaum was a city of Galilee and the chosen residence of Jesus (chapter 4:13). When he and his apostles entered this city Peter was approached by those who collected the tax that was for the upkeep of the temple. Robinson says this was "the yearly tribute to the temple paid by every Jew," hence Pete was asked if his master did not pay that tax. 7:25 Peter answered in the affirmative and intended to speak to Jesus about it. But when he came into the house where Jesus was he prevented him which means he could read his mind and hence anticipated what he was going to say. But the Lord changed the subject somewhat and the tribute he mentioned is from a word that means custom or taxes that should be levied upon foreigners. 7:26 Jesus and his apostles were citizens of that nation and would not rightly be under obligation to pay such a tax. 7:27 While not strictly bound to pay this tax, Jesus decided to pay it rather than offend the collectors, and enabled Peter to get the money by a miracle. Matthew 18 "THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Chapter Eighteen Answering a question by His disciples, Jesus taught the need for child-like humility and the danger of offenses to others and to self (Matthew 18:1-9), followed with the parable of the lost sheep (Matthew 18:10-14). Further instructions included how to deal with a sinning brother (Matthew 18:15-20) and the need for a forgiving heart illustrated by the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matthew 18:21-35). POINTS TO PONDER * The need for humility, and concern for others in the kingdom * Dealing with a sinning brother, and the importance of forgiveness REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter? - Kingdom greatness and the danger of offenses - Matthew 18:1-9- The parable of the lost sheep - Matthew 18:10-14- Discipline and prayer - Matthew 18:15-20- The parable of the unforgiving servant - Matthew 18:21-35 2) Who will be greatest in the kingdom of heaven? (Matthew 18:1-5) - Those who are converted and humble themselves like a little child 3) How old was the little child that Jesus used as an example? (Matthew 18:6) - Old enough to believe, old enough to sin 4) What types of offenses does Jesus warn against? (Matthew 18:6-9) - Being an offense to believing children, and letting personal weakness cause you to sin 5) What parable illustrates the Father’ s concern for the lost? (Matthew 18:12-14) - The parable of the lost sheep 6) In dealing with a sinning brother, what steps should be taken? (Matthew 18:15-18) - Go and tell the brother his fault between you and him alone - If that doesn’ t work, take one or two more with you to serve as witnesses - If that doesn’ t work, tell it to the church - If that doesn’ t work, then no longer associate with him 7) What increases the likelihood that God will answer prayer? (Matthew 18:19-20) - When two or three pray together 8) How many times should we be willing to forgive a brother? (Matthew 18:21-22) - Up to seventy times seven (490); cf. seven times in one day, Luke 17:3-4 9) What grave warning is in the parable of the unforgiving servant? (Matthew 18:33) - "So My heavenly Father also will do to you..." Matthew 18:1-35 Verse 1 Mat 18:1-35 OF RANK; -BLOCKS; THE PARABLE OF THE LOST SHEEP; ONE'S DUTY TOWARD ; THE PARABLE OF THE SERVANTIn that hour came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven? (Matthew 18:1) The term "greatest" is actually "greater" in the Greek, but the meaning is the same. The apostles had been disputing among themselves concerning preeminence and places of honor in the approaching kingdom. The events of the last chapter had revived their hopes of an earthly kingdom; and the prospect of Jesus' death (they seemed continually blinded to the repeated promises of his resurrection) accentuated their concern over who would be head man afterwards! A great proportion of earth's sorrows flow directly from the vain ambitions of men for preferment and advantage. Barker related how: Someone once asked George Bernard Shaw in which age he would most have enjoyed living. The witty Irishman flashed, "The age of Napoleon." "Why?" he was asked. "Because," replied Shaw, "then there was only one man who thought he was Napoleon!" The Napoleon problem was present even among the apostles. They too were infected with the "I deserve to be first" virus.[1] ENDNOTE:[1] William P. Barker, As Matthew Saw the Master (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1964). p. 97. Verse 2 And he called to him a little child, and set him in the midst of them.That little child was possibly Peters', since the Lord was a guest in Peter's house. Dummelow noted the tradition that "It was Ignatius the Martyr, afterwards the Bishop of Antioch."[2] All innocent young children manifest the same wonderful qualities, and the identity of the child is irrelevant. ENDNOTE:[2] J. R. Dummelow, One Volume Commentary (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 685. Verse 3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.Benjamin Franklin, the great Restoration preacher, found in this text one of a triad on the subject of conversion. The expression "turn" or "turn again" is translated "be converted" in the KJV. The other two texts are Acts 3:19 and Acts 28:27. The three texts represent instruction directed to three different classes of persons, depending upon their spiritual development. These are: (1) believers who needed to repent (Matthew 18:3), (2) unbelievers (Acts 28:27), and (3) believers whose repentance was anticipated (Acts 3:19). From these three texts it is clear that Biblical conversion has three phases - faith, repentance, and something additional (baptism) - these separate phases being accomplished by obedience to the gospel and involving three distinct changes in the individual. Franklin taught that the three changes are: (1) a change of mind; (2) a change of will; and (3) a change of state or status. Thus, faith was appointed to change the mind, repentance to change the will, and baptism to change the status. Significantly, these also sustain a certain relation to time, past, present, and future. Thus, faith changes the present, repentance changes the future, and baptism changes the past. In the case here, need for repentance by the believing apostles sprang from their sin of worldly pride and ambition, as attested by their striving for position and preeminence in the approaching kingdom. Verse 4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me: but whoso shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it is profitable for him that a great millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depth of the sea.The particular qualities of little children commended by Jesus are humility, freedom from prejudice, teachableness, lovableness, trustfulness, faith, freedom from anxiety, and innocence. Receiving a little child in Jesus' name refers to complete acceptance of a child-like believer because of his innocent and unrestrained trust in the Lord. The warning in this passage applies specifically to one who causes the loss of a human soul. Such a sinner shall suffer a fate worse than death. "The great millstone" in this place means literally "a millstone turned by an ass," and contrasts with the smaller millstones turned by hand (see the margin of the English Revised Version (1885)). Why is the fate of such an offender worse than death by drowning? Because eternal death will be his reward. Verse 7 Woe unto the world because of occasions of stumbling! for it must needs be that the occasions come; but woe to that man through whom the occasion cometh!The divine plan calls for man to be tried, tested, and tempted. Satan and the forbidden tree were in Eden BEFORE sin entered. God desires the love of his children; and true love requires that there be freedom of the will and opportunity to make a choice. The opportunity for temptation does not reduce the guilt of sinners, nor does the necessity for temptation mitigate the guilt of those through whom temptation comes. The expression "must needs be" speaks of a heavenly compulsion upon all things. The great issues of time and eternity proceed from God, and no appeal (or escape) from his total authority is possible. That heavenly compulsion was laid even upon Christ while he was in the form of man. He MUST be about the Father's business (Luke 2:49), MUST preach the kingdom of God (Luke 4:43), MUST put new wine in new flasks (Mark 2:22), MUST work the works of God (John 9:4), MUST suffer death (Mark 8:31), and MUST reign until all enemies are put under foot (1 Corinthians 15:25). There MUST be heresies (1 Corinthians 11:19), MUST be wars (Mark 13:7), MUST be tribulations (Acts 14:21-22), MUST be offenses (above), MUST be separation from the visible presence of Christ (Acts 3:21), and Satan MUST be loosed for a little season (Revelation 20:3). This sovereign MUST overshadows the Bible. The Scriptures MUST be fulfilled (Luke 22:37), and they MUST be preached (Mark 13:10). The apostles found this heavenly MUST written against them also (Acts 1:21-22); elders MUST be blameless (1 Timothy 3:8); preachers MUST forbear striving (2 Timothy 2:24-26); all worshipers MUST worship in Spirit and in truth (John 4:24); all who desire salvation MUST believe (Hebrews 11:6), MUST be saved in the name of Christ (Acts 4:12), MUST repent (Luke 13:3), and MUST be baptized (John 3:7). In death, there is an exception. Not all MUST die (1 Corinthians 15:51), but all MUST put on immortality and all MUST stand before the judgment seat of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:10). This is quite different from the old proverb about nothing's being certain except death and taxes, death being one of the few things not certain! Verse 8 And if thy hand or thy foot causeth thee to stumble, cut it off and cast it from thee: it is good for thee to enter into life maimed or halt, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into the eternal fire.Most commentators, ancient and modern, make Christ's word here a metaphor applicable to the individual who should give up the most cherished friendship, indulgence; or habit, if such hinders spiritual life. It is also applied to the church itself which should put away evil members, even of the highest positions, lest the whole body of the church be contaminated. Thus, Dummelow has, "This giving up of what is pleasant and lawful, because to us personally it is a spiritual peril, is what our Lord means by plucking out the right eye and cutting off the right hand."[3] Tertullian said that these words were uttered "by way of similitude.[4] Irenaeus wrote, "Those who led vicious lives and put other people astray, were condemned and cast out, so also, even now, the offending eye is plucked out, and the foot and the hand, lest the rest of the body perish in like manner."[5] In the physical realm, amputations of various kinds daily illustrate the validity of our Lord's words. Removal of a mortally infected member is required for the preservation of life. The use of strong metaphor, as in the case here, frequently marked the teachings of Christ. Another example is "This is my body!" (See also under Matthew 5:29-30). [3] Ibid., p. 642. [4] Tertullian, On Idolatry in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Company, 1957), Vol. III, p. 64. [5] Irenaeus in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, p. 500. Verse 9 And if thine eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is good for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into the hell of fire.See on Matthew 18:8, above. The lesson is identical in these cases and is repeated for emphasis. Special attention is directed to the Saviour's teaching on eternal punishment. See notes on Matthew 25:41. See under Matthew 5:29-30. Verse 10 See that ye despise not one of these little ones: for I say unto you that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.The subject of worldly ambition was still under consideration. Seeking for prominence and chief seats always leads to despising the poor, the lowly, and the humble; but Christ made it emphatically clear that in his kingdom such persons, described as "one of these little ones," are of the most transcending importance, and that the highest ranking angels in glory are charged with watching on their behalf. See more on angels under Matthew 1:20. In 2 Kings 25:19, certain ministers were spoken of as being "in the king's presence," an example of Oriental monarchies in which so-called "ministers of the face" held higher rank than others. Verse 12 How think ye? if any man have a hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and go unto the mountains, and seek that which goeth astray? And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth over it more than over the ninety and nine which have not gone astray. Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.THE PARABLE OF THE LOST SHEEPChrist spoke this parable twice, evidently for a different purpose on each occasion. In this instance, it stands for the infinite love and solicitude the Lord has for the very least of his human children; but in Luke's account of it, it appears to have been spoken as an argument against the Pharisees who would go to a lot of trouble for a lost animal but had no regard for a lost man. The parables are the same, but they are spoken with significant variations (Luke 15:3-7). In the Scriptures, goats are used to represent sinners, and sheep represent Christians. The lost sheep, therefore, represents a child of God who has become a backslider, who is separated from the fold, and from the Shepherd. Note these facts about a lost sheep: (1) It is absolutely defenseless, having no weapon of any kind, no gift of speed in flight, no cunning, no means of deception, its very cries being only a signal for the enemy to close in for the kill. Let every backslider behold here his helplessness apart from Christ. (2) The sheep has no sense of direction. A carrier pigeon would surely be able to return to its nest; a dog might find its way home, but a sheep? Never! (3) A lost sheep is surrounded by enemies, even the elemental forces of nature being hostile and often fatal to him when separated from the fold. The parable suggests the earthly mission of Christ, the Good Shepherd, who left the joys of heaven to wander amid the bleak scenes of earth to recover lost and sinful people. It also has an application to the church, or flock of God, in that the true place for every sheep is in the fold. There is no safety for the sheep separated from the Shepherd and the fold. The rejoicing of the Shepherd is stressed in this case; but in Luke's account, the rejoicing in heaven is emphasized. Matthew 18:11 omitted in the English Revised Version (1885), appeared in many of the ancient versions and certainly bears some relevance in this context: "For the Son of man came to save that which was lost." IN THE PARABLEThe man with one hundred sheep is God. The ninety-nine sheep are the faithful ones. The one that went astray is the backslider. The seeking for the lost is God's search for the unsaved. The rejoicing represents God's pleasure over those who repent. The fold (not mentioned, but implied) is the church, or fellowship with God. The mountains stand for the dangers to backsliders. Verse 15 And if thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between thee and him alone: if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.The exclusive reference of the words of this verse to PRIVATE offenses only, and the rejection of their application to so-called PUBLIC offenses is without doubt an error, ably supported, widely received, and skillfully advocated by some of the great minds in the church of all ages, but still an error. It is God, not men, that should be obeyed. Macknight wrote, "Such are the rules which our Lord would have us observe in matters of private offense."[6] McGarvey stated that "This rule of procedure is given only for cases of personal offense, where one individual has sinned against another."[7] Many other examples of the prevailing view could be cited; but "upon what authority" is such a bold limitation grounded? It is significant that the view, when stated, is not supported by the Scriptures; and in some cases where Scriptures are cited, they simply do not apply. Thus, Macknight quoted 1 Timothy 5:20, "Them that sin, rebuke before all, that others may fear." But where is the authority in that for omitting the first and second admonitions? That the first and second admonitions do actually apply to "public" sins as well as private ones, appears from Paul's words to Titus, "A factious man, after a first and second admonition, refuse" (Titus 3:10). A factious man is a leader or promoter of a faction, an offense which, by its very nature, has to be PUBLIC! Yet Paul's instructions to Titus prove that our Lord's method, including the first and second admonitions, was honored even in cases like that. Another passage sometimes cited as a release of our Lord's instruction here is that of Paul's public rebuke of Elymas (Acts 13:9-10); and yet it simply cannot be that the conduct of that inspired, Spirit-moved apostle is license for some preacher to sound off in public about the sins of any person of his acquaintance or in his congregation. Even Paul's withstanding Peter to his face, and the stern words publicly addressed to Peter on that occasion (Galatians 2:11), come under the category of Spirit-inspired utterances, essentially unique, and not intended as a repeal of the Lord's method outlined in the passage under consideration here. Let it be remembered that Paul acted under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit, under the immediate authority and commission of God himself, that he sustained absolutely no danger of being mistaken, and that he was not in either case dealing with an ordinary brother. Peter was a fellow apostle; Elymas was a notorious child of the devil, enjoying the status of a prime minister. The view advocated here does not in any sense exclude the necessity of exposing wrong-doers before the whole church publicly, but we believe it is our duty to affirm that this can be done Scripturally, only after the first and second admonitions. In some 35 years of the ministry, countless cases have been observed by this writer in which the FIRST effort to correct some alleged sin or error has been an ugly blast from a pulpit or in some religious paper, always justified, of course, on the basis that the alleged wrong-doing was a "public" matter, and therefore requiring no private confrontation with the "wrong-doer"! A careful study of Mat 5:23-24; Matthew 18:15-17 and Galatians 6:1 will prove that there are no exceptions to Christ's injunction requiring spiritual persons to go to the offender first alone. That some people do not obey this injunction cannot remove it. It is the solemn conviction of this expositor that many of the divisions and sorrows that have come upon the church of our generation would have been prevented by a due regard to our Lord's words in this and related verses. When Christ's plan is tried, the usual result is gaining the offending brother; but when Christ's plan is thwarted, when public condemnations have been sounded abroad, it is then often too late to redeem the offending brother. His pride, feelings, and reputation, already compromised, make it exceedingly more difficult to effect an humble admission of his wrong and a penitent return to the truth. [6] James Macknight, A Harmony of the Four Gospels (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1950), Vol. II, p. 177. [7] J. W. McGarvey, New Testament Commentary (Delight, Arkansas: Gospel Light Publishing Company, 1875), Vol. I, p. 159. Verse 16 But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established.Yes, these words were spoken before Pentecost, but they are nevertheless binding upon the church and Christians of all ages. They were uttered specifically for the purpose of outlining procedures for discipline in "the church," as attested by the use of such terminology by the Saviour. See the following verse. Verse 17 And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican.The mention of "the church," or "the congregation" as it is in the Greek, shows that this rule was propounded by Christ for observance on the part of his followers in all ages. And how is the rule usually observed? By its gross and unfeeling violation! When one feels wronged by another in the church, the temptation is for him to seek out some personal friend or confidant, and to elaborate the real or fancied wrong by embellishing it with every possible coloring and emphasis, thus spreading hate against the offending party. Telling the elders, the deacons, or the preacher, or anyone else, of the evil detected in another is wrong (until after the first admonition); and even after the first admonition, the greatest number to be acquainted with it is two others (see Matthew 18:16). Go to the offender first! That is God's commandment! Those who depart from it, preferring some other way, do so at their eternal peril. Verse 18 Verily I say unto you, What things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.All of the apostles, not merely Peter alone, were included in this promise. See under Matthew 16:19. Its mention in this context appears to make the action of a church in the rejection of an offending member a matter of the utmost consequences, now and eternally. See under Matthew 16:19. Verse 19 Again I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father who is in heaven.The greater efficacy of multiple prayers is indicated here. It cannot be understood how prayers of two persons may be more efficacious with God than the prayers of only one, but the fact is affirmed by Christ. Note that Jesus invariably said, "MY Father," whereas he always taught his disciples to pray, "OUR Father"! The uniqueness of Christ is seen in this observance. With himself, Christ's unique relationship to God was always in view. Verse 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.This is one of God's most precious promises. Providential care on the part of God for his church is always available. The smallness of the church or its relative insignificance in the community is not a determining factor in God's concern for its peace and welfare. Two or three faithful disciples are enough to claim the Father's blessing. There is, however, one supremely overriding condition: that they be truly gathered together in the name of Christ. This means, by his commandment, by the authority of his will and teaching, in obedience to his specific commandments. and as his word directs. All gatherings are not covered, but only those where the full purpose is undertaken, as Jesus said, "in my name." It is, to be sure, a mystery how Christ can be present everywhere, and this mystery is set forth in Revelation 1:12-13, in which the Son of God is seen among the seven golden candlesticks (his churches, or congregations). Christ's presence is not restricted to some vague "up there," but he is in his body, the church. Verse 21 Then came Peter and said to him, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?This indicates that Peter had indeed made excellent progress but that he had not yet arrived at true spiritual discernment. His suggestion of forgiving seven times went considerably beyond the maxims of the rabbis who admonished forgiveness three times but not four times, basing their position upon the word of God to Amos, "For three transgressions of Damascus and for four, I will not revoke the punishment" (Amos 1:4). Even Peter's relatively magnanimous forgiveness until seven times, however, fell far short of Jesus' requirement of unlimited forgiveness (see on Matthew 6:14-15). Verse 22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times; but, Until seventy times seven.Christ did not mean that Christians should keep a ledger, exactly calculating a precise number such as 490, or using a variant reading, 70 times and 7. This simply means that a Christian must have the spiritual resources to keep on forgiving. Forgiveness of others was made a constant pre-condition of man's forgiveness by the Father, not only in these words of Jesus here, but upon other occasions as well. The business of forgiveness is so important that Christ immediately introduced one of his longest parables in order to reinforce the teaching and repeat the absolute necessity of forgiveness at the conclusion of it. Verse 23 Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, who would make a reckoning with his servants. And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, that owed ten thousand talents. But forasmuch as he had not wherewith to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. And the lord of that servant, being moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt. But that servant went out and found one of his fellow-servants, who owed him a hundred shillings: and he laid hold on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay what thou owest. So his fellow-servant fell down and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee. And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, until he should pay that which was due. So when his fellow-servants saw what was done, they were exceeding sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done. Then his lord called him unto him, and saith unto him, Thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou besoughtest me: shouldest not thou also have had mercy on thy fellow-servant, even as I had mercy on thee? And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due.THE PARABLE OF THE SERVANTThere are a number of remarkable analogies in this heart-moving parable. The conduct of the unmerciful servant is so wicked as to be almost incredible. IN THE PARABLE OF THE SERVANT(It will be noted that this is the first of the parables in which God is represented under the analogy of a king). 1. God is represented by the king in this parable. 2. All men are servants of the king. 3. The servant with the enormous debt stands for every unredeemed sinner on earth whose debt is so large that it is impossible for him to pay it. 4. The king's forgiveness, without any merit on the part of the unmerciful servant, indicates God's grace. 5. The unfeeling conduct of the unmerciful servant shows how God looks upon the refusal of his children to forgive others. 6. The king's forgiveness "because thou soughtest me" shows that sinners need only to apply (in the proper way) in order to be forgiven. They need not "pay" anything. 7. The ultimate punishment of the unmerciful servant shows that all forgiveness is contingent upon the continuing faithfulness of the redeemed. Jesus certainly taught in this that one may fall from grace. 8. Those who have received mercy must give mercy, or else have the mercy they have already received revoked. The size of the debt is significant. The English Revised Version (1885) margin shows a talent worth about $1,000; but even that enormous sum falls short of the truth. If, as seems likely, the Hebrew gold talent is meant, the figure becomes truly astronomical. Eight thousand talents was the construction cost of Solomon's temple! (1 Chronicles 29:4-7). Barker appraises this debt thus: To give some idea of what a colossal debt this was, the total tax income of the five provinces of Palestine (Judea, Perea, Idumea, Samaria, and Galilee) was only eight hundred talents. In other words, the servant's debt was over ten times the amount of the national budget.[8] The sale of the wife and children, as a proposed partial payment, rested upon the general assumption that they were his property. The utter lack of anything with which to pay shows, as Trench said, "the utter bankruptcy of every child of Adam as he stands in the presence of a just God, and is tried by the strictness of the holy law."[9] Paul's comment relative to being "carnal, sold under sin, etc.," emphasizes the same thing (Romans 7:14). There is a nice distinction in comparing Matthew 18:26 and Matthew 18:29. The unmerciful servant "worshipped" his lord (who stands for God in the parable), whereas his fellow-servant only "fell down and besought" his creditor. Origen hailed this parable as a real jewel, pointing out that the Scriptures are very strict in indication, always, that worship belongs only to God. The King in this place stands for God; the unmerciful servant did not; hence, his debtor does not appear worshipping him. The fault of the unmerciful servant was his failure to realize the enormity and absolute hopelessness of his debt. His earnest promise to repay it showed that he did not have the slightest conception of how much he owed. He appeared to be blind to the fact that one hundred lifetimes would not allow him sufficient space to repay it. This blindness later ruined him. A note of self-righteousness appears in his entreaty that if only a little time should be allowed he would repay it all! So many sinners fall into the same fault; their case, so they think, is not really so bad after all; they can make amends; their debt is nothing they cannot handle if allowed a little freedom; they can get along all right if merely let alone! Oh, how utterly beyond self-redemption is the plight of sinful man. Let all unsaved persons behold in this parable the plight of every sinner. And let the saved take care to forgive others if they would not incur the whole debt again! The unmerciful servant's pitiful plea for mercy and his acknowledgment of that monstrous debt were all that was required to obtain mercy. What an encouragement to sinful man! It is not repayment which God demands, seeing that it is impossible in the first place, but the true and righteous beholding one's self in the true light of his own worthless and bankrupt condition, that makes one an eligible claimant upon the divine mercy. The Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory finds no support here. The forgiveness the king extended to the unmerciful sinner was total, complete, and uncluttered with any penalties whatsoever. It would also have been permanent if the servant's conduct had not led to its revocation. That he later fell into condemnation was not due to any quality lacking in the full and free pardon that he received, but was due to his later conduct. The size of the smaller debt is also significant. It was one hundred shillings, about $20, compared to $10,000,000. Christ said that "With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you" (Matthew 7:2). The unmerciful servant, however, would have had it otherwise. He would receive by one measure and measure to others by a different measure. So he thought. The spectacle of his fellow-servant falling down before him in supplication for mercy was a very similar thing to what he himself had done only a little while before. How strange it is that he felt no mercy, no little touch of pity, no forgiveness for one whose plight must surely have reminded him of his own. He could have alleviated the distress of his fellow-servant with such trifling cost to himself that one can only wonder at a heart so calloused. And yet, this outrageous occurrence is made by Jesus to stand as the true picture of all his followers who will not forgive others. Even the worst of offenses committed by men against Christians are as nothing compared to the offenses all have committed against God. The tragedy of this heartless act was further compounded and multiplied by the fact that, failing to recognize the port in which he himself had so lately escaped shipwreck, he nevertheless dragged the unfortunate off to prison, thus unconsciously condemning himself and revoking his own pardon. The sorrow of the lesser debtor and the sorrow of all the fellow servants at what was done shows that it is not merely in heaven that sorrow flows from a knowledge of man's sin, but on earth too. When recipients of God's mercy become themselves bitter, vindictive, and unforgiving, all who behold it, in heaven or upon earth, are shamed and grieved by it. A Christian simply does not have the right, in any case, to withhold forgiveness from others. The re-arraignment of the unmerciful servant saw him confronted with the king's sharp question, "Shouldest not thou also have had mercy on thy fellow-servant, even as I had mercy on thee?" His sin was not that, while NEEDING mercy, he refused it to another; but that while having mercy, he denied it to another. Those who have been forgiven must forgive. The great problem in the parable is in the fact that after the unmerciful servant was forgiven, he yet landed in the hands of the tormentors until he should pay it all. The wise words of Richard Trench give the true explanation: Nor may we leave out of sight that all forgiveness, short of that crowning and last act, which will find place on the day of judgment, and will be followed by a blessed impossibility of sinning any more, is conditional - in the very nature of things so conditional, that the condition in every case must be assumed, whether stated or no; that condition being that the forgiven man continues in faith and obedience ... which this unmerciful servant had failed to do.[10] Note a little further with reference to the doctrine of purgatory. Roman commentators make much of the fact that the unmerciful servant was delivered to the tormentors TILL he should have paid all the debt. How strange it is to see the same commentators who so diligently labored to show that this same word had an opposite meaning in the case of Joseph not knowing Mary "till" she had brought forth her first born son, etc. (Matthew 1:25), laboring just as diligently to deny the same meaning here; As a matter of fact, the word "till" does have two meanings, and only the context may finally determine which is intended. In the case above, the debt is hopeless, and the expression "till he should pay all" does not envision any time, however remote, at which one should be able to work out a debt so large as this, even in purgatory! Again to quote Trench: When the Phocaeans, abandoning their city, swore they would not return till the mass of iron which they had plunged into the sea appeared once more upon the surface, this was the most emphatic form they could devise of declaring that they would never return; such an emphatic declaration is this one.[11] [8] William P. Barker, op. cit., p. 89. [9] Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Parables (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1953), p. 155. [10] Ibid., p. 164. [11] Ibid., p. 165. Verse 35 So shall my heavenly Father do unto you, if ye forgive not every one his brother from your hearts.The sine qua non, without which no man can be saved, is a forgiving heart. The above teachings of the Master on forgiveness are the most pointedly illustrated, the most elaborately portrayed and the most urgently repeated of any of his teachings. Even if one has been forgiven (as was the unmerciful servant), even if someone does wrong him (as was done to the unmerciful servant by the one who owed him a hundred shillings) - no matter what the temptation to do otherwise, the law of the Lord is: FORGIVE; UNTIL SEVENTY TIMES SEVEN TIMES! J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Matthew Chapter EighteenAbout Who shall be Greatest, Matthew 18:1-9 (Mark 9:33-37; Luke 8:46-50) 1. Who is the greatest.— The form in which Matthew quotes the question of the disciples, would leave it uncertain whether they meant which person, or what character, would be greatest in the kingdom; but from a reference to the same question made by Luke (Luke 22:24), we learn that the former was their meaning. In his answer Jesus takes the question in the other sense, and tells them the character which would be greatest. 2-4. Except ye be converted.— Except ye be turned. (See note on Matthew 13:15). The expression has reference, not to turning from sin in general, but to turning from the particular sin of personal ambition which had exposed itself in their question. The little child was placed in their midst, and made their model in this particular because of its well known freedom from this passion. The humblest shall be the greatest because they will live the most unselfishly and be the most like Jesus. 5. one such little child.— The term "such" is not used to distinguish this particular child from others; for all little children are alike in the particular referred to, and this was indicated in the preceding words, "become as little children; "but "such" is used to limit the term child to the character who has become like a little child. The remark, then, has no reference to receiving little children, but to receiving those who have become like little children in their freedom from personal ambition. In the next verse the same character is designated as "one of these little ones that believe in me." 6. whoso shall offend.— Whether we render the original (σκανδαλιζω) offend, or ensnare, the thought is practically the same. Contentions as to who shall be greatest always give offense, and at the same time, by exciting evil passions, they ensnare the persons engaged in them. Jesus desired that his disciples should see this tendency of their discussion, and to show how fearful the final result would be to the offender, he assures them that it were better for such to have a millstone hung about his neck, and to be cast into the sea. It were better, because his actual fate will be worse than that. (Comp. 8, 9.) 7. Woe unto the world.— By a natural transition Jesus here passes from the particular cause of offense under consideration, to offenses in general. "It must needs be that offenses come," not because it is the will of God that they should come, but because the depravity of men makes them inevitable. For this reason he adds, "Woe to the man by whom the offense cometh." No man should look for the day when there will be no offenses but each should see to it that he is not the cause of them. 8. if thy hand or thy foot.— The hand and the foot in this verse, and the eye in the next, are used as symbols of those desires by which a man is caused to offend, or is ensnared. As the original term (σκανδαλίζω) has in it both the idea of ensnaring so as to cause a fall, and of offending as a result of the ensnaring, Jesus uses it in this connection sometimes with the one idea more prominent, and sometimes with the other. The former is the prominent idea here. We are taught that it is better to deny ourselves all the gratification which the indulgence of those desires would give, even if the denial should be as painful as the loss of a limb or an eye, than to suffer the consequences of indulgence. 8, 9. everlasting fire... hell fire.— These two expressions are here unquestionably used as equivalents. Being cast into hell fire, or everlasting fire, is made the alternative of entering into life. The life referred to can not be physical life, nor spiritual life, for the disciples had already entered into both of these; it must, then, be eternal life, and the alternative, being cast into hell fire, must mean, being consigned to eternal punishment. Par better to undergo all conceivable self-denial and suffering in this life, than to be cast into that fire. Against Despising a Disciple, Matthew 18:10-14. 10. that ye despise not.—To despise (καταφρονω) is not to hate, but to regard with contempt. We are not likely to so regard any but those who have Binned or who are supposed to have sinned, and the reference, as the context below more clearly shows (Matthew 18:12-14), is to such disciples. their angels.—This expression shows that the "little ones" in question have angels which are in some sense theirs. All the angels are "ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation;" but this general ministration is effected by a ministration for particular individuals. "Their angels," then, are the angels especially charged with ministering to them individually. The fact stated of these angels is that "they do always behold the face of the Father in heaven"— a fact which shows the efficiency of their guardianship, seeing that in addition to their own power they have access to the helping power of God. The fact that these weak disciples have such angels to watch over them, makes it exceedingly preposterous that we should despise them. 11. For the Son of man.— Here is another good reason for not despising an erring disciple; but it is omitted from the text by the critics. It was doubtless copied from Luke 19:10, where it is genuine. 12-14. Even so.—This parable illustrates and enforces the lesson in hand. As it is not the will of the shepherd that one stray sheep should perish, even so it is not the will of God that an erring disciple shall perish. And now, if the shepherd does not despise the foolish sheep, and leave it to perish because it has gone astray, and if God does not despise the erring disciple, why should we despise him? On the one hand, the disciple is of much more value than a sheep, and, on the other, God against whom he has sinned could much more properly despise him than we who are so much like him. How to Deal with an Offending Brother, Matthew 18:15-20. 15. trespass against thee.— The word rendered trespass (μαρτση) means to sin; and the clause should be rendered, "if thy brother sin against thee." In the former part of the discourse Jesus had warned the disciples against giving offense, or in any way mistreating a brother; now he tells them how to proceed when a brother sins against them. go and tell him his fault.— More correctly rendered "go and (ἔλεγζοναὔτον) rebuke him. The character of the rebuke is indicated by the object of it, which is to gain the brother. He is supposed to have committed that sin which is described above (verse 6) as being worse than to have a millstone about the neck, and to be cast into the sea; and he is therefore lost, for the time at least, to duty and to friendship: the object of the rebuke is to win him back to both. Observe, too, that it is not, as men are inclined to have it, the offender, but the offended who must go. True, it is elsewhere made the duty of an offender, when he remembers that his brother has aught against him, to go and be reconciled to his brother ; but according to the teaching of the present paragraph, the offended is not to wait for this. The offender has fallen into sin, and without help he may never recover from it. You, who have not sinned, but have only been sinned against, have an opportunity to Have him, and you may thus be like the shepherd of the preceding paragraph— you may avoid the sin of despising an erring disciple. It is well also to observe that the time, place and circumstances of going to the offending brother are not specified, but must, like the matter and manner of the rebuke, be chosen with reference to the one purpose of gaining the brother. Go at a time, and select a place, and seek for other surroundings, which are moat favorable to success in your effort. 16. one or two more.— The one or two more are to be taken primarily for the same purpose with which you at first went alone— the purpose of gaining the brother. This is implied in the scope of the context. But secondarily, in case of a failure, the one or two may serve as witnesses of all that passed between the parties. 17. tell it to the church.— Only when both of the preceding steps shall have been taken and found ineffectual, is the sin to be reported to the Church. Then, as is implied in the words "if he shall neglect to hear the Church," the Church is to speak. But a church can speak only through her spokesmen, her officials appointed for the purpose; consequently, the action of the Church's disciplinary officers is here implied. This rule of procedure is given only for cases of personal offense, where one individual has sinned against another. We are to learn from other portions of the New Testament how to deal with offenses of other kinds. The Church is here spoken of before it had an actual existence, because the Savior was giving preparatory instruction and was compelled, as in many other instances, to speak by anticipation. The disciples, at the time, had but an imperfect conception of the Church, but they knew that worshiping assemblies of some kind would be established in the coming kingdom, and to these they necessarily referred the word church, which means an assembly. as a heathen man and a publican.— Not as a heathen and a publican was to the unbelieving Jew, but as such characters are to a Christian. In other words, when a man who has sinned against his brother refuses to hear the Church, he is to be treated as we properly treat heathen men and publicans, or men of wicked habits. We have known persons to express a doubt whether this implies an exclusion of the sinning party from the fellowship of the Church; but to deny that it does would involve a great absurdity. It would require the offended party to live in the Church with a man whom he justly treats as though he were a heathen and a publican; and it would require the Church to hold in her fellowship men who are rightly so treated by her own members. Surely if heathen men and impenitent publicans are to be kept out of the Church, disciples who deserve to be treated by their brethren as heathen and publicans, must be cut off from the Church. 18. Whatsoever ye shall bind.— The binding and loosing of this verse must be limited by the subject of the context, which is the proper treatment of offenders. Binding is the infliction of the penalty of non-fellowship, while loosing is withholding it or removing it in cases of penitence. The promise is that whatsoever the apostles should thus bind or loose would be bound or loosed in heaven; and it follows, that whatsoever the Church now binds and looses in accordance with apostolic precept and precedent is also bound and loosed in heaven. It is from this promise that the act of excommunication derives its peculiar solemnity and its fearful effects. 19. if two of you.— The promise here made is necessarily limited, like all other promises of the kind, by the well understood condition that the thing for which we ask shall be in accordance with the will of God. (See note on Matthew 7:7-8). 20. there am I.— This statement confirms the promise that the prayers of any two of them would be answered, and at the same time it gives us the comforting assurance of the Savior's presence whenever we meet in his name. The Duty of Forgiveness, Matthew 18:21-35. 21. Lord, how oft.—Peter saw clearly that the rules just given would require on our part a large amount or forbearance and forgiveness, and he naturally inquired how many times he should forgive a brother who would sin against him. He seems to have thought that seven times would be often enough. It is highly probable, though by no means certain, that this number had been suggested by some of the Jewish teachers of tradition. 22. seventy times seven.— This is a play on the word seven in Peter's question, and means that there is to be no numerical limitation of the forgiveness enjoined. 23. unto a certain king.— In the comparison which now follows, the kingdom of heaven, as the context shows, is contemplated with regard to the duty of forgiveness, and it is like the king only in this respect, that the administration of its affairs is, in the particular under consideration, analogous to the king's administration in the given case. 24. ten thousand talents.— As a Jewish talent was equal to about $1600 of our American coin, ten thousand talents were equal to $16,000,000. This enormous amount is given in the parable in order to represent the debtor as in a hopeless condition. 25. to be sold.— The law of Moses tolerated the selling of men for debt. (Leviticus 25:39 Leviticus 25:47; 2 Kings 4:1) It seems from verse 3-that in the Savior's time imprisonment was also employed, and the latter penalty for insolvency has been continued among the most enlightened nations until a very recent date. It is only within the present century that it has been abolished in the various States of our own Union. 26, 27. I will pay thee all.— Of course it was impossible for the poor man to pay such a debt, but the promise indicated a right purpose and a strong will, and excited the compassion of the king to such a degree that he forgave him the entire debt. 28. a hundred pence.— The coin here mentioned is the Roman denarius, which was equal to fifteen cents of our money. The fellow-servant's debt, then, was only fifteen dollars. took him by the throat.— The description is very graphic. The debtor, rendered timid by his inability to pay, bears patiently every abuse, while the greedy creditor first lays hands on him as if to shake the money out of him, and then seizes him by the throat as if to choke it out of him, all the time knowing that the poor fellow had no money, yet all the time exclaiming, "Pay me that thou owest." 29, 30. into prison.— To be cast into prison was a more hopeless and painful fate than to be sold into slavery; so that the creditor inflicted a severer punishment on his fellow-servant for the sake of fifteen dollars, than his own master had threatened to inflict on him for the sake of sixteen millions; and he did this while listening to the same humble entreaties by which he had excited his master's compassion. 31. when his fellow-servants.— The fellow-servants acted a very natural part; for no matter how much we are inclined to deal harshly with men ourselves, we are always indignant, when, as disinterested witnesses, we behold such conduct in others. 32, 33. Shouldest thou not also.— While the man was dealing with his fellow-servant, he was forgetful of the king's kindness to him under similar circumstances, or he remembered it only to congratulate himself on his good fortune. He is now reminded of his base ingratitude, and of his obligation to do as he would be done by. 34. to the tormentors.— The king was now in a rage, as well he might be. He recalls his past forgiveness of the debt, and commands, not as formerly, that the man and his family shall be sold, but that he shall be tormented until payment is made. This was equivalent to tormenting him to death; for it was impossible at best for the man to procure so much money, and especially when confined in the hands of the tormentors. 35. So likewise.—The comparison has reference only to the last act of the king, that of delivering the unforgiving servant to the tormentors. The heavenly Father will so deliver all disciples who do not from their hearts forgive their offending brethren. This is the chief lesson of the parable; but in order to reach this lesson the Savior had depicted to his hearers, by the conduct of the king and that of the unforgiving servant, God's forbearance toward us and our severity toward one another. Our sins against God, for which we can make no reparation, and which are freely forgiven us, are like the ten thousand talents, while the sins committed against us, which we are so unwilling to forgive, are like the fifteen dollars. This is a truthful representation of human habits, and at the same time a cutting satire on Peter's idea of forgiveness. We are not to infer, from the fact that the king retracted the forgiveness first granted, that God will do so with us. Our sins, once forgiven, are remembered no more. (.) This, then, is not a significant part of the parable, but it is introduced because it is what a heathen king under such circumstances would be likely to do, and Jesus paints the picture true to life. It is nevertheless true, that if a man, once delivered from sin, turn back to it again, his condition is made worse than if his former sins had not been forgiven. (.) Argument of Section 13In this section there is not the usual amount of argument for the claims of Jesus; yet the manner in which he procured money for the temple tribute exhibited both his divine power and his foreknowledge; and the discourse which fills the eighteenth chapter is replete with wisdom suited to his exalted pretensions. Such lessons on the subject of ambition (Matthew 18:1-9); on the subject of sympathy and care for the erring (Matthew 18:10-14); on the right method of dealing with offenders (Matthew 15-20); and on the duty of forgiveness (Matthew 18:21-35), had never before been taught, nor have subsequent generations been able to discover a defect in them or to suggest an improvement on them. Besides accomplishing the logical purpose of the section, our author has placed these divine lessons on record for the guidance of disciples in all ages. This, indeed, seems to have been the leading object of the section; and eternity alone will be able to reveal the amount of good which will have accrued to the Church from this single discourse of the Great Teacher. Questions by E.M. Zerr For Matthew 181. What did the disciples ask Jesus? 2. How would such a question be suggested ? 3. In reply whom did Jesus call to him? 4. Did he require him to be converted? 5. State the comparison he made. 6. What kind of spirit does the child have? 7. Hovv can humility make one great ? 8. Tell how one may receive Christ. 9. How dangerous is it to offend a believer ? 10. What must needs come? 11. On whom is the woe pronounced? 12. How should we treat an offending hand or foot ? 13. State the reason given. 14. What other organ is used for illustration? 15. Tell what kind of fire is threatened. 16. Whom is it dangerous to despise? 17. What representation do they have? 18. For what purpose did the Son of man come? 19. Is one sheep worth more than another? 20. Which will cause the more concern ? 21. State reason for great rejoicing. 22. Who is represented by the sheep ? 23. What does the Father not will? 24. After a personal trespass who should act first? 25. With whom should he act? 26. How many are to be present? 27. If successful what is the result? 28. If unsuccessful state the next step. 29. What is the object of the witnesses? 30. When does it become a church matter ? 31. If the church is ignored what is to be done? 32. What work on earth is sustained in heaven? 33. How many must agree to obtain favor of the Father? 34. What number is a scriptural quorum? 35. This requires what name ? 36. State Peter’ s question about forgiveness. 37. How much did Jesus increase his number? 38. To what is the kingdom here likened ? 39. State the first order of the king. 40. Why was it recalled? 41. How much was owed to this servant? 42. How much had he owed his king? 43. In what way did he show ingratitude? 44. Tell what was then done to him. 45. Who is represented by the king? 46. And who by the servants? 47. For how long was the one to be tormented ? 48. Can man ever pay for a life of sin ? 49. State the duty this parable teaches. 50. How deep must be the forgiveness? 18:1 The apostles believed that the kingdom of heaven that Jesus had been announcing was to be a restoration of the old Jewish government with perhaps some additional features suited to the times. They maintained this idea even after the resurrection (Acts 1:6). With such a system in mind it was natural for them to ask the question of this verse, for in earthly governments there are men of superiority in rank. 18:2 Little child is from PAIDION and according to Thayer it means a young child somewhat advanced in age beyond infancy; and old enough to have developed some traits of character. Jesus used this child for an illustration of the kind of temperament that would be of the greatest esteem in the kingdom of heaven. 18:3 Be converted has reference to the general rule that was to apply after the kingdom of heaven was set up, and not especially to these apostles. They had been baptized by John upon repentance and had been converted from their past course of life. But even they were in need of a change of mind on the subject of true greatness, otherwise they would not be fit to become members of the kingdom when the time came. But the verses on this matter state the subject as it was to apply to all people in their attitude towards Jesus and his fol-lowers. Become as little children refers to the humility that must accompany any professed belief in Christ and desire for his kingdom. 18:4 The comparison is made directly in this verse. Literal children were not to become members of the kingdom, for they do not need it, but men and women must become as these children on the matter of humbleness. 18:5 Such little child means the same as the little children of verse 3. To receive such a person means to be friendly with him or show hospitality because of his humble character. This is to be done in the name of Christ or because he is a humble disciple of his and is trying to mold his life after his teaching. 18:6 To offend means to cause to stumble or go wrong, which indicates it has reference to those old enough to be responsible for their conduct and also liable to temptation. Such a person is called a little one figuratively because he has complied with verse 3. Physical death by drowning would be a mild fate in comparison with that awaiting one who has caused a humble disciple of Christ to stumble and fall. 18:7 Offences means causes of stumbling or occasions in which a person meets with temptation. Needs be is from ANAGKE and the simple definition of Thayer is, "necessity," and he explains his definition to mean, "imposed either by the external condition of things, or by the law of duty, regard to one's advantage, custom, argument." In a world as large as this with its multiplied hundreds of activities and other circumstances, it would be unreasonable to expect it ever to be free from these temptations. However, that does not justify any man who is responsible for some specific case of offence. :8-9 Since each man is responsible for his own conduct, he should overcome the cause of stumbling whatever it may be in his particular case. The lesson taught by the discarding of the hand and eye is explained at chapter 5:29, 30. Everlasting is from AIONIOS which Thayer defines, "without end, never to cease, everlasting." Hell is from GEHENNA and is explained at chapter Matthew 5:30. 8:10 To despise means to belittle or treat with disrespect, espe cially to do so because of the humble position in life that the person has. These little ones are the same as are described in verse 3. Their angels means the guardian angels that God employs in His care for his children. In Acts 12:15 mention is made of "his angel" when the disciples at a prayer meeting were told that Peter was at the gate. Thayer defines the original word, "angel, messenger of God," and he comments on the word as follows: "Guardian angels of individuals are mentioned in Matthew 18:10; Acts 12:15." We have other evidence that God uses his angels in the care and watchfulness necessary for the welfare of righteous people (Psalms 91:11; Hebrews 1:13; Acts 27:23). We do not know how or when these angels work, for that is entirely in God's part of the divine providence. It is enough for us to have the assurance that such holy creatures are serving God in our behalf. 8:11 The American Standard Version and some other translations omit this verse on the ground that it is not in the early Greek manuscripts. But the same thought is contained in Matthew 9:13, so we lose nothing either way we consider the passage. 8:12 I believe this verse indicates the preceding one is genuine, for it is directly in the same line of thought. If Jesus came to save that which is lost it would be like a shepherd who would leave the sheep that were safely in the fold and go in search of the one that had gone astray. 8:13 We should observe that it is rejoicing and not merely love that the shepherd manifests over the sheep when it is found. He still esteems the 99 as highly as ever, but there is not the occasion for joyous demonstrations over them that there is for the one just recovered. 8:14 This verse goes back to all of the others that speak of the little ones. We are sure they mean the humble disciples and not literally the small boys and girls for they are not in any danger, not being responsible for their conduct. 8:15 When Jesus was on earth he taught many things that could apply only while he lived, and others that were to become a part of the permanent law of his kingdom. The passage starting with this verse is one of the latter, for it includes mention of the church (verse 17) and that would have to be after he had gone back to his Father. Furthermore, there is nothing in the teaching of the apostles that disagrees with this passage, hence we are bound to conclude it is a law of the Lord today. The first thing a brother should do if another does him wrong, is to tell him to his face in the absence of any other person, and without having said a word to anyone else. It may be that the brother does not realize what he has done and will gladly adjust the difficulty. In such an event the trouble will be settled and it should never be made known to another one. 8:16 If the conversation fails to bring a reconciliation it will be evident that a more public knowledge of the affair will have to come. As a protection against any misunderstanding, the next meeting should have one or two witnesses that all things that are said may be proved in case further dealing becomes necessary. 8:17 These witnesses are to be intercessors also, for this verse speaks of the possibility that the offender will not hear them. This denotes that it will be proper for them to have something to say in this second meeting as well as being witnesses in case further controversy is necessary. If this meeting is a failure, the matter will have to become a public affair and the offended party should take his case to the church. The church has the right to hear the complaint and the report of the witnesses, and if it concludes the accused is guilty he should be required to make proper amends. If he refuses to do so he should be excluded which is equivalent to placing him in the same class as the heathen (people of the world) in that he will be put into the realm of Satan (1 Corinthians 5:5). 8:18 This verse is explained at Matthew 16:19. 8:19 One important function of the church is shown in verse 17 and that was still in the mind of Jesus when he spoke the words of this verse. The apostles are given special attention because they were in the church first (1 Corinthians 12:28). But some things can be done without the presence of an apostle; the assurance of this verse comes under that class. We know that an apostle could perform his special function without the presence of another (Acts 19:6), yet this verse requires at least that two shall be present, hence this passage applies to disciples generally. The reason that two of the disciples is mentioned is that is the minimum of them that can compose a unit of the church referred to in verse 17. Agree is from SUM-PHONEO which Thayer defines, "To be in accord, to harmonize, i. e., to agree together." It should be understood that they must agree in the things that are right, which were to be taught in other portions of the law of Christ. In other words, the Lord wishes his church to be united in its activities and perform as a whole while in the doing of things pertaining to the spiritual welfare of all. (See 1 Corinthians 5:4 and 2 Corinthians 2:6.) 8:20 For is from GAB which Thayer defines, "Truly therefore, verily as the case stands," which indicates that the conclusion of this verse is based upon the truth stated in the preceding one. In is from EIS and the passage means for them to gather into the name of Christ. But the name of Christ is confined to his church since all authority and glory must be given him through that body (Ephesians 3:21). Jesus will always be present in spirit when any group of two or more disciples is assembled according to verse 19 and 2 Corinthians 2:10. 8:21 Seven is a prime number and in figurative language means completeness. The question of Peter was equivalent to asking if he should go to the limit in forgiving. 8:22 If seven means completeness then it would not be possible to go any further in the extension of mercy. We therefore understand the statement of Jesus here to have been spoken figuratively for the sake of emphasis. 8:23 See the comments at chapter 13:3 on the scope and subject matter of the parables. No one of them was intended to cover everything pertaining to the scheme of human redemption. Some of them were suggested by a special circumstance, and then Jesus spoke a parable to compare the incident or conversation that called for it. The subject of selfishness toward those who have done us wrong, while forgetting our own sins, was suggested by the question that Peter asked of Jesus. The sins of one brother against another are illustrated by a commercial relationship, evidently because that would make the point easier to see. Yes, this parable was spoken to make the subject easier to understand, but Jesus was talking to his disciples and not to the multitude. 8:24 With the material subject as an illustration we would realize that ten thousand talents ( $2,000,000) would constitute a great obligation. 8:25 According to ancient laws a debtor and his family could be sold into slavery by his creditor to recover the debt; this master threatened to use that law. 8:26 The servant worshiped his lord by falling down and humbly asking for mercy. See the long note at chapter 2:2 for the various meanings of that word. 8:27 It was compassion and not financial justice that caused this lord to forgive the debt. He did not deny the existence and justice of the debt his servant owed him, but was willing to forget about it because it was so great. 8:28 Gratitude should have prompted this man to show kindness to all others with whom he would have any dealings. Instead, he found a man who owed him a hundred pence ($1,600) and demanded payment, at the same time handling him brutally. 8:29 This servant prostrated himself and made the same plea that the creditor had made to his lord, assuring him of making payment as soon as possible. 8:30 Another ancient law permitted a debtor to be put into prison if he failed to make payment. While there he would be induced in some way to make arrangements to pay his debt. 8:31 The ungrateful servant may have thought he would not be exposed to his kind master, but fellow-servants were aware of his conduct and reported it to him. Likewise man often thinks he can elude the eyes of the Lord but all things are known to Him. 8:32 The only reason the lord of this servant forgave his debt was that he desired it, not that it was a favor he had earned. In like manner we are taught that our Master is pleased for us to ask Him for the favor we seek (chapter 7:7-11). 8:33. A simple request brought the remission of a vast obligation In favor of this servant. That fact should have induced him to grant this comparatively small favor that was so earnestly requested by his fellow-servant. 8:34 Tormentors is from and this is the only place where the word is used in the Greek New Testament. Thayer defines it, "One who elicits [obtains] the truth by the use of the rack, an inquisitor, torturor." It is used here to mean an officer who uses strong pressure to force the debtor into the acknowledgment of his debt and to take some action necessary to meet it. 8:35 If unworthy man will not forgive his fellow being, he need not expect the Father to forgive him, but instead to deliver him into a place of endless punishment where he will be "tormented" (Matthew 25:46). Matthew 19 "THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Chapter Nineteen In response to another test by the Pharisees, Jesus spoke on the issues of marriage, divorce and celibacy (Matthew 19:1-12). Little children were brought to Him, whom He blessed (Matthew 19:13-15). When a rich young ruler questioned Him concerning eternal life (Matthew 19:16-22), Jesus used the occasion to teach His disciples about possessions in relation to the kingdom of God (Matthew 19:23-30). POINTS TO PONDER * Jesus’ teachings related to marriage, divorce, and celibacy * Possessions and rewards in reference to the kingdom of God REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter? - Marriage, divorce and celibacy - Matthew 19:1-12- Jesus blesses the little children - Matthew 19:13-15- The rich young ruler - Matthew 19:16-22- Possessions and the kingdom - Matthew 19:23-30 2) Who is it that joins a man and woman in marriage? Matthew 19:1-30 :(6) - God, not the state (government) 3) What exception does Jesus allow for divorce? Otherwise, what occurs? (Matthew 19:9) - Sexual immorality; adultery, cf. Matthew 5:32 4) What price might be necessary for some to enter the kingdom of heaven? (Matthew 19:12) - To make themselves eunuchs (i.e., to remain in an unmarried state) 5) What did Jesus say about little children? (Matthew 19:14) - "Let the little children come to Me . . .for of such is the kingdom of heaven." 6) What did Jesus counsel the rich young ruler? (Matthew 19:17; Matthew 19:21) - For eternal life, to keep the commandments (of Moses, still in force at that time) - To be perfect, sell all and give to the poor, and follow Him 7) What did Jesus say about being rich and the kingdom of heaven? (Matthew 19:23-24) - It is hard for the rich to enter the kingdom - It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle 8) What did Jesus promise to His apostles who left all to follow Him? (Matthew 19:27-28) - To sit on thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel in the regeneration 9) What did Jesus promise to all willing to leave much to follow Him (Matthew 19:29-30) - A hundredfold blessings in this life; in the life to come eternal life, cf. Mark 10:29-30 Matthew 19:1-30 Verse 1Mat 19:1-30 ABOUT DIVORCE; JESUS LITTLE ; THE RICH YOUNG RULER; JESUS' RICHESAnd it came to pass when Jesus had finished these words, he departed from Galilee, and came into the borders of Judaea beyond the Jordan; and great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there. (Matthew 19:1-2)This verse marks the end of the Galilean ministry and the beginning of the Perean ministry, according to Robertson, who placed the time interval between these two chapters at about six months,[1] placing these events in the later Perean ministry. Immense crowds continued to follow Christ, and countless healings took place. ENDNOTE:[1] A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Four Gospels (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950), p. 141, footnote. Verse 3 And there came unto him Pharisees, trying him, and saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?The Pharisees were not asking for information but in the hope of opening up a conflict between the teachings of Moses and those of Christ. This is actually an unconscious admission on their part of the weakness in Moses' permission of divorce because, if Christ had agreed with Moses, they would have had no case. The proof of weakness in Moses' position is that they instinctively knew Christ would not agree with it! Why? They knew in their hearts that Moses was wrong (or at least partially so); and, intuitively, those evil men recognized in Christ a higher purity and knowledge than existed in Moses and decided to take advantage of it if they could. Verse 4 And he answered and said, Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female.As always, Christ referred the issue to higher ground, not to what Moses said, but to what God had said. Bypassing Moses altogether, he rested his case upon the word of God, appealing to Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 5:2. Verse 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh? So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.Jesus' answer was plain, even blunt. God does not allow divorce. There's really no problem at all about knowing God's will. To be sure, problems and difficulties occur, but from what sinful men do, not from any ambiguity regarding what God commanded! "What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Divorce is man's will, not God's will. How shocking this truth must have been to the Pharisees who not only allowed, but also practiced, divorce on a colossal scale. How shocking it is for many today! People have no trouble knowing the truth on this question, but they do have quite a problem trying to make what they do bear the light of this truth! See under Matthew 19:9. Verse 7 They say unto him, Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away?Convicted as they were by Jesus' words, nevertheless they strove to place Christ in conflict with Moses. They should have known from the Sermon on the Mount that Christ claimed greater authority than Moses, but what they were seeking in this instance was a cause celebre to aid their campaign against Jesus' popularity with the people. Verse 8 He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it hath not been so.There was, in the case before them, no conflict with Moses. Christ set the record straight, correcting their false statement that Moses had "commanded" divorce. On the contrary, he only permitted it, or "suffered it," as an unwelcome choice between two evils. This is still the only possible justification of divorce, there being cases in which it must appear as the lesser of two evils but still wrong, permitted and yet not in harmony with the Father's perfect will. Verse 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.Christ's exception does no violence to God's word. Divorce is still an evil; but, in the case of adultery of one of the partners, it is a lesser evil than living with an unfaithful spouse. Permitted in such a case? Yes, but the dissolution of marriage is contrary to God's law. Paul's exception in 1 Corinthians 7:15 is not an addition to the one given by Christ in this place but should be viewed as presumptive evidence of the condition named in Jesus' exception. Desertion by one of the marriage partners affords the strongest presumption of adultery also. The law of God is easy to understand. Problems arise only from the complications that set in when people sin, giving rise to all kinds of fantastic situations. For those who find themselves entangled in such frustrations and contradictions rising out of violations of God's basic law, it is not recommended that they "solve" their problems in the dim light of human legislation, but rather by casting themselves upon the mercy of God. Vast numbers of situations exist today for which no proper or truly adequate solution is possible. Human laws, the opinions of ecclesiastics, the canon law of churches, the judgments of preachers, bishops, or popes, are all valueless in this area where only God has the right to legislate. Verse 10 The disciples say unto him, If the case of the man is so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.The Pharisees were not the only ones shaken up by the Lord's teaching. The disciples too were surprised and even intimidated at the sanctity and inviolate nature of the marriage tie as expounded by Christ. Verse 11 But he said unto them, Not all men can receive this saying, but they to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.Eunuchs in ancient times were considered unworthy of being received in the work of God, but Christ opened the kingdom to eunuchs also, and allowed in this place, but did not command, celibacy. This was in answer to the disciples' suggestion that it was not expedient to marry. Christ sanctified and blessed the marriage covenant by being present and performing his first wonder at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. This passage shows that eunuchs were also to be admitted to the kingdom of heaven. The conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:1-40 is significant in this context. Verse 13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should lay his hands on them and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.We agree with J. W. McGarvey that "The fortuitous coincidence of these two conversations is a happy one." As he said, The little children, the offspring of happy wedlock, and a source of constant happiness to faithful husbands and wives, were brought into notice at the close of a conversation about divorce and about the supposed inconvenience of an indissoluble marriage bond. The pleasant incident served as a comment on the discussion, and left a better impression in reference to married life.[2] Christ's love of little children was spontaneously abundant and overflowing. Mark notes that he took them in his arms and blessed them (Mark 10:16). The conduct of the disciples in this instance of rebuking the people who wanted to bring their children to Christ may be explained by their desire to shield the Master from what they considered to be a waste of his time or unnecessary tax on his strength. Jesus had already made little children the models of faith, trust, humility, teachableness, and freedom from malice; and in this case he declared that to such as these belongs the kingdom of God. ENDNOTE:[2] J. W. McGarvey, The New Testament Commentary (Delight, Arkansas: The Gospel Light Publishing Company, reprint of 1875), p. 167. Verse 14 But Jesus said, Suffer the little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for to such belongeth the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.Does this verse teach infant baptism and membership in God's church? Certainly, this is the allegation of those who hold those views; but it is significant here that Christ did not say that little children were "in the kingdom," but that "to such belongs the kingdom"! There is a world of difference. The emphasis is upon child-like behavior and character. However, due to the widespread error in this area, we shall note more particularly the entire subject of infant church membership. There are no recorded cases of infant baptism in the New Testament. The "household" baptisms are nowhere said to have contained any infants among the number baptized; and any argument from "household" baptisms must be classified as an argument from the silence of the Scriptures. Furthermore, the basic outline of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31:31 which is emphatically identified with the current dispensation in Hebrews 10:16, makes infant membership in the kingdom impossible. Jeremiah taught that no untaught person shall be in God's kingdom. It will not be necessary (in the days of the new covenant) for people to say "know the Lord," for ALL know him already. Why? Because they must know him BEFORE they can enter that new relationship. Infants cannot and do not know the Lord in the manner required of all who truly accept Christ. The baptism of infants is neither commanded nor allowed in the New Testament, a truth which was remarkably emphasized by events in the Anglican church in 1964, and published in the New York Times (Dec. 16,1964, p. 16) where it was reported that many distinguished vicars of that faith would no longer baptize infants, affirming that to do so was contrary to Scripture. The report quoted the clergymen as saying, "We are denying adults the right of baptism" by baptizing infants. Of course, they were correct in that allegation. To baptize infants does "deny" baptism to adults. Peter commanded people to repent and "have yourselves baptized" (see Vine's Greek Dictionary), and people cannot do this if the church recognizes a ceremony practiced upon them in infancy, contrary to their will, or at least without their consent, and makes that imposition the true baptism. Such is only another instance in which people have made the word of God of none effect by their tradition (see on Matthew 15:9 ff). If an infant is "saved" by baptism (so-called) in infancy, such a person is saved without repentance, without confession, without knowledge of the Lord, without consciousness of sin, and without any intention of living right. There cannot be anything "from within" in infant baptism. This is contrary to the Lord's statement that a man "must be born again" before he can see the kingdom of heaven (John 3:3-5). The baptism and acceptance of infants into the church constitutes the open gate through which all manner of evil and unrepentant people are associated with the church as members. It is precisely this that has destroyed, in large degree, the very character of the church. Verse 16 And behold one came to him and said, Teacher what good thing shall I do, that I may inherit eternal life? And he said unto him, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good: but if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments.THE RICH YOUNG RULERThe model character of this rich young man, his high social position, the love which he inspired in the Master, and the supremely important question upon his lips, all arouse special interest in this incident. Mark's account of Jesus' words sheds light upon their true meaning. He asked, "Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, even God" (Mark 10:18). This, to be sure, is one of the passages seized upon by Arians in an effort to show that Christ did not claim to be God in the flesh. Their argument, however, is false. "The Good was one of the many Judaic titles of God. The point of our Lord's remark is that a word with such hallowed association should not be used in a merely conventional manner."[3] (See Psalms 145:9). In fact, it is easy to detect in this conversation a definite leading on the part of Christ to elicit an acknowledgment from that young man that Christ is God. It is as though the Lord had said, "I see you recognize me as Good; since only God is Good, do you thus receive me?" This thought appears plausible in the light of what immediately ensued when Jesus would have enlisted him as a disciple, perhaps even as an apostle. Christ's declaration, "If thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments," shows that salvation is conditional upon respect and obedience of God's word. ENDNOTE:[3] F. F. Bruce and William J. Martin, a tract published in England, from a portion reprinted in Christianity Today (Dec. 16,1964), p. 17. Verse 18 He saith unto him, Which? And Jesus said, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness. Honor thy father and mother; and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.The omission of certain commands of the decalogue in this summary by Christ may be significant. Certainly the words, Thou shalt not covet, touched an area where the young man might not have been so sure of himself. Thus, it appears that Christ may have mentioned his strong points with a view to encouraging him to make the full sacrifice the Lord was about to propose. Verse 20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I observed, what lack I yet?No wonder Jesus loved him (Mark 10:21). He was a model of moral excellence and integrity. If human righteousness could have saved anyone, this young man was already saved. Like Cornelius (Acts 10:1-6), he manifested virtue in a dissolute age, faith in an age of infidelity, and deep spirituality in an age of materialism. Most important of all, he recognized the void in his soul, that he was yet unsaved, saying, "What lack I yet?" Many in all ages, having the possessions of this young man, would have felt that they needed nothing. It is, therefore, a credit to his perception that he recognized the deep and vital lack within his heart and brought the problem to the Master. Verse 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.For all his youth and beauty, a cancer was eating away at his heart; and Christ made a move to eradicate it. "Sell all that thou hast!" How shocking is that command! What did it mean? What it meant for him we know; but what does it mean for us? Are Christians now commanded to sell all that they have and give it to the poor? For many, these are hard questions. Nevertheless, in the New Testament it is abundantly clear that selling all one's possessions was never made a universal condition of discipleship. Mary's house in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12), Philip's great house in Caesarea Palestina (Acts 21:8), and the statement of the apostle Peter that Ananias and Sapphira were not under compulsion either to sell their property or give the money when they did (Acts 5:4) make it very clear that ownership of property was not proscribed in the early church. Furthermore, the Lord's teaching in the parable of the pounds, the parable of the talents, and many other passages suggest and even demand that ownership of property was not condemned by Jesus nor forbidden to members of his kingdom. Why, then, did Jesus thus command the subject of this interview? Two possible reasons appear: (1) Covetousness had reached such a degree in the young man's heart that only by divesting himself of his wealth could he truly turn to Christ. (2) Christ, in all probability, was calling him to a place in the apostleship, an office that did require forsaking all that one had, just as Peter and the others among the Twelve had forsaken all that they had to follow Jesus. The fact that Jesus said, "Come, follow me!" shows that at least he was invited to accompany the Twelve, who themselves had forsaken all, and where his presence would have been an embarrassment to all concerned if he had been exempted from the requirement they had fulfilled. Verse 22 But when the young man heard the saying, he went away sorrowful; for he was one that had great possessions.This is an unhappy ending of a very interesting and exciting story, especially if it is supposed that the young man continued in his rejection of the Christ. The sorrowful countenance indicated the struggle going on in his heart; his going away from the Lord shows what his final decision was. Projecting the life of this young man, as it probably developed, into the historical period following his interview with Jesus, reveals some intriguing possibilities. If he continued in covetous rejection of Jesus, and if he lived to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. by the soldiers of Titus and Vespasian, there is every possibility that his wealth and all his posterity perished in that awful siege, described in such horrible detail by Josephus (see on Matthew 24:21). Whether such was true or not, it would have been far better for that young man to have sold all, given it to the poor, and followed Jesus. Christ knew literally what was best for him. It will be recalled that no Christian lost his life in the siege. It is also true that Christ knows what is best for every man, for you and for me, and that one stands against his own temporal and eternal interests when he departs from following Jesus. Verse 23 And Jesus said unto his disciples, Verily, I say unto you, it is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.Why, then, do we all strive to be rich? Is it that we desire to impede our soul's entry into the kingdom of God? Do people really wish to do it the hard way? Then let them get rich. That will provide an acid test that most people cannot pass. No wonder an apostle warned against ambition in that quarter (1 Timothy 6:9-10), and that Jesus taught people to seek his kingdom "first"! (Matthew 6:33). The rich are not hopeless. Christ did not say they cannot be saved, only that it is "hard" for them to enter. Verse 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.All attempts to make such a thing possible must appear ridiculous in the light of Christ's statement, a moment later, that such is "impossible" for human beings. Only the power of God can bring a man of wealth to quit trusting in his riches and to place his hope in God through Christ, or to possess his possessions instead of being possessed by them. People of affluence should always remember that only the power of the Eternal can empower them to force their wealth to subserve the purposes of God and His kingdom. Verse 25 And when the disciples heard it, they were astonished exceedingly, saying, Who then can be saved?McGarvey very properly pointed out that the amazement of the disciples was intensified, not so much by the statement about a rich man's chances of being saved, as by the evident application of this principle to such an honorable and altogether lovable rich man as the one who had just appeared before the Lord. It is amazing even yet, that all personal excellence cannot avail anything unless there is a total surrender to the will of Jesus. The truth is clear. Christ will be ALL or NOTHING in the lives of people. Verse 26 And Jesus looking upon them said to them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.The difficulty, not the impossibility, of salvation for the rich is what Jesus taught. Added to the teaching on the marriage bond which came a little earlier, these strict words of Christ must have appeared as "hard sayings," even to the Twelve. Verse 27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee; what then shall we have?Barker suggested that Peter was here suggesting preferential treatment for himself and others of the Twelve who had "left all" to follow Christ; and, in view of the parable with which Jesus followed this question, the view seems tenable. He said, "Peter self-righteously reminded Jesus of the sacrifices the disciples had made, then hinted for preferential treatment, asking, `What then shall we have?'"[4] Whatever element of self-righteousness may have been in Peter's question, it was a valid one; and Jesus answered it in the most emphatic manner possible. ENDNOTE:[4] William P. Barker, As Matthew Saw the Master (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1964), p. 96. Verse 28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.This was not a reference to literal thrones but to spiritual thrones of eminence and authority in Christ's kingdom, from which they should exercise influence, not over fleshly Israel but over the spiritual Israel which is the church (Romans 9:6; Galatians 3:29). Note that no preference was given Peter. There was not to be one throne, occupied by Peter and his successors, but twelve thrones, implying the equality of the Twelve. The word of the apostles, that is, the New Testament, is the instrument through which they exercise the authority that Jesus granted them in this promise. "Times of the regeneration" refers to the times of the new birth, namely, the time of the present dispensation when men are hearing the gospel, obeying it, and being born again. Efforts to apply this passage to some kind of literal return of Jesus to the earth and which envisions Christ and the apostles actually occupying literal earthly thrones must surely be rejected in the light of the truth that Christ and the Twelve are NOW reigning in his kingdom. The reign will continue until all enemies have been put under foot (1 Corinthians 15:24-28). When death, the last enemy, is destroyed, Christ will not initiate a reign but will end it, delivering up the kingdom to the Father. Verse 29 And every one that hath left houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit eternal life.What a promise of blessing for God's children is this! Two things, yea three, are promised here: (1) First, there is the multiplication, on a vast scale, of the wealth that people may forsake to follow Christ. (2) Second, there is the multiplication, on the same vast scale, of loved ones, however near and dear, who may be forsaken for his name's sake. (3) Third, there is the promise of eternal life. But, looking beyond this magnificent triple promise, WHO is he that made it, and how shall he fulfill it? The answer is GOD, and God is able to do all things. Here then is another passage that must be placed in the category of teaching that Christ is God. Words like these must be counted sheer nonsense if spoken by a mere man; but, when spoken by Christ, they warm the hearts of men in all generations. Spoken by any other, such words would only evoke scorn and laughter; but, spoken by Christ, they strengthen the faithful in all ages. And the testimony is this: NO MAN EVER TRIED THE PROMISE BUT FOUND IT TRUE! Verse 30 But many shall be last that are first; and first that are last.The application of these words to Peter's question is thus: God does not allow any system of seniority to determine ultimate rewards in his kingdom. The seeming implication of Peter's words to the effect that some preferential treatment might be in order for the earliest disciples who had given up so much to follow Christ finds its emphatic answer in this, that it is not how long, but how faithfully, men have served that determines destiny. Again, to quote Barker: How often do we think that because we are "old timers" in a congregation we have proprietary rights over the program and property! Everyone has met the superchurchman who lets it be known that "I've been coming to this church for years," meaning that he has been promoted to Senior Vice President to God, Inc.![5] Judas, of course, was one of the first; and, as regards the lives of the apostles, Paul was one of the last. Every generation finds its own fulfillment of the Saviour's words. Shortly afterwards, in fact immediately, Jesus gave a parable illustrating this principle even more clearly. ENDNOTE:[5] Ibid., p. 96. J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Matthew Chapter NineteenConversation about Divorce, Matthew 19:1-12. (Mark 10:1-12)1. departed from Galilee.—This is the final departure of Jesus from Galilee. He returned thither no more until after his resurrection from the dead, when he suddenly appeared to his disciples there on two occasions. (See Matthew 28:16-17; John 21:1.) He had made one visit to Jerusalem during his ministry in Galilee, which is not recorded by Matthew, nor by Mark, or Luke. (See John 5:1.) He had labored in Galilee about twenty-two months. coasts of Judea beyond Jordan.—The Jewish territory beyond the Jordan was called Perea, from ἥπεραια, the region beyond. It is here called the coasts (ρια, borders) of Judea because, though not strictly a part of Judea, it belonged to it somewhat as the Territories of the United States belong to the States. 2. he healed them there.—The healing continues, but in the remainder of the narrative Matthew speaks of it in more general terms, and devotes less space than formerly to describing individual cases. 3. The Pharisees.... tempting him.—Testing him as to his fealty to the law of Moses and as to his own consistency. They thought that they could compel him to contradict either his own former teaching on the subject of divorce (5:32), or the law of Moses; hence their question, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" By every cause they meant every cause which was satisfactory to the husband. 4-6. he answered.—The argument contained in his answer presents the following premises and conclusions: First, in the beginning God made a male and a female, and said, "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife." (4, 5. Comp. Genesis 2:24.) Now the relation to father and mother can be dissolved only by death, yet the marriage relation is more intimate than that, and its obligations are more binding. Second, in the same sentence (Genesis 2:24) God said, "They two shall be one flesh." If they are one flesh the relation can be dissolved only by death, which dissolves the body itself. Third, from these premises the conclusion follows (verse 6) that what God has thus joined together man shall not put asunder. Of course, God who joined them together may put them asunder by prescribing the conditions of lawful divorce, but man has nothing to do in the case except to obey God's law. Any act of divorce, therefore, or any legislation by State or Church on the subject, inconsistent with the divine law, is open rebellion against the authority of Christ. 7. Why did Moses then.—On hearing his answer the Pharisees thought they had gained the advantage which they were seeking, and they demand of him, with an air of triumph, why did Moses command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away. 8. Moses... suffered you.—Jesus states more accurately their citation of Moses. He did not "command to give a writing of divorcement and put her away," he only "suffered" them to do so, and he suffered it on account of the hardness of their hearts, though it had not been so from the beginning. Previous to the law of Moses God had not permitted divorce, but when the law was given, such was the prevalent hardness of heart in relation to women and marriage, that a positive prohibition of divorce would have led to promiscuous intercourse, or to secret assassination of wives who were displeasing to their husbands (see on 10 below); and as there was no immutable principle of the divine government involved in tolerating divorce for a time, the privilege was granted as a choice between evils. It was a concession to the hardness of men's hearts, but it was part of a system of adaptations by which at last this hardness would be more effectually overcome. When the gospel was introduced God's chosen time had arrived for bringing this concession to an end, and since then it has been the most daring interference with the divine prerogative, for men to venture on a continuance of the same concession, as though they were possessed of divine authority. (See Olshausen on verse 9.) 9. I say unto you.—Having answered their objection, he now, by his own authority, reaffirms the law which had existed in the beginning, and which he had already reenacted in his sermon on the mount. (Matthew 5:32.) her that is put away.—That is, put away for some other cause than fornication. Whether it would be adultery to marry a woman who had been put away, on account of fornication, is neither affirmed nor denied. No doubt such a woman is at liberty to marry again if she can, seeing that the bond which bound her to her husband is broken. 10. His disciples say.—The conclusion of the disciples, that if divorce at will is prohibited, it is not good to marry, proves the wisdom of allowing divorce under the law of Moses; for if these men would so conclude, how much more those Jews who were less disposed to obey God? And if marriage were avoided, licentiousness would necessarily prevail. Even in the Savior's day, then, the hardness of heart among the Jews was still an obstacle in the way of the original law; but motives to obedience greater than any that had been known under the Jewish law were about to be presented in the completed gospel, and this made it wise to withdraw the temporary concession. 11, 12. he said to them.—The answer of Jesus to the objection of the disciples is confessedly obscure. In searching for its meaning, the first thing to be determined is the reference of the expression, "this saying." It must refer either to the saying of the disciples (verse 10), "If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry; "or to the saying of Jesus in his answer to the Pharisees. It can not refer to the former, because that saying was objectionable, and the saying in question is one that should be received; for Jesus says (verse 12), "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." It must, then, refer to his own saying in answer to the Pharisees. His entire speech to the Pharisees is a unit, and its point of unity is the remark that the married couple are one flesh. It is this which makes the marital relation more intimate than that of parent and child, and that makes it wrong to put asunder those whom God has thus joined together. (Verses 5, 6.) Now Jesus says of this saying, "Not all men receive this saying (οπντεςχωρυσι), but they to whom it is given;" that is, they to whom it is given to receive it. This implies that the greater part of men do, and that those who do not are the exceptions. Eunuchs are then introduced as an exceptional class. They can not receive the saying because a eunuch can not become "one flesh" with a woman; and, seeing that his marriage would be a nullity, separation after such a marriage would not be the divorce which Jesus forbids, nor would subsequent marriage on the woman's part be adultery. Jesus admits, then, that, so far as eunuchs are concerned, it is good not to marry, because his doctrine can not be received or be made practical in their cases; but he insists that all shall receive it and abide by it who can and do enter really into marriage. some eunuchs.—Of the three classes of eunuchs mentioned in this verse, the first and second— that is, those born so, and those made so by men— are certainly eunuchs in the literal sense of the word. The third class, those who make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake, are those who, by a life of celibacy undertaken for the sake of better serving the kingdom of heaven, make them eunuchs practically but not really. We think so, because we know of none in the apostolic age who for this purpose made themselves real eunuchs. The "saying" which the other two classes could not receive was equally inapplicable to these, for the marriage of a man who would maintain practical celibacy would be a nullity, and separation from him would not be the divorce prohibited. Paul and Barnabas belonged to this class and there may have been many others of whom we have no account. (See 1 Corinthians 9:5-6; and comp. 7:25-27, 32-34.) About Little Children, Matthew 19:13-15. (Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17)13. put his hands on them and pray.—These words express the object for which the children were brought. The prayers of a good man in our behalf have always been regarded as a blessing: no wonder that the mothers of these children desired the prayers of Jesus in behalf of their little ones. the disciples rebuked them.—Not the children, but those who brought them. (Mark 10:13.) The disciples thought it an unnecessary annoyance to the Master. 14. to come to me.—That is, to come for the purpose declared, "that he might put his hands on them and pray." Those who have imagined that there is an allusion here to infant baptism, or to infant church membership, are indebted for the idea, not to their Bibles, but to their creeds. of such is the kingdom of heaven.—Not of little children, but of such as little children. Neither the kingdom as it now is, nor the kingdom as it will be, is composed of little children, but in both states of its existence it is composed of persons with characters like theirs. (Comp. 18:1-6.) As, however, children are here made the models of those in the kingdom, it is quite certain that on account of their freedom from personal transgression they will be admitted unconditionally into the eternal kingdom. The fortuitous coincidence of these two conversations has been noticed by the commentators generally. The little children, the offspring of happy wedlock, and a source of constant happiness to faithful husbands and wives, were brought into notice at the close of a conversation about divorce and about the supposed inconvenience of an indissoluble marriage bond. The pleasant incident served as a comment on the discussion, and left a better impression in reference to married life. Conversation with a Rich Man, Matthew 19:16-22. (Mark 10:17-22; Luke 18:18-23)16. what good thing.—The man evidently thought that there was some one thing of merit so exalted that by doing it he would secure eternal life. 17. Why dost thou ask.—The words, "Why callest thou me good." were interpolated from Mark 10:18, where see the note on the other words of this verse which are placed in brackets. keep the commandments.—The reply, "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments," was given from the standpoint of the law of Moses, under which the man was living. In the broadest sense of the word commandments, including the statutes concerning sacrifices for sin, this answer covered the entire ground of salvation under the law. From the point of view which obtained after the death and resurrection of Jesus, the answer would have been different, but still, obedience would have been required as a condition. (Comp. Acts 2:37-38; 2 Thessalonians 1:8, et al.) 18, 19. Which?—The man still thought that some one commandment was preeminent, and he was greatly surprised, no doubt, when Jesus repeated the last six in the decalogue, substituting for "Thou shalt not covet," the equivalent, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." We suppose that he named the last six rather than the first four, because the six were then more frequently violated than the four, and obedience to them was on this account a better test of character. 20. The young man saith.—Here it first appears that the questioner was a young man. Farther on he appears also as a rich man. That both of these facts are introduced incidentally shows the want of formality which characterizes Matthew's descriptions. The young man's claim that he had kept all these commandments, was doubtless true so far as he knew his own heart and understood the import of the commandments. He thought that there must be something more in order to be certain of eternal life; hence his next question, "What lack I yet?" The bracketed words, "from my youth up," were interpolated from Mark 10:20. 21. If thou wilt be perfect.—That is, perfect in keeping the commandments and in securing eternal life. The commandment, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," does, in some instances, require the selling of one's possessions and distribution of all to the poor; and a perfect character is one which goes to the utmost limit of every requirement, leaving nothing undone which benevolence can suggest and our ability execute. This benevolent sacrifice would have made the young man perfect in reference to the commandments recited, and obedience to the additional command, "Come and follow me," would have brought him to the complete and final atonement for his sins, rendering him perfect in his preparation for eternal life. 22. he went away sorrowful.—That he went away sorrowful rather than angry, speaks well for the young man. A man of extreme avarice, or of little concern for eternal life, or of little faith in Jesus, would have been offended at the extravagance of the demand. His sorrow shows that he had respect for the authority of Jesus, that he really desired to seek eternal life under his guidance, and that it required a struggle to give up his purpose even for the sake of his great possessions. This is an example not of the worst class of rich men, but of that class whose love of their possessions barely preponderates over their desire to serve God with unswerving devotion. About the Salvation of Rich Men, Matthew 19:23-26. (Mark 10:23-27; Luke 18:24-27)23. shall hardly enter.—Shall with difficulty (δυσκλως) enter; that is, it will be difficult for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24. It is easier.—Here is indicated the extent of the difficulty declared in the previous verse. It is illustrated by the physical impossibility of a camel passing through the eye of a needle. The conceit, which originated I know not where that "the eye of a needle" here means a low and narrow gate through which the camel could not go except on his knees and after is burden had been removed, is not only without historical foundation, but is inconsistent with the context, which contemplates something impossible with men. (Verse 26.) 25. exceedingly amazed.—The amazement of the disciples must be considered in connection with the incident which gave rise to the astonishing remark. If they had been thinking of rich men who grind the poor and live licentiously, they would not have been surprised. But the case before their minds was that of a rich man who lacked only the one thing of being perfect. It was the statement that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for such a rich man to be saved, that amazed them and suggested the question, "Who then can be saved?" 26. With men... with God.—The remark, "With men this is impossible," refers primarily to the passage of a camel through a needle's eye; but it hints secondarily at the asserted difficulty of saving a rich man. Likewise, the declaration that "with God all things are possible," looks first to the case of the camel, and secondly to that of the rich man, but has chief reference to the latter. As it is possible for God, though impossible with men, to cause a camel to go through the eye of a needle; so it is possible with God, though a work in itself difficult, to save a rich man. The point of difficulty was seen in the case of the man who had just gone away— his disposition to esteem riches more highly than eternal life. This part of the lesson is more clearly developed in Mark, where see the note on 10:24. About Sacrifice for Jesus, Matthew 19:27-30 (Mark 10:28-31; Luke 18:28-30)27. we have forsaken all.—The refusal of the rich young man to sell all and follow Jesus (21, 22), reminded Peter that a similar demand had been made of him and his companions, and that although they had but little to forsake, they had forsaken all they had. He now wishes to know what shall be their reward for this. 28. in the regeneration.—Regeneration means, either the process of regenerating, or the result attained by that process, according to the context in which it is found. Here it evidently means the former, for it designates a period during which the apostles would sit on thrones. We can not connect the words "in the regeneration" with the preceding clause, "ye who have followed me," for the obvious reason that Jesus had gone through no regeneration, and they could have followed him through none. The words, "ye who have followed me," simply describe the parties addressed as having done what the rich man refused to do. The period designated by the term regeneration is further limited by the words, "when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory." He sat down on that throne when he ascended up to heaven, and he will still be seated on it in the day of judgment. (Acts 2:33-35; Hebrews 1:13; Matthew 25:31; 1 Corinthians 15:24-28.) "The regeneration," then, is cotemporaneous with this period, and therefore it must be that process of regenerating men which commenced on the Pentecost after the ascension, and will continue until the saints are raised with regenerated bodies, and the heaven and earth shall themselves be regenerated as the home of the redeemed. upon twelve thrones judging.—The statement of Paul that "the saints shall judge the world" (1 Corinthians 6:2), has led many to suppose that the judging here mentioned is to take place at the final judgment. But clearly the judging and the sitting on thrones are declared to be cotemporaneous with the regeneration and with Christ's sitting on his throne; and therefore they must be regarded as now in progress. If we are correct in this, of which we entertain no doubt, the judging consists in pronouncing decisions on questions of faith and practice in the earthly kingdom, and the twelve are figuratively represented as sitting on thrones, because they are acting as judges. During their personal ministry they judged in person; since then they judge through their writings. True, we have written communications from only a part of them, but judgments pronounced by one of a bench of judges with the known approval of all, are the judgments of the entire bench. The twelve thrones had reference, of course, to the twelve original apostles, and the place of Judas was filled by Matthias. (Acts 1:26.) The apostle to the Gentiles is left out of view. the twelve tribes.—The apostles have sustained no such relation to the twelve tribes of Israel, literally so called, as the text indicates, nor is there any intimation in the Scriptures that they ever will. Their work is with the true Israel, and not with Israel according to the flesh; consequently, we are to construe the terms metaphorically, the twelve tribes representing the Church of God of which they were a type. 29. shall receive manifold.—Not manifold in the same exact form, but manifold in value as affecting real happiness. This is the reward in time, while in eternity the party shall inherit everlasting life. This last is an inheritance as well as a reward, because it results from having become a child of God. Doubtless Peter felt satisfied when he heard that these honors and blessings were to be his reward. 30. first shall be last.—This proverbial expression, in its present connection, means that many who are first in prospect of everlasting life shall be last, and many who are last in this respect shall be first. For example, the rich young man whose inquiries had given rise to this conversation (16-20), had been among the first, but now it appeared that he was among the last. Judas, also, who was then among the first, was destined to be last, and Matthias, who was among the last, being then only an obscure disciple (Acts 2:21-23), was to take his place. Questions by E.M Zerr For Matthew 191. Where has Jesus been teaching? 2. He then came to what community? 3. With what usual following? 4. What did he do for the people? 5. State what class came to him. 6. What did they ask him? 7. Tell their object in asking this. 8. In answer, to what history did he refer? 9. What did this action form? 10. Could this union be severed by man? 11. To what law of Moses did they then refer? 12. State Jesus* explanation. 13. What one ground will permit remarriage? 14. Otherwise what guilt is contracted? 15. To avoid this, what did the disciples suggest? 16. Did Jesus endorse their saying entirely? 17. What three classes could safely accept it? 18. Of what sin would they not be in danger? 19. Why could others not safely avoid marriage? 20. Who were brought to Jesus? 21. For what purpose ? 22. Who objected? 23. Why was Jesus favorable to their coming? 24. Tell what he then did for them. 25. What question was asked of Jesus? 26. By what title was he addressed? 27. State argument he made from use of this title. 28. What order did he then give the man ? 29. To which order, what claim did the man then make ? 30. What question did he further ask? 31. State the answer. 32. Why was it rejected in sorrow? 33. On what subject did Jesus then discourse? 34. What object was used for illustration? 35. Was such a feat possible with man? 36. Is a difficulty same as an impossibility ? 37. State Peter’ s profession at this time. 38. What was promised as reward? 39. At what time was it to be? 40. Why is it called the regeneration? 41. Why mention twelve thrones? 42. What must they have done to obtain this? 43. And what must they forsake ? 44. Would this require desertion? 45. For this what will they receive? 46. What will they inherit? 47. Is this favor restricted to the apostles? 48. In what sense must one “ forsake” possessions now? 49. Also his relations? 50. What reversal is predicted? 19:1 Jesus had been in Galilee for some time and then moved Into the region on the east side of Jordan. Just across the river was the territory of Judea which is the meaning of the words coasts of Judea beyond Jordan. 19:2 As usual, great crowds followed him and he healed them there. That was different from the way it is done or professed to be done by the false workers of miracles today, who require that the patient have faith and come back for more help. 19:3 Jesus answered all questions that were put to him that were of importance, and that of divorce was certainly in that class. The Pharisees were not sincerely seeking information when they asked this question, for the writer says they asked it tempting him. But for the benefit of others who could hear him and for those who would read it in the record, the Lord gave his explanation of the delicate subject. 19:4 Jesus went back to the beginning of man, and all discussions of this subject should go there for the proper basis of whatever is said. It should be observed that both words male and female are singular, showing that the Lord intended that one partner only should be engaged with another in this union. 19:5 For this cause means because God made one man for one woman to reproduce the race. That being true, they must be free from all other human beings in this relationship. That will make it necessary for the man (he being the aggressor and head in all of the social affairs of life as is evident all through the Bible) to leave his parental home in order to form a union with a female and thus establish another family. Leave is from which Thayer defines, "To leave behind; to depart from, leave; to forsake, leave to one's self," etc. Certainly it does not mean that he must desert his parents in other respects, but in the matter of forming a union for the perpetuation of the race, a man must act independently with regard to this physical relationship. Most human laws regarding the "age of consent" have ignored this Biblical law of God: When a male is old enough to perform the marriage act he is instructed that he may leave his parents and contract marriage with a female. Cleave is from KOLLAO which Thayer defines, "To glue, glue to, glue together, cement, fasten together; join one's self to, cleave to." This "joining" is accomplished by the act that makes them one flesh according to the closing statement that they twain shall be one flesh. 19:6 Are no more twain is a positive proof that the fleshly union that is formed by the first intimate relationship is permanent, and not that the fact of being one flesh applies only at the time the act is being performed as some people teach. It is stated that God has joined this man and woman into one flesh, and the only "ceremony" that was used was the fleshly act. Were there no human laws on the subject, the fleshly act would be the only thing that would constitute marriage in heaven's sight. But as man began to multiply on the earth and social conditions became more complex, the need for laws of regulation to keep the relation between the sexes pure was recognized by human leaders and such laws were enacted. The only thing God has to do in such laws is to recognize them and to require His creatures to obey them. What God joined . . . 'no man put asunder. The Lord would not make a ruling against a sin that could not be committed. The fact that He did forbid man to sever this union which He alone had formed by the intimate relation proves that such a putting asunder can be committed. The only conclusion that is possible, then, is that the union will be put asunder when either party to it has relation with another; that act will form another union which will sever the preceding one. 19:7 It was natural for them to ask this question, for they knew that the law which Moses gave did not hold strictly to the foregoing requirements. 19:8 Jesus did not say that the original law of marriage had been repealed. Neither did he say that Moses ignored it and "permitted" them to divorce their wives as it is so frequently stated. There is a vast difference between permitting a thing and suffering it. The first is equivalent to an endorsement but the second means only to tolerate something under protest. The people had become so hardened in worldliness that the original law was held off for the time being. But that period of indulgence was over when Jesus spoke and man was to be held to the law of marriage as it existed from the beginning and as Jesus stated it in verses 4 and 5. 19:9 This verse names the only ground on which a married man or woman may be divorced and remarry lawfully in the sight of God. Fornication forms another fleshly union and automatically breaks the previous one. By that same token the innocent one is free and may remarry without committing adultery. To say that there is no exception to the law of marriage and divorce is to contradict Jesus, for he plainly says that fornication is an exception. Let it be noted that it is the remarriage where no guilt of fornication exists that constitutes the sin of adultery. There are cases where a person may need a divorce other than because of fornication on the part of the companion. In such instances the legal separation may be obtained but the said person would not have the scriptural right to remarry as long as the other one remained clear morally. 9:10 The disciples had heard the conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees and doubtless were given information that was very new to them. See the comments at verse 3 about answering questions for the benefit of the hearers besides those who asked them. This explanation about the strictness of the marriage relation gave the disciples a feeling of hesitancy about contracting marriage. They expressed that feeling with the saying it is not good to marry. They meant that the best thing for a man to do is to abstain from marriage altogether. 9:11 That was too strong a saying for more than one reason, and Jesus replied that not all men could receive or adopt this saying, meaning the words in italics in the preceding verse. Jesus meant that it would not be a good thing for men generally to adopt that rule of life, and that only certain men could safely refrain from entering the marriage relation and he proceeded to describe them. 9:12 The only means God created for the perpetuation of the human race was the fleshly union of the sexes. As an inducement for man to cooperate with Him in this he established the mutual attraction of the male and female for each other. Like most blessings from God, this one was subject to misuse and unlawful enjoyment. For this reason the institution of family relationship was given so that human beings could have a lawful means of gratification and at the same time accomplish the divine edict to "multiply and replenish the earth." From the foregoing truths we may understand that it is a moral risk for a man to decide against entering marriage, for he will be tempted to yield to his sexual inclinations unlawfully. But a eunuch may safely refrain from it and thus adopt the saying of the disciples "not to marry," because such a person is free from this fleshly tendency. The Lord then named three classes of these eunuchs. The one is a person who was born without this normal function and hence would not have any inclination toward the opposite sex. Another is a man who has been mutilated by others for whatever reason, and by such action has been robbed of his manly powers. The third one is a man who has been able so to subdue this fleshly tendency that the opposite sex makes no appeal to him. The apostle Paul was one of such characters (1 Corinthians 7:7). Outside of these three classes of eunuchs the only divine safeguard against un-chastity is the institution of marriage, and the proper exercise of the function in that relationship of husband and wife. (See 1 Corinthians 7:5.) 9:13 Little children is not figurative but means literally a small child. The parents recognized Jesus as an individual who could bestow a blessing according to his own wisdom on these helpless creatures. The disciples were still somewhat confused as to the nature of the work that Jesus intended to accomplish. With this erroneous view of it, they considered this act on the part of the people as an interruption and rebuked them in the hearing of Jesus. 9:14 The key word in this passage is such, and if the disciples had recalled the lessons of chapter 18:1-5 they would not have uttered their rebuke. Jesus did not say that the kingdom of heaven would contain little children, but it was to have men and women who had become such persons by repentance and humility. 9:15 The Son of God would not have to make a physical contact with a person in order to bestow a blessing. The act of putting his hands on the little children was a form of caress or endearment. 9:16 The man who came to Jesus was evidently a Jew in good standing and understood what the law required of its followers. But he also must have learned something about Jesus and his teaching (Master is from a word that also means teacher), and had the idea that something very different would have to be done to obtain what he was offering to the world, hence the question stated in this verse. 9:17 None good but God. Jesus did not deny being a good person, for in John 10:11 he even affirmed that he was the good shepherd. Since he was a member of the Godhead, he wished this man to know that in calling him good it was equivalent to calling him God, since all goodness comes from Him. He then gave the young man an answer to his question which was doubtless different from what he expected. When he told him to keep the commandments he did not understand to what he could have reference since the regular commandments of the law had already been his rule of life. 8-19 He asked Jesus to specify the commands that were meant and he repeated the six of the deca-logue that pertained to dealings between man and man. 9:20 Jesus did not question the statement of the young man that he had kept all of those laws, hence we may conclude that this claim was true. But Jesus was here to set up another kingdom with other laws, and perhaps something would need to be added to the life of this young man who had lived up to the letter of the law. He doubtless asked confidently what lack yet? 9:21 We need not think this man was merely pretending to be interested, for there is nothing in the conversation of Jesus that indicated that he had an unfavorable feeling toward him; instead; as Mark's account gives it (Matthew 10:21) he loved the young man. But he could read the minds of men and he knew this man was a rich Jew and that he was devoted to his wealth. It is not necessarily wrong to be wealthy, but it is so when one is attached to his riches as this man was. That would constitute an "emergency" that required special legislation, hence Jesus told him the thing he lacked was the separation of his wealth from personal use and devotion of it to others. 9:22 This shaft "hit its mark" for the young man went away sorrowing because of his great possessions. What he ever did about it we are not told. 9:23 Hardly is from which Thayer defines, "with difficulty." The sacrifices that a rich man is called upon to make enter so deeply into his devotion to the business of getting more money, that it is difficult for him to bring about that change in his manner of life. Verse 24. Needle is from RHAPHIS which Thayer defines, "a needle," and he shows that the word comes from BHAPTO which means, "to sew." Donne-gan defines rhaphis, "a needle, awl, or other instrument for sewing." The Authorized version renders this verse correctly, for the words are so defined in the lexicon of the Greek language. 9:25 The disciples knew that a camel could not naturally go through the eye of a needle, and they took the comparison to mean that few if any persons could be saved. 9:26 Jesus supplied the point the disciples overlooked, namely, that a thing impossible with men does not have to be so with God. He could actually take a camel through the eye of a needle, but in doing so there would be some kind of change made in the camel's body that its earthly master could not cause it to make. A rich man can be saved, but it cannot be if he continues in his devotion and trust in his riches. 9:27 The apostles then saw the point and understood that the illustration of the camel and needle meant that one must go to the utmost in sacrificing his personal interests in order to secure the favors that the kingdom of heaven offers to the world. Peter spoke to Jesus on behalf of the other apostles as he was generally the spokesman for them. He stated that they had forsaken all to follow Jesus and asked what it would bring to them. We should bear in mind that following Jesus as he meant it was to leave their homes bodily so as to travel over the country with him. (See Mark 3:14 on being "with him.") 9:28. Regeneration is from PALIG-GENESIA which has a very extensive meaning in Greek literature, but its proper definition is, "new birth, reproduction, r e n e w a 1, recreation."--Thayer. It occurs only twice in the New Testament and the other place is Titus 3:5 where it is used in connection with "washing." Hebrews 10:22 says that it is our bodies that are washed and the connection there also shows that it applies to persons who have been regenerated by obedience to the Gospel. Hence it is clear that Jesus was speaking of the Christian Dispensation, after the kingdom of heaven was set up and he would be its king, sitting in glory at his Father's right hand. But he arranged his rule of government by delegating the writing of the law to his twelve apostles. That law was to be in force unto the end of the world (chapter 28:20), and in that figurative way they would be occupying the twelve thrones. Twelve tribes of Israel is a figure of speech based on the fact that under the Jewish system God's people were grouped into that many tribes. Under the Gospel system there is only one tribe but the law is administered by the twelve apostles, hence Christians are referred to as twelve tribes. (See Acts 26:7; James 1:1.) 9:29 These apostles had forsaken all of their earthly interests for the time being that they might be with Jesus literally in his journeys among the people. But it was not to be permanent, for, when the personal ministry of Christ was completed, they could resume their former manner of life, at least to some extent. But even that temporary self-denial was to be rewarded with such good things (Mark 10:30 adds "now in this time"), and after the judgment it was to bring eternal life. 9:30 This verse is a statement of general principles. The words first and last do not always mean chronologically but sometimes are used with reference to importance. If any specific sense is to be attached to them in any case, the connection will have to be considered in determining the meaning. But the words usually mean that persons who are expected to be foremost in accepting the truth are often the least concerned, and vice versa. Matthew 20 "THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Chapter Twenty Continuing His reply to Peter’ s question ("what shall we have?"), Jesus told the parable of the laborers (Matthew 20:1-16), then predicted His death and resurrection a third time as they headed toward Jerusalem (Matthew 20:17-19). When the mother of James and John requested a special place for her sons in the kingdom, Jesus said it was not His to give. He used the occasion to teach all His apostles the principle of greatness through service (Matthew 20:20-28). Leaving Jericho, Jesus gave sight to two blind men who would not let the crowds deter them (Matthew 20:29-34). POINTS TO PONDER * Should one delay in their obedience to the gospel? * The danger of a mercenary spirit * The importance of humble service REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter? - The parable of the laborers - Matthew 20:1-16- Jesus predicts His death and resurrection a third time - Matthew 20:17-19 - Greatness and serving in the kingdom - Matthew 20:20-28- Jesus heals two blind men - Matthew 20:29-34 2) Whose question had prompted the telling of the parable of the laborers? (Matthew 20:1) - Peter’ s, cf. Matthew 19:27 3) What should not be deduced from this parable? Why? (Matthew 20:1-10) - That it is alright to put off obeying the invitation to obeying the gospel - Those who started later responded as soon as they were given opportunity, Matthew 20:6-7 4) What is the main point of the parable of the laborers? (Matthew 20:11-16) - One should not begrudge others for receiving the same reward for less service 6) List the three passages in which Jesus foretold His death and resurrection - Matthew 16:21; Matthew 17:22-23; Matthew 20:19-20 7) Who asked Jesus for a privileged position in His kingdom? (Matthew 20:20-21) - The mother of Zebedee’ s sons (James and John) in their behalf 8) What quality is considered great in the kingdom? (Matthew 20:5-28) - Serving others, even as Jesus came to this earth to serve 9) What commendable spirit did the two blind men manifest? (Matthew 20:30-31) - Persistence in their request for mercy Matthew 20:1-34 Verse 1Mat 20:1-34THE PARABLE OF THE IN THE ; THE THIRD OF THE PASSION; THE REQUEST OF ZEBEDEE'S SONS; TWO BLIND MEN AT JERICHO For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that was an householder, who went out early in the morning to hire laborers into his vineyard. (Matthew 20:1) IN THE PARABLE OF THE IN THE The householder is God. The chief steward is Jesus Christ to whom the Father hath committed judgment. The vineyard is the church. The laborers who are hired to work in the vineyard are Christians. The penny payment stands for the eternal reward in heaven. The evening is the end of life, and, in a sense, the judgment. The ones first hired represent the legalists and their "contract" with God. The ones hired last, without any agreement, are those who rely on God's grace. The generosity of the householder represents the goodness of God. The complainers represent the self-righteousness of those who consider themselves worth more than others. The time sequence in hiring represents acceptance of the gospel call at early and later times in the life cycle of Christians. The work represents service Christians are expected to give God in his church. Only the parable of the unjust steward has elicited more numerous and diverse explanations by commentators than has this one. It will be seen from the above that here indeed is another one; but, among so many and various opinions, ONE MORE could not possibly do any harm! Many difficulties are seen no matter how the parable is explained; and yet a number of the analogies are so plain and unmistakable as to make a very vivid impression on the mind. On this first verse, let it be noted that God expects workers, not shirkers, in his kingdom. He hired laborers, not drones. The initiative, as always, rests with God and not with man. From that remote day when God went seeking Adam in Paradise, the Father still seeks people to worship and love him in order to redeem them (John 4:23). It is obvious also that God expects man to work in His farm, or vineyard; that is, in HIS church! The laborers were hired into His vineyard. They were not told to go to work in the vineyard of their choice! Complexities in the religious conditions of the post-Reformation era, in which we live, do not relieve worshipers of the solemn obligation to make certain that they truly work in the Lord's field, and not in another's. The place to serve God is in the true church established by Jesus Christ. No one can suppose that the householder (God) in this parable would have rewarded the workers for labor in any field but His own. The most difficult part of this parable is the time sequence, which is met in the first line of it, continues all the way through it, is the point of contention at the end of it, and which is obviously one of the very significant things in it. Many commentators refuse to hazard an opinion as to what the "early morning" means; and some, of course, would remand it to secondary status in the parable, viewing it as incidental or inert matter. Those who have offered an explanation have made it the early part of man's physical life, the morning of human history, the patriarchal dispensation, the Abrahamic portion of Jewish history, the personal ministry of Christ, and just about everything else. Following the view that the "evening" represents the end of life, this writer would refer the time sequence events to various ages of converts; thus, a young person accepts the call early in the morning, others later; and old persons, nearly at the end of life, are said to come in at the eleventh hour. Verse 2 And when he had agreed with the laborers for a shilling a day, he sent them into his vineyard.The KJV uses "penny" instead of shilling for the coin. Inconsistency may appear in the fact that it is not always the young who take an attitude of "bargaining" with the Lord, so much work for so much pay. However, if our analogies be allowed, they were the ones who DID make that mistake here. Furthermore, the temptation to that very attitude is greater on the part of one who contemplates giving his whole life to God and who brings relative innocence and purity of youth to the vineyard. Conversely, the temptation is diminished in those who come later in life, scarred and broken by sin, and realizing their plight of unworthiness and hopelessness far more keenly than any young person could possibly realize it. Verse 3 And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing in the market place idle; and to them he said, Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way. And again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise.God's invitation to men is constant and not confined to any age or condition of life. Morning, noon, evening and twilight, the Master calls men to work in his vineyard. Notice too the Master's evaluation of the work men do outside the church. Those not working in the vineyard are simply standing around "idle." All is lost except what is done for Christ and at his direction. All frenzied human endeavor is the grossest idleness when contrasted with work in the vineyard of the Lord. Verse 6 And about the eleventh hour, he went out, and found others standing; and he saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle? They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard.One of the mysteries is why these men were not hired earlier. If, as the householder suggested, they had been standing around all day, why had they not been hired already? The householder was then on his fifth trip to the marketplace; laborers were urgently needed; and it may not be supposed that the householder had deliberately passed them by without an invitation; and yet they alleged that the reason for their unemployment was their lack of opportunity to work, or lack of an employer. Difficult as that may appear, however, the analogy Jesus sought to convey in this situation, and as it applies to spiritual things, is far easier to understand. God is calling people all the time; but, through the influence of Satan, some do not hear, or hearing do not believe, or believing yield to various seductive deterrents. Therefore, we reject the view that those eleventh hour workers were justified in their day-long idleness on the grounds that they had had no chance to work. True, that is what THEY said the reason was; but we appeal to the words of the householder as a complete refutation of their flimsy alibi. It is quite easy to believe men rather than God, as witnessed by the commentators who accept the paper-thin alibi of those late workers. Would the wise and generous householder (standing here for God Himself) have charged those men with idleness unless he in fact had seen them on his repeated trips to the marketplace? No, we dare not disallow the charge of the householder on the basis of the weak excuse they gave. It is a further commentary on the love, fairness; and goodness of God, that the householder accepted them anyway. This view should not be embarrassing. The attempt to show that the eleventh-hour workers responded as soon as they had a chance is an unconscious effort to lend merit where none existed. The groundless view that this interpretation might encourage one to wait until the evening of life to respond to the gospel call is negated when it is remembered what a frightful chance those late workers took. Who could have dared to suppose that the householder would again appear in the twilight on his fifth mission to the market place? The gospel abounds with warnings that the first call should be heeded. "Behold, NOW is the accepted time." Verse 8 And when even was come, the Lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the laborers, and pay them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first.The chief steward in this analogy is Christ our Lord to whom the Father hath committed judgment; he is the head of the church and shall preside at the judgment of the Great Day. Christ shall mete out to the wicked and to the righteous their just dues. When even was come indicates the end of earthly life; and, due to the association of judgment with life's end, it has a dual significance, applying not only to the end of life in the earthly phase of the kingdom but having an application to the eternal judgment also. In any case, no pay until evening. That is the big message here. Men may never abandon their labors in the church on the assumption that they have done enough. Those in advancing years should take sharp notice of this. Payment will come at the end of the day; and it may be dogmatically assumed that any who abandoned work earlier received nothing at all for their labors. It corresponds to Bible teaching that these men were paid at the end of the day (see Deuteronomy 24:15; Leviticus 19:1-37; Leviticus 18:1-30; Leviticus 17:1-16; Leviticus 16:1-34; Leviticus 15:1-33; Leviticus 14:1-57; Leviticus 13:1-59; Job 7:2; Malachi 3:5; James 5:4). Verse 9 And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a shilling.The representation of eternal life by so small a consideration as a day's wages raises a question and certainly stands opposite from the usual analogies employed by the Lord, such as the hidden treasure, the pearl of great price, and the banquet in the king's house. However, special considerations that required the approach adopted here is discovered in the events and conversations that concluded Matthew 19:1-30. The great wealth of the rich young ruler and his inability to give it up to follow Christ, and the subsequent fixation of the apostles' attention on the problem of rewards and sacrifices, and the Saviour's elaboration of the believer's great reward (see on Matthew 19:29) - all these things had contrived to throw the whole problem out of perspective. This parable is a reduction of the whole economy of redemption to such a minute scale that those apostles, accustomed to dealing with small things, would have no difficulty at all grasping the truth. Eternal life, together with all spiritual blessings, is made to correspond to so simple and ordinary a thing as a shilling, a day's pay; and all the sacrifices, labors, and exertions of men to attain eternal life are made to appear as a day's work, or even a very small fraction of a day's work. Suppose that some incredibly wealthy and fabulous city, such as New York, should be sold for fifteen cents, or fifteen dollars! Who could quibble about the price either way? Price simply bears no relationship whatever to the purchase in such supposition. That is exactly what Christ was teaching in this parable. Whatever people do, however long or short their service to God, whatever of sacrifice, blood, or tears, however soon or late they began to serve him, the reward is so fantastically great that the conditions for obtaining it, whether more or less in certain cases, must forever appear utterly and completely insignificant. Nor is the shilling, or penny, a problem in this view. Christ had just elaborated the rewards at the end of the last chapter; and the shilling appears in the parable as the symbol of those rewards simply because that was the usual day's pay in that age. Even so, it is not inappropriate, because a day's wage is the support of life, not only in that age but in every age. Even a geographer knows the device of making a cipher stand for the world itself! Verse 10 And when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received every man a shilling.The expectation of those men was groundless because they had firmly agreed with the householder for a shilling a day. Their expectation of more resulted from the comparison they made between themselves and the ones who came to work later. It was that very thing, the envy, jealousy, and petty attention to little differences - it was all that Jesus was trying to remove from the apostles' hearts. The perverse and sinful judgments and rankings of themselves among themselves, with the consequent jockeying and maneuvering for position and advantage - these things constitute one of man's most shameful and hurtful patterns of behavior. Paul paid his respects to that vice in these words: For we are not bold to number or compare ourselves with certain of them that commend themselves: but they themselves, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves with themselves, are without understanding (2 Corinthians 10:12). The workers first employed fell into that same foolish trap. As a result, they developed a conceit that turned to outrage when the householder made them equal to the latecomers. Verse 11 And when they received it, they murmured against the householder, saying; These last have spent but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.That the human race needed this parable is perfectly evident from the fact that most people can find a feeling of sympathy for the viewpoint of the "firsters"! There are many in all generations who would have been just as outraged as were they. And why were they angry? The householder had interfered with and upset their petty schedule of ranks and values. The inflated evaluation of themselves as compared with the latecomers had been unceremoniously kicked in the teeth. They had no case, but their spiteful anger flared just the same. Every minister of the gospel has heard this same murmuring in the church when someone says, "Why should he be a deacon; I've been in this congregation twenty years!" "Why should that man be an elder or on the building committee? My Uncle Charlie started this church in a schoolhouse; we've all been members here since it started? This is exactly what Christ was fighting in this parable. "Thou hast made them equal to US!" There is the bull's eye of the trouble. WE are the people. WE have done the work, shouldered the load, borne the heat, and carried the mail. Those latecomers ought to be away down on the scale compared to US! Every church on earth has the US problem. It existed among the sacred numbers of the twelve apostles. But wherever the problem exists, nothing solves it like getting things in the proper perspective. That is what Jesus sought to do with this parable. The FIRST ones became last by their very bitterness and pettiness and their self-righteous preferment of themselves above others; and those LAST became first by their loving trust of the householder. That is the principal point Christ himself drew from the parable. See Matthew 19:29 and Matthew 20:16. Verse 13 But he answered and said to one of them, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a shilling?The cause of the trouble in that ancient vineyard was not the generous and loving householder but the spiteful jealousy of the laborers hired that morning. Jesus' use of the word "Friend" here does not carry the same connotation that the word has for many in our day. He thus addressed Judas who came to betray him (Matthew 26:50). Verse 14 Take up that which is thine, and go thy way; it is my will to give unto this last, even as to thee.Note the words, "take up." Can it be that some of those disgruntled workers had even thrown their pay on the ground at the chief steward's feet? The words do certainly suggest that. What an insight such conduct affords. What a wreckage of human personality comes of envy and jealousy! Envy, pride, self-righteousness, and egotism had so embittered those men that they repudiated a fair and honorable bargain, turned on their benevolent employer, murmured against him, and threw their wages on the ground! Here, of course, is the point that most commentators find so difficult. Ancient and modern expositors alike seem to stumble on the problem, "How can people like that be represented as redeemed?" The complainers in the parable actually appear as having their wages thrust upon them after having thrown their pay on the ground. They were the ones who worked all day in the vineyard, and they were the ones who went home with their just pay. How can salvation be justly ascribed to men with such a pattern of behavior and with such an attitude? To be sure, the difficulty might be avoided by making this incident an inert or inactive part of the parable; but it received too much stress for that. This writer views it as another example of the Father's goodness, just like that represented by the father of the prodigal son who received him, and later went and entreated the elder brother also. We conclude that God will save even people like that if they give Him half a chance to do so. If we disallow such a possibility, we fall into the same error as the "firsters" in supposing that we meek and gentle trusters of God's grace are better than THEY, and that the good householder would in some way injure US (there's that word again) if he saved sinners like them! In any case, the solemn warning in the next verse is squarely directed at all the "Us-es" in either category. Verse 15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? or is thine eye evil, because I am good?Let it be remembered that all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory. This parable shows that men may forget this in two ways: (1) They may forget it like the ones who worked all day and supposed that they were better than the ones who came later; (2) and they may forget it like the eleventh-hour workers would have forgotten it if they had objected to the householder's payment of the "firsters" on the grounds that the "firsters" had the wrong attitude! Although such a development did not occur in the parable, such an objection against the householder is found in the writings of commentators from Origen and Irenaeus to Alford and Trench. Let no man object to God's saving men on any grounds whatsoever: (1) whether from the allegation that some have not worked like "US," or (2) from the allegation that their makes them inferior to "US," or from whatever premise, real or imaginary, true or false. It is altogether righteous and lawful for God to do what he wills. Verse 16 So the last shall be first, and the first last.It was with this declaration that the parable began and ended. The grand lesson is that men do not deserve or merit salvation. In the case of the laborers, those who worked all day did not deserve their pay after having thrown it on the ground. That act forfeited their further right to it. In spite of their lack of merit, the good householder required them to pick it up, thus giving it to them in spite of their forfeiture. The ones who labored only an hour did not deserve their pay either. They had certainly done nothing to merit a day's wages. Not even their wonderful "attitude" entitled them to a day's pay. Their reward was as much of grace as was that of the bitter "firsters"! Some of the people of our own day who fancy that their sweet and pious attitude in some way entitles them to God's favor should take note of this. The householder had every right to have cut them off with a trifle instead of a whole day's pay. People simply do not and cannot MERIT salvation. People do not merit salvation either by works or by attitudes of trust. The meek and trustful spirit is to be desired; so also is the worker; but neither class of people, nor yet another class combining the virtues of both, can in any degree merit salvation. It is all of grace and not of debt; nor does that exclude obedience. Verse 17 And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples apart, and on the way, he said unto them, Behold we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and scribes: and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify: and the third day he shall be raised up.THE THIRD OF JESUS' PASSIONIn the two previous prophetic announcements of his impending Passion, in Matthew 16:21 and Matthew 17:22-23, Christ had revealed the following details of his approaching death and resurrection: Death would be accomplished in Jerusalem. Scribes would have a part in it. Chief priests would be involved. The elders of the people would also be instruments of his death. He would suffer many things from them. He would not merely die, but be killed, a far different thing. He would rise from the dead. His resurrection would occur on the third day. He would fall into their hands by being "delivered up," that is, betrayed. In the place before us, Christ added the following supplemental details: He would be condemned to death, indicating a trial by tribunal. The Gentiles would have a part in it. Gentiles would mock him. Gentiles would scourge him. Gentiles would crucify him. Thus, no less than 14 pertinent and significant details of the approaching Passion were pinpointed by Christ. In these three prophetic announcements of his Passion, it is plain that every circumstance of those awful events was fully known by the Lord BEFORE it occurred. It is stated that Jesus took the apostles "apart." Throughout his ministry, there were numbers of occasions when Christ withdrew from the hustle and bustle of daily work to engage in prayer, meditation, contemplation, and quietness. It was in such an hour that he gathered strength to approach the cross. Disciples in all ages should not neglect the ministry of the quiet hour in which the soul may take its soundings, the true perspective be ascertained, and in which the resources of the spirit may be replenished at the fountain of prayer and meditation. Vance Havner put it like this, "`Come ye yourselves apart ... and rest awhile' ( Mark 6:31). This is a MUST for Christians. If you don't come apart, you WILL come apart."[1] ENDNOTE:[1] Vance Havner, Pepper and Salt (Westwood, New Jersey, Fleming H. Revell Company, 1966), p. 9. Verse 20 Then came to him the mother of the sons of Zebedee with her sons, worshipping him, and asking a certain thing of him.Christ had not yet succeeded in eliminating the "me first" virus from the hearts of the Twelve. James and John, aided by their mother, pressed him for a decision that would leave out Peter and the others. Repeated announcements of Christ's impending death (and resurrection which they continued to ignore) only kindled greater enthusiasm on their part for solving the problem of "head man" in the church after Jesus' death. The wife of Zebedee did a noble thing in worshipping Jesus; but her request was founded in ignorance of what his kingdom would be. Verse 21 And he said unto her, What wouldest thou? She saith unto him, "Command that these my two sons may sit, one on thy right hand, and one on thy left hand, in thy kingdom."The request of the wife of Zebedee meant that she wanted James and John to be the first and second ministers in the coming kingdom, envisioning such offices, no doubt, as those of Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer! Some have found a mystical fulfillment of her request in the fact that James was the first apostle to die and John was the last. If one wonders why the apostles thus behaved, it should be remembered that they were still sold under sin. The great redemption had not yet taken place. Verse 22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink the cup that I am about to drink? They say unto him, We are able.The word "cup" as used above refers to the bitterness of Jesus' sufferings. He prayed in Gethsemane that "this cup" might pass from him. The ready response of James and John showed how little they understood the implications of what the Master had just said. Verse 23 He saith unto them, My cup indeed ye shall drink: but to sit on my right hand and on my left hand, is not mine to give; but it is for them for whom it hath been prepared of my Father.Christ did not reveal who would have such honors. All such things had been prepared and predetermined by the Father in the foreknowledge of God's eternal purpose. The whole drama of human redemption was planned "before the world was"; and the important places in his kingdom were in no sense up for grabs under the press of human ambitions. The prophecy that James and John would indeed drink of the Saviour's cup was fulfilled when James was martyred under the sword of Herod (Acts 12:1-25), and as, in all probability, John suffered at a much later date. Christ did far more than merely deny the request of that ambitious woman on behalf of her sons. He went much further and explained that the usual concept of some men ruling over others would not be allowed in the kingdom of God under any circumstance. Verse 24 And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation concerning the two brethren.Why this indignation against James and John? Was it not their mother who had made the request? Yes. But without doubt, James and John had also desired top honors and had enlisted the good offices of their mother to help procure the coveted positions. The indignation of the ten was properly directed. Thus, Satan used human ambition to split the very heart of Jesus' chosen cadre of followers. Verse 25 But Jesus called them unto him and said, Ye know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Not so shall it be among you: but whosoever would become great among you shall be your minister; and whosoever would be first among you shall be your servant.This statement of Christ does not merely repeat a well-known fact for emphasis. This is not a case of poetry in which the meaning of the first clause is exactly duplicated in the second. The full meaning appears when the pyramidal quality of Gentile government is observed. Their Great Ones The Rulers of the Gentiles The GentilesThere are three ranks (tiers) of authority. Thus, the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over the Gentiles, and their great ones exercise authority upon the rulers of the Gentiles. Christ categorically denied any such pyramidal system of government any place whatsoever in his kingdom. "All of you are brethren" (Matthew 23:8). True greatness in Christ's kingdom lies not in office but in service. Jesus very wisely identified such pyramided governments as "Gentile," thus indicating their rejection in his kingdom of love and service, rather than of strutting power. That such Gentile forms of power exist in so-called Christian religions today does not nor cannot make it right. Verse 28 Even as the son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.It is strange that the disciples did not see that quality in Jesus, or, seeing it, seemed incapable of imitating it. His humility, meekness, and utter disregard of worldly ambition did not evoke any similar attitude on the part of the Twelve. The reason appears to be in this very text. They were still sold under sin. The great ransom for man's salvation had not yet been paid. True, the Holy Sacrifice was even then preparing to go up to Jerusalem and offer himself for the sins of all mankind, and thus to redeem them from the power of the evil one; but meanwhile the debt for sin remained undischarged, and Satan was doubling and redoubling his efforts to thwart God's holy purpose. A ransom for many! "Who gave himself a RANSOM for all" (1 Timothy 2:6). "God sent ... his Son to be the for our sins" (1 John 2:1-2). "Ye were with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, even the blood of Christ" (1 Peter 1:19). "For ye were BOUGHT with a price" (1 Corinthians 6:20). Ah, how wonderful is the thought that Christ ransoms from sin! In the terrible night of this world's darkness and despair, how grandly do these glorious words go marching in the gloom of human wretchedness and sin - "ransomed, redeemed, propitiated, bought with a price!" Verse 29 And as they went out from Jericho, a great multitude followed him.TWO BLIND MEN OF JERICHOThis miracle is recorded by all three of the synoptics, and their various accounts present a nice little package of "discrepancies" which are the peculiar delight of skeptics and agnostics. Trench summarized the difficulties thus: According to him (Matthew) there are TWO blind men ... and only ONE in the other gospels. Luke appears at first sight partially to contradict one of these statements, and wholly the other; for him, the healed is but ONE; and Christ effects his cure not as he was , but at his COMING NIGH to the city. Mark occupies a middle place, holding in part with one of his fellow evangelists, in part with the other; with Luke, he names only one who was healed; with Matthew, he places the miracle, not at the entering into, but the going out from, Jericho; so that the three narratives, in a way as curious as it is perplexing, cross and interlace one another.[2] The problem of the time or place of this miracle, whether as Christ was leaving or entering Jericho, disappears in the light of what is certainly known about that locality. A. T. Robertson said: The discrepancy as to place, "as he went out from Jericho," or "as he drew nigh to Jericho," is best explained by the recent suggestion that the healing occurred after he left old Jericho, and as he was approaching the new Jericho which Herod the Great had built at some distance away.[3] Thus, as always, alleged contradictions flow out of men's ignorance of all the facts, not out of any real errors by the sacred writers. Add to Robertson's observation the obvious and undeniable fact that, with two Jericho's close together, any blind beggar would naturally choose a site between them! Both and all three gospels are correct. He was entering one Jericho, leaving the other. Far from being any problem, therefore, these separate accounts are overwhelming proof that the gospel writers are independent witnesses and completely trustworthy. [2] Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Miracles (Westwood, New Jersey, Fleming H. Revell Company, 1953), p. 456. [3] A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Four Gospels (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1922), p. 149, footnote. Verse 30 And behold, two blind men sitting by the wayside, when they heard that Jesus was passing by, cried out, saying, Lord, have mercy on us, thou son of David.The difficulty mentioned above, whether there was one healed or two, is resolved in the truth that there were actually two, as stated by Matthew; and that Luke and Mark, following a pattern often observed in the New Testament, mentioned only one, the most important (to them). Mark's account shows that he was personally acquainted with Bartimaeus and his father. Thus, the healing of one known personally to Mark as a respected friend would naturally overshadowed other healings that occurred at the same time. There is no contradiction that Matthew named two, a fact that could be contradicted only by an assertion that Jesus healed ONLY one, a statement that neither Mark nor Luke made. Those unfortunate men heard that Jesus was passing by, and they began to cry out for mercy, calling him the Son of David, a popular Jewish name for the Messiah. It is a truth worthy of our attention that even the blind, physically, could SEE that Christ was the Holy One, thus qualifying them in this category as far more perceptive than many who were spiritually blind to the excellence of Jesus. Verse 31 And the multitude rebuked them, that they should hold their peace: but they cried out the more, saying, Lord, have mercy on us, thou Son of David.Trench taught that the multitude might have acted out of consideration for the Master in thus trying to restrain the cries of those blind men; but it appears far more probable that Christ's old enemies, the Pharisees, or their spies, were also present (though not mentioned), and that their efforts sprang from an evil desire to silence those loud proclamations of Christ as the Messiah, a fact so abundantly attested by Jesus' mighty works, and so generally known among the people, that such a spark as might have been provided by the cries of those blind men could have set off a great demonstration. On no other occasion is it recorded that the multitude tried to silence a cry for help. Thus, there must have been some rare and unusual reason for it in this case. The repeated cries, "Thou Son of David," echoing up and down the wayside were just such an affront to the Pharisees as to provoke their interference with it if, as might be supposed, they were present. Be that as it may, whether done by that multitude with or without Pharisaical inducement, Satan must have been the prime instigator. No humor may have been intended in this wonderful narrative, but elements of it are undoubtedly present. Just imagine the spiritually blind Pharisees trying to "shush" the cries of those blind beggars who were screaming to high heaven in the presence of a great multitude that here indeed was the Messiah, a fact perfectly clear to everyone except his evil lordship, the Pharisee! Verse 32 And Jesus stood still, and called them, and said, What will ye that I should do unto you?Love stands still at the cry for help, How noble was our Lord's conduct on that occasion! He was never heedless of the cries of the poor, the suffering, the sick, or the blind, or the unfortunate. Multitudes may be in a hurry, but Christ is not in a hurry. Here is an act of compassion that suggests a great passenger train stopping to aid a child to cross the street, or the conduct of Robert E. Lee, of whom it is said that he dismounted during a battle to lift a tiny bird back into its nest. But of course there is really nothing in the conduct of men that may properly be compared with the compassion of Jesus. Verse 33 They say unto him, Lord, that our eyes may be opened.Mark adds the graphic words that Bartimaeus cast off his garment that he might better run to Christ. Thus, naked, or nearly so, this poor beggar, blind, despised, and suffering the most abject shame and poverty, appeared as an object of the utmost pity as he stood trembling before the Lord of Life and heard the blessed words, "What will ye that I should do unto you?" With such a word Jesus brought his petition from the general to the particular need, as Christ so often did. Naturally, there was no aching hope in a blind man's heart that could surpass the desire to see. Verse 34 And Jesus, being moved with compassion, touched their eyes; and straightway they received their sight, and followed him.Christ's wonderful compassion set him apart from others. Alas, compassion is not a common human trait. How few there are who have the grace to see and the compassion to pity the sufferings of others. It is far easier to ascribe their woeful condition to their own sins or misdeeds and to go blindly and heedlessly onward without regard to those of our fellow mortals who make up the company of earth's wretched sufferers. How glorious it is that Jesus saw the man, and all the human tragedy, and the bleeding human heart that beat beneath the beggar's tattered shirt. H. Leo Boles observed from Mark's account that Jesus bade them, "Go thy way." And yet, with an affectionate disobedience, they followed him as their benefactor. It was their way to follow him, since they were obedient after all. The blessing which they sought in receiving sight may have led them to become his disciples and receive spiritual blessings.[4] ENDNOTE:[4] H. Leo Boles, A Commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1961), p. 408. McGarvey Commentary For The Matthew Chapter TwentyParable of the Laborers in the Vineyard, Matthew 20:1-161. For the kingdom.—For connects this paragraph with the closing remark in the preceding, "many that are first shall be last, and the last shall be first." This parable is therefore intended to expound and to illustrate that thought. This intention is also indicated in verse 16, in which the parable is brought to a close by the statement, "So the last shall be first, and the first last; for many are called but few chosen." hire laborers into his vineyard.—An elliptical expression for "hire laborers to work in his vineyard." 2. penny a day.—A denarius a day, fifteen cents. This seems to have been the regular price for a day's labor. 3-6. the third hour... the sixth.—As the Jews numbered the hours from six in the morning, the third was nine o'clock, the sixth was noon, the ninth was three P. M., and the eleventh was five P. M., or an hour before the close of the day. 7. no man hath hired us.—They had stood all the day idle because no man had hired them, and they had probably stood in the marketplace (ἥἀγορα, the place of public resort) for the purpose of finding employment. It is implied that the others were found idle for the same reason. 8. beginning from the last to the first.—Another elliptical expression, in which going is omitted. Beginning thus had the double effect of making conspicuous the fact that the last received a full day's wages, and of calling forth a complaint from those who had come first. (9, 10.) 11, 12. they murmured.—They had received all that they had bargained for, and all that they had earned; but it caused them pain to see others receive the same for only one-twelfth of the labor which they had performed. 13, 14. I do thee no wrong.—No wrong was done to the murmurer, for he had agreed to work for what he received. The settlement with him was strictly just. Nor was any wrong done to the others, for they received more than they had earned. 15. Is it not lawful.—Having shown that no injustice was done, the employer now justifies the gratuity which he had given to the others, on the ground of his right to do as he would with his own, to bestow his gratuities where and when he chooses. He also traces the complaint of the murmurer to its true source by demanding, "Is thine eye evil because I am good?" An evil eye is a synonym for jealousy, and it acquired this meaning from the malicious leer with which jealousy regards its object. (Comp. Mark 7:2; 1 Samuel 18:9.) These laborers were jealous of the others because of the unmerited favor which the latter had received. 16. So the last.—Here Jesus states the point of comparison in the parable. "So"—that is, as in the parable, so in the kingdom of heaven— "the last shall be first, and the first last." How, then, were the last first and the first last in the parable? In the payment of the laborers the householder told his steward to begin with the last and end with the first (verse 8); but this mere order of sequence in receiving the reward can not be the point of comparison, for there is nothing in the rewards of the kingdom of heaven to correspond with it. The last were first in another and much more important sense; they received a reward much greater in proportion to the labor which they had performed. Those who came last were first of all in respect to the ratio between the reward and the labor, and those who came first wore last of all in this particular. The payment of wages was not regulated by the rule of quid pro quo, so much money for so much labor; but, while there was a full reward in every case, in all except the first there was more than a reward— there was an undeserved gratuity, which showed the goodness of the householder. The contract with those who came first, and who receive no more than they had earned, is evidently mentioned for the purpose of showing the real price of a day's work, and setting forth the fact that the others did receive a gratuity. It has no significance in the application of the parable, but is, like a shade in a picture, intended to make the significant figures more conspicuous. Thus it is in the parable: now what is there like this in the kingdom? Peter and his companions had left all and followed Jesus, had come at his call to work in his vineyard, and he had just inquired of the Master, "What shall we have therefore?" What shall be our wages? (19:27.) He was told what their reward was to be, and then, lest they might think that those with the best prospects would be in every instance most certain of the reward, Jesus tells them that many first shall be last, and the last first; and, lest they should think that the promised reward would be only a just compensation for their sacrifices and toils, he recites the parable and says, "So the last shall be first and the first last." That is, in the kingdom of heaven, as in the parable, rewards are not distributed on the principle of a just compensation for labor performed, but, while all labor receives a just compensation (for God is not unrighteous to forget your work and love—Hebrews 6:10), all the laborers will receive a reward far greater than they deserve— a reward which will show the goodness (verse 15) of the Master. And as a consequence of this principle of reward, the last shall be first, and the first last; that is, the last in amount of labor performed shall be first in the ratio between labor and reward, and the first in amount of labor shall be last in said ratio. This we know to be a fact; for eternal life is inconceivably more than a compensation for all that a man can do and suffer in pursuit of it, and among those who will inherit it those who will have done and suffered the least will be first in the ratio between their labor and their reward, and vice versa.Compare the thief on the cross, for example, with the apostle Paul. From the preceding interpretation it follows, that the different hours at which the laborers were called into the vineyard do not represent different periods' of human life: for although two old men, one of whom had spent his life in the Church, and the other had just entered it, would be cases in point, yet he who becomes a Christian in childhood may, and often docs, on account of early death, do less labor for the Lord than he who is called in the meridian of life, or even in old age. This parable has often been used to encourage hope in cases of deathbed repentance. It certainly does teach, that however little the labor which a man does in the Lord's vineyard, he will receive the final reward if only he be really in the vineyard; that is, if he be really a child of God. But whether a man who repents on his deathbed actually becomes a child of God, is a different question, and is not touched by the parable. Certainly, the eleventh-hour laborer who had stood idle all day only because no man had hired him, and who came into the vineyard as soon as he was called, can not represent the man who has been called by the gospel every hour of his life, but has rejected every call until his sun has sunk so low that he knows he can do but little work when he comes. In order to represent this class of sinners, the eleventh-hour men should have been invited early in the morning, and should have replied, "No, it is too early; I will not go now." Then they should have been invited at the third, the sixth, and the ninth hours, and should have made some equally frivolous excuse each time; then, finally, at the eleventh hour, they should have said, "Well, as you pay a man just the same for an hour's work as for a day's work, and as I am very anxious to get your money, I believe I will now go." Had they acted thus, it is not likely that they would have found the vineyard gate open to them at all. Yet such is the sharp practice which some men attempt in dealing with God. Argument of Section 1 (Matthew 20:1-16) In the series of conversations which fill the preceding section, Matthew has given proof of both the divine knowledge and the divine wisdom of Jesus. The conversation about marriage and divorce shows that he had a conception of the subject far transcending that of the age in which he lived and of all preceding ages. Indeed, it is a conception too pure and lofty for the subsequent generations of his own disciples; for thousands of them have appreciated it so little as to excuse themselves in disregarding it. In the conversation about little children, Jesus revealed in a single sentence their true relation to God— a relation which the world had not discovered, and which it has ever been slow to recognize. How many there are at the present day who regard children as totally depraved, and who either go through the form of baptizing them in order to fit them for heaven, or teach that they undergo a spiritual regeneration in the article of death! Here again the wisdom of Jesus towers high above that of the most philosophical of his followers. The conversation with the rich young man shows the power of Jesus to read the secrets of men's hearts, detecting faults which are hidden from their own eyes. The man had said nothing to indicate a love of money; on the contrary, the extreme rectitude of his life appeared inconsistent with the damning sin of covetousness, and left him to wonder what he yet lacked of being perfect. But Jesus laid bare the hidden sin by saying to him, "Go and sell that thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven." In reference to the salvation of rich men Jesus had also made a revelation which amazed his disciples, and which many of his friends in later ages have tried to explain away because it requires too much unselfishness to suit their taste. It was a wisdom not of this world by which he spake. Finally, the foreknowledge of Jesus is exhibited in his statements about the reward awaiting his disciples, and in his illustration of that subject in the parable of the laborers. Part of his prediction had already been fulfilled when Matthew wrote his narrative; for the apostles were already sitting on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel, and others had already experienced that those who forsake houses, brethren, etc., on account of his name, "shall receive manifold, and shall inherit everlasting life." Now it is barely possible that any one of the above named exhibitions of wisdom might be accounted for by the supposition that Jesus was a man of transcendent genius; but when we consider them all together, and in connection with them consider the miraculous foreknowledge which is intermingled with them, we can account for them only on the supposition of divine inspiration. And if Jesus spoke by divine inspiration, his claim to be the Messiah and the Son of God is established beyond controversy. Third Prediction of His Death, Matthew 20:17-19. (Mark 10:32-34; Luke 18:31-34)17. going up to Jerusalem.—Having followed Jesus, on his departure from Galilee, into Perea, where the conversations of the last section took place, Matthew now starts with him from some point in that country, on his last journey to Jerusalem. Much matter related by John (perhaps all from his seventh to his eleventh chapter inclusive), and some related by Luke (17:1-18:14), are here omitted. the twelve disciples apart.—As on the two former occasions, Jesus makes the announcement of his death to his immediate followers alone. Such an announcement to the unbelieving multitude would have confirmed them in their unbelief, and at the same time it might have encouraged his enemies in their machinations against him. 18, 19. shall be betrayed.—In these verses Jesus describes his arrest, condemnation, and sufferings, precisely as they afterward occurred. First, he was to be "betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes," which was done by Judas. Second, he was to be condemned by them to death, and to be delivered to the Gentiles, which was done when the Sanhedrim pronounced him guilty and called on Pilate to execute him. Third, the Gentiles were "to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him," which was done by the soldiers of Pilate with his consent. Fourth, on the third day he was to rise again, and this was effected by the power of God. If we only credit Matthew's statement, that this prediction was made by Jesus while he was yet alive and before he made his last visit to Jerusalem, we must regard it as one of the most remarkable predictions recorded even in the Bible. Ambition of James and John, Matthew 20:20-28. (Mark 10:35-45)20. mother of Zebedee's children.—Her name was Salome. (Matthew 27:61. Comp. Mark 15:40.) The fact that both here and in Matthew 27:56, she is called "the mother of Zebedee's children," rather than the wile of Zebedee, has led to the very probable conjecture that Zebedee had died since his two sons had left him in the fishing boat. (Mark 1:20.) This conjecture has also led to another, that the disciple who had asked leave to go and bury his lather (Matthew 8:21) was James or John, their father having died just previous to that time. worshiping him.—Worshiping in the sense of humble prostration before him, not in the sense of paying him divine honors. 21. What wilt thou?—She had asked, in indefinite terms, "a certain thing of him" (verse 20, comp. Mark 10:35), but he declines to answer until she states in specific terms what she desires. on thy right hand.—The place of highest honor in the courts of kings is at the right hand of the throne, and the next, at the left hand. Salome therefore desired to secure for her two sons the highest possible honors in the expected kingdom. 22. Ye know not.—Although the mother alone had spoken, Jesus treats the request as that of the two sons, by using the plural "ye," and addressing his answer exclusively to them. The request was understood in the same way by the ten. (Verse 24.) They knew not what they were asking, because to sit on his right hand and on his left was far different from what they thought, and was to be obtained in a way of which they had no conception. the cup that I shall drink.—It was common in ancient times to execute criminals by compelling them to drink a cup of poison, and assassination and suicide were often effected by the same means. The cup, therefore, became a symbol of suffering and of death, and it is so used here. The words of this and the next verse that are in brackets are copied from Mark 10:38-39, where they will be considered. 23. Ye shall drink.—James drank the cup by suffering martyrdom at the hands of Herod Agrippa, being the first of the apostles to suffer death. (Acts 12:2.) John lived to an old age, outliving all of the other apostles, and died a natural death; but he drank the cup by the sufferings through which he passed. not mine to give.—The rendering should be, "not mine to give except to those for whom it is prepared by my Father." (Alford.) It was his to give it, but only to those for whom it is prepared by the Father. 24. moved with indignation.—Nothing moves the indignation of men more than to know that one of a company of equals is plotting to get an undue advantage over the others. It was now necessary that Jesus should interfere as a peacemaker. 25-28. not be so among you.—To sit on his right hand and on his left in the kingdom would not only be an honor, but it would give authority. Jesus informs them that while the princes and the great among the Gentiles exercise dominion and authority, it is not to be so in his kingdom, but that the post of honor is to be the post of servitude. The one who would be great must be their minister (δικονος, domestic servant), and he who would be chief (πρτος, first), must be their slave (δολος). He enforces the lesson by his own example, in that he came not to have men serve him, but that he might serve them. In this way both the ambition of James and John, and the indignation of the others, were suppressed. It is impossible for preachers, teachers, and other workers in the Church, to study this lesson too carefully. The Blind Men at Jericho, Matthew 20:29-34. (Mark 10:46-52; Luke 18:35 to Luke 19:1)29. departed from Jericho.—Departed in the direction of Jerusalem; for they were then, as previously stated, "going up to Jerusalem." (Verse 17.) Their arrival at Jericho is not mentioned, because the writer is not aiming to give an account of all that was done, but only of certain detached incidents. 30. thou Son of David.—On the meaning of this expression, and on the faith of blind men, see the notes, 9:27, 28. 31. the multitude rebuked them.—Their clamor appeared to the multitude indecorous, and it interrupted conversation; hence their desire to suppress it. The multitude were thinking of their own comfort and dignity instead of sympathizing with the unfortunate. 32, 33. stood still and called them.—To rebuke the indifference of the multitude, as well as to grant the petition of the blind men, Jesus showed, by stopping and calling them to him, that he had not been indifferent to their cries. They had cried only for mercy: he makes them tell in what way they desire him to manifest it, and then he grants their request. They needed Far more of his mercy than they called for; but, like men in general, they thought more of their bodily than of their spiritual ills. 34. they followed him.—Though they came not for spiritual comfort, the bodily blessing which they received attached their hearts to Jesus and led them in the direction of the blessings yet more to be desired. Questions by E.M. Zerr For Matthew 201. To what man is the kingdom of heaven likened ? 2. He went out for what purpose? 3. At what hours did he go? 4. With which group did he specify the wages ? 5. State the agreement with the others. 6. What reason given for idleness of the last group ? 7. State the contract made with them. 8. When was the paying done? 9. Which was paid first? 10. Who received most wages? 11. Tell who complained. 12. Did they complain of shortage in wages? 13. To what spirit would you lay their complaint? 14. On what ground did the paymaster justify himself? 15. This all illustrated what reversal? 16. What people was first in God’ s service? 17. Who showed more readiness to serve him? 18. To what city were they next going? 19. On the way whom did Jesus call to one side? 20. What event did he inform them about? 21. How were the Gentiles to have a part in it ? 22. And why the priests and scribes? 23. What about the third day? 24. What woman came to Jesus at this time? 25. Name her sons. 26. State her request. 27. Why was it not granted ? 28. Instead, what were they to share with Jesus? 29. Hearing this caused what in the ten brethren? 30. Point out a cause for this. 31. To what people did Jesus refer for illustration? 32. With them what did the great men do? 33. But with whom was this not to be the case? 34. Who was to be servant? 35. And who was to be their minister ? 36. For what had the Son of man not come? 37. Instead, what would he give? 38. And he came to do what ? 39. From what city did they now depart? 40. Who followed them? 41. What objects of charity were passed? 42. For what did they first cry out? 43. What did they call Jesus? 44. Were they correct ? 45. How could Jesus be both? 46. Who rebuked them? 47. With what result? 48. Then what did Jesus first do? 49. State his question to them. 50. In answer, what title did they use? 51. State their request. 52. What kind of power would this require? 53. Could a son of David perform this? 54. Who could ? 55. Tell what Jesus then did. 56. How soon did the men see? 20:1. Jesus was still talking to his disciples when he spoke the following parable. It was to illustrate the principle mentioned and commented upon in the last verse of the preceding chapter. The application of the parable will come in verse 16, but the whole story had to be told to bring out the point. A vineyard means usually a place where grapes are grown, but the word could be understood to denote any place where plants are cultivated. Early in the morning means the beginning of the day, for the next time he went out it was still only the third hour of the day. 20:2 The penny was equivalent to about 17 cents in our money. The value of the wages is not important in the parable as it was spoken for another purpose. 20:3 The householder found he needed more workers and went out about the third hour (9 A. 'M. our time) and found others unemployed which indicates he had secured the first laborers in this place. Marketplace is from AGORA and it is defined in the lexicon of Thayer as follows: "In the New Testament the forum or public place,--where trials are held, and citizens resort, and commodities are exposed for sale." It is easy to see why a man would go to such a place to hire workmen. 20:4 No stipulated amount was stated but the laborers were promised whatever was right. They evidently agreed with the terms for it states they went their way. 20:5 The householder went back for more men at noon and 3 P. M. and made the same bargain for it says and did likewise. 20:6 The last time he went was about the eleventh hour which would correspond with our 5 P. M., an hour before quitting time at least, depending on what part of the eleventh hour it was when he hired them. 20:7 He asked them why they were idle and they said that no man had offered them any work. That being a valid explanation, the house holder engaged them to work with the same promise he made the ones hired from the third hour and on through the day. The use that is made of the "eleventh hour" item is entirely off of the purpose of the parable, but because of the widespread idea existing concerning it, I think it will be well to give some notice to It. The error to which I refer is the doctrine that a person professing repentance on his deathbed should be compared to these men in the eleventh hour. There is no comparison for these men went to work as soon as they had an opportunity while the deathbed man had been offered work by the Gospel ever since he was of responsible age. Also, these men had whatever was left of the eleventh hour and all of the twelfth to work, while the deathbed man has let the whole day of life go by and he has no opportunity to work at all. 20:8 There is no special rule in business that caused the paymaster to begin with the ones hired last. However, by telling the parable in that order Jesus brought out the idea of the lesson which is in verse 16. These men were last as to time and the chronology of events but they were first or foremost in receiving the Lord's estimation. 20:9 These "eleventh-hour" men did not know how much they were to receive, only that it was to be "whatever is right." They made no complaint and hence showed a willingness to be fair and agreeable. 0:10 They supposed expresses the basis on which most of the erroneous doctrines of men are formed. There is no scripture for the theories hence they rely on their own judgment and it is usually along the line of what they were wanting to begin with. These "early" laborers did not complain when the wage rate was stated, and neither was the paymaster cutting it short at the end of the day. But they were measuring themselves by others in the laboring group which is an unwise principle to act upon according to Paul in 2 Corinthians 10:12. 0:11 They complained to the very man who made the bargain with them in the morning and with whom they found no fault when they hired to him. 0:12 Made them equal with us was a false accusation. The householder was only carrying out his contract as he had done with them. The "eleventh-hour" men had gone to work at the first opportunity and the others had done no better than that. When they accepted the offer of employment they knew they would have to do a full day's work which would extend through the hottest part of the work period. 0:13 I do thee no wrong was a truthful statement for the householder was living up to his contract made at the time of employment. 0:14 That thine is denotes that these men wanted more than was coming to them. When the paymaster put the penny into their hands he gave them all that was rightfully theirs. That means that had they obtained more than the penny they would have gone home with property that did not belong to them. 0:15 This householder could have given his money to anyone he chose regardless of all others and been within his rights since it was his own. Eye evil because means they had an envious eye when they saw the good favor bestowed upon the others. 2:14. See the comments at Matthew 20:16 for the explanation of this. 0:17 The twelve disciples always means the twelve apostles. 0:18 This is the second time that Jesus made this sad prediction (chapter 16:21). No reply was made by the apostles this time, the rebuke from Jesus to Peter on the other occasion evidently not being forgotten. 0:19 The Jews could condemn a man to death but they did not have the authority to execute it (John 18:31). That is why they had to take their cases to the Roman or secular courts (here called the Gentiles) to get such a sentence carried out. 0:20 In Mark 10:35 these brethren are identified simply as the sons of Zebedee as they would also be recognized to be in our verse. The reason for the seemingly unnecessary phrase mother of Zebedee's children is that she spoke for her sons, whereas the account in Mark tells us only of their desire. The woman first worshiped Jesus before asking her favor. (See the long definition of "worship" at chapter 2:2.) 0:21 Since Jesus knew what, was in man's mind it was not necessary for him to ask this question for information. However, it is the will of the Lord for his creatures to show their confidence in Him by asking, although he knows what they need before they ask (see chapter 6:8). The woman's request was based on the same erroneous idea of the kingdom of heaven that people generally had while Jesus was on earth. She thought it was to be in the nature of an earthly kingdom, and that the persons who were permitted to occupy seats nearest the king would have some special advantages. 0:22 There was more than one reason for saying they did not know what they were asking for, one of them being their ignorance of what was in store for Jesus. But they thought they were prepared in mind to take whatever might come in their association with the king and doubtless they were sincere in their answer. While they had riot asked for that experience, Jesus asked them the question and got an affirmative reply. 0:23 The cup and baptism are used figuratively and refer to the persecutions that were destined to come upon Christ and his followers. They indeed were to have that experience as Jesus informed them. Since Jesus was to be the king it would naturally fall to someone else to do the seating of him on the throne. That is why he said of it that it is not mine to give. However, he did say that the Father would give the honor to them for whom it is prepared. 0:24 This conversation between Christ and the two brethren was heard by the ten other apostles. We are not told why they were indignant, but evidently it was because of the ambition of the two in wanting to be seated above the others in places of authority. Jesus had already told them (chapter 19:28) that all of them would have important positions in the kingdom which should have made them grateful and satisfied. 0:25 It was necessary so often for the apostles to be corrected in their erroneous notion of the kingdom of heaven, because they thought of it in the same light as the governments of the world. Jesus reminded them that in such kingdoms a person who is great is the one who has the most authority, and such a man often uses that greatness to impose upon his fellow citizens. 0:26 In the kingdom that Christ was going to set up, phases that would involve greatness and popularity were to be opposite those in worldly kingdoms; in the institution of Christ true greatness was to consist in service to others. Minister is from and one meaning of the word in the lexicon is "servant." 0:27 Servant is from a different word than minister in the preceding verse. It is a stronger term and is compared to a slave. Such a word was used because the apostles were so much in the dark as to the character of the coming kingdom that it took unusual language to get them to see the point. 0:28 As a proof that the kingdom of Heaven was to be different from others, Jesus cited his own example of condescension. Although he was to be its king, he came among men as the greatest of servants, and crowned that service by giving his life. 0:29 As a rule there were many people following Jesus as he went from place to place but they were not all going with the same motive. Some were sincerely seeking for more teaching, some were interested in his miraculous cure of their diseases, and others were following with selfish interests in the temporal favors (John 6:26). 0:30 For the significance of .on of David see comments at Matthew 15:22. 9. As to why they rebuked him, see the notes at Matthew 20:31. 0:32 Jesus halted and asked the blind men what they wanted. He did not ask them to come in to him since they were blind and that would have been a hardship on them. 0:33. A man's eyesight is one of the most precious faculties he possesses, and it was the one thing that was uppermost in the minds of these unfortunates. 0:34. When Jesus so willed it he made bodily contact with persons he wished to favor. These men showed their appreciation by joining the group following Jesus. Matthew 21 "THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Chapter Twenty-One Jesus began His Last Week before His crucifixion with a triumphant entry into Jerusalem (Matthew 21:1-11), followed with dramatic acts like driving the moneychangers from the temple (Matthew 21:12-17) and cursing the barren fig tree (Matthew 21:18-22). His authority was soon challenged (Matthew 21:23-27), and in response Jesus told the parables of the two sons (Matthew 21:28-32) and the wicked vinedressers (Matthew 21:33-46), understood by the religious leaders to be directed toward them. POINTS TO PONDER * The significance of the triumphal entry, cleansing the temple, cursing the fig tree * The conflict between Jesus and the religious leaders REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter? - The triumphal entry - Matthew 21:1-11- Jesus cleanses the temple - Matthew 21:12-17- Jesus curses the fig tree - Matthew 21:18-22- Jesus’ authority questioned - Matthew 21:23-27- The parable of the two sons - Matthew 21:28-32- The parable of the wicked vinedressers - Matthew 21:33-46 2) What prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem? (Matthew 21:4-5) - The prophecy by Zechariah, Zechariah 9:9 3) Why was Jesus angry at the merchandising going on in the temple? (Matthew 21:13) - God’ s house of prayer had been turned into a den of thieves 4) Why were the religious leaders angry with Jesus? (Matthew 21:15) - For what they saw Jesus doing, and what they heard people saying 5) What might the cursing of the barren fig tree signify? (Matthew 21:19) - The Lord’ s displeasure and coming judgment upon Israel’ s leaders 6) Where does authority in religion come from? (Matthew 21:25) - Either from heaven (the Word of God) or from men (teachings of men) 7) Who did the two sons in the parable represent? (Matthew 21:28-32) - The first son: tax collectors and harlots who repented at the preaching of John - The second son: religious leaders who did not believe John 8) What prophecy foretold that religious leaders would reject Jesus? (Matthew 21:42) - The one found in Psalms 118:22-23 Matthew 21:1-46 Verse 1 VI THE OF THE MESSIAH THROUGH ; DEATH; AND , "GO MAKE , etc." (Matthew 21-28) Matthew 21:1-46THE ENTRY; THE OF THE TEMPLE; THE FIG TREE; THE PARABLE OF THE TWO SONS; THE PARABLE OF THE WICKED THE ENTRY (Matthew 21:1-11)And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and came unto Bethphage, unto the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples. (Matthew 21:1)The tremendous events of the final days of our Lord's earthly ministry were then to begin. In Matthew 20:18 are recorded Jesus' words, "Behold we go up to Jerusalem." Evidently speaking with deep emotion, Christ coupled those words with the third announcement of the Passion; and, at this point in time, Jesus would begin to do those wonderful and awesome things of which he had so often spoken to the Twelve. Their period of schooling was over. The dramatic accomplishment of man's salvation would begin at once. Verse 2 Saying unto them, Go into the village that is over against you, and straightway, ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.Many of the prophecies concerning Christ were fulfilled by his enemies; some were fulfilled by his friends; and still others, like the one here, were fulfilled by the direct intervention of Christ himself to bring it to pass. But even in such cases where the Lord himself was the instrument of fulfilling the prophecies, he always accomplished the fulfillment in such a manner that no mere man could have done it. Jesus' pre-knowledge of exactly what the disciples would find in the village is an example. Verse 3 And if any one say aught unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them.If the owner of those animals was a disciple of Jesus, the Lord's request would be a command; if the owner was not a disciple, he was providentially prompted to grant the request. Verse 4 Now this is come to pass that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee Meek, and riding upon an ass, And upon a colt the foal of an ass.This prophecy from Zechariah 9:9 was generally understood as a reference to the Messiah; and Jesus deliberately and conspicuously fulfilled it by the events recorded here. By identifying himself in such a manner, Christ definitely laid claim to the office of Messiah, setting the stage for his public proclamation as the true King. Verse 6 And the disciples went, and did even as Jesus appointed them, and brought the ass and the colt and put on them their garments; and he sat thereon.The reason for the use of two animals is not clear, unless it was Jesus' strict attention to the prophecy which mentioned both the ass and the foal. He gave the proud Pharisees no excuse for not recognizing the fulfillment of Zechariah's prophecy. Often in Matthew is added the second element in the Master's deeds. Thus, he mentions two blind men instead of only one (Matthew 20:30), and two demoniacs (Matthew 8:28 ff). The use of the disciples' garments was practical as well as symbolical. Verse 8 And the most part of the multitude spread their garments in the way; and others cut branches from the trees, and spread them in the way.Professor Isaac Hull, as quoted by Hallock, says: David was welcomed by singing and dancing women, out of all the cities of Israel, as he came back from the slaughter of the Philistines. Herodotus records that when Xerxes passed over the bridge of the Hellespont, the way before him was strewed with branches of myrtle, while burning perfumes filled the air. Quintius Curtius tells of the scattering of flowers in the way before Alexander the Great when he entered Babylon. Monier saw the way of a Persian ruler strewn with roses for three miles, while glass vessels filled with sugar were broken under his horses' feet.[1] Many historical examples of triumphal entries could be cited; but no triumph ever known at any time or place could be compared with that staged by the world's True Light on that last Sunday preceding his resurrection, a day called from the earliest Christian times "Palm Sunday," the name being derived from the branches cut from trees and spread in the way. The truly wonderful thing about Jesus' triumph is that it is still going on. ENDNOTE:[1] G. B. F. Hallock, One Hundred Best Sermons (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1923), p. 224. Verse 9 And the multitudes that went before him, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.The multitude recognized the true King of Israel and greeted him accordingly. Mention of the "Son of David" in the Hosannas made the ascription definite. They knew him for the Messiah. Verse 10 And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was stirred, saying, who is this? And the multitudes said, This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth of Galilee.The question, "Who is this?" is of the utmost importance, and the eternal destiny of every man born on earth shall finally be determined by his personal response to that question. How strange it is that Jerusalem welcomed him with Hosannas on Sunday but reversed themselves and crucified him before the week ended. One can only marvel at the ways of God. The multitude hailed Jesus as a prophet from Nazareth but apparently did not fully comprehend that Jesus could be none other than the world's only Saviour. The evil influence of the Pharisees may be detected in the stress which the people laid on Christ's connection with Nazareth. True, the people hailed him as "the Son of David," but they were still partially blind as to his complete identity. Christ was from Bethlehem, having been born there, but it suited the evil purpose of the religious leaders to stress Jesus' residence in Nazareth. The popular emphasis upon Nazareth in this place shows how successfully the Pharisees had done their work. Even those who called him "Son of David" were not well grounded in their conviction. Verse 12 And Jesus entered into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold the doves.THE OF THE TEMPLE (Matthew 21:12-17)The high priest Annas, as a young man, had put a person to death contrary to Roman law, and had been removed from office; but he was still recognized by the orthodox as the true high priest. Four or five of Annas' sons and sons-in-law successively held the title and performed the functions of the office during Annas' long lifetime, growing immensely rich in the gross commercialism with which they burdened the temple services. Only certain "authorized" sacrifices could be offered; and those had to be bought from the temple keepers and paid for with temple money, giving the concessionaires a double profit on all transactions. They charged usurious rates on exchange for the proper money and exorbitant prices for the authorized sacrifices. The action of Christ in upsetting this evil business could not have failed to meet with strong popular approval and at the same time to stir up the most vicious and vehement opposition on the part of those whose shameful traffic was thus jeopardized. Verse 13 And he saith unto them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer: but ye make it a den of robbers.Christ here quoted Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11. This was the second time that he cleansed the temple, John's record of the other occasion (John 2:13) standing as supplementary to this one mentioned by the synoptics. This type of activity by Christ was fully in harmony with what was expected of the Messiah from Malachi 3:1-3. Comparison of the two cleansings shows an interval of two years between them; thus, ample time had elapsed for the reappearance of the abuses. By their continuation, the Pharisees demonstrated their unwillingness to honor the moral obligations of true religion. Verse 14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them. But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children that were crying in the temple and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were moved with indignation.The miracles wrought by Jesus on that occasion were powerful witnesses of his authority and power, and were more than sufficient to convince all right-minded persons of the truth and divinity of his holy mission. That many were convinced is attested by the Hosannas sung by the children. The divine Messenger had indeed suddenly come to his temple, as Malachi had prophesied (Malachi 3:1-3). However, this strong assertion of Christ's power and authority and its obvious acceptance by many only infuriated the Pharisees, who lost no time but objected at once. Verse 16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these are saying? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea, did ye never read; Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise? And he left them, and went forth out of the city to Bethany, and lodged there.Again Jesus appealed to the Scriptures (see Psalms 8:2). The praise of the children Jesus did not reject. It was indeed fulfillment of prophecy and should have been recognized by the Pharisees as additional proof of the identity of the Holy One among them. The fulfillment of God's purpose is seen in the action of the children. Since those who should have praised him refused to do so, the very children took up the cry; and the temple rang with the praises of its true Head and authority. God's will be done! These events took place on Monday, although Matthew's account leaves an impression that it occurred on Sunday. Matthew did not pay much attention to strict chronological sequence but arranged much of his material topically. Bethany, the home of Lazarus, Martha, and Mary, became Christ's base of operations for the crucial events of Passion week. Bethany was located on the farther side of the Mount of Olives and was about two miles distant from Jerusalem on the road to Jericho. Verse 18 Now in the morning as he returned to the city, he hungered.THE OF THE FIG TREEThis verse casts doubt on the supposition that Jesus was staying in the home of Lazarus, Martha, and Mary; for, if that had been the case, it is hard to resist the supposition that he would have had breakfast there before departing for the city. He might have remained all night in prayer at some remote recess in the vicinity of Bethany, which was in fact nestled into a tiny depression on the slopes of the Mount of Olives. Certainly, Christ continued all night in prayer before naming the Twelve, and the awful events at hand were every whit as important and urgent as the former. Verse 19 And seeing a fig tree by the wayside, he came to it, and found nothing: thereon, but leaves only; and he saith unto it, Let there be no fruit from thee henceforward for ever. And immediately the fig tree withered away.Of all Jesus' miracles, only this one was a curse. It was absolutely necessary that Christ's miracles should attest the ultimate judgment of God upon evil works. Otherwise, it could have left an impression that divine power would be used only to heal, help, and bless man. The lesson of the fig tree, however, proves that God will eventually judge mankind and punish wickedness. Since the time had not yet come for the pouring out of the wrath of God upon the ungodly, since the time of human probation had not yet expired, Jesus made the curse to rest upon a tree, a thing, and not a person. This contrasts strongly with the judgments of God through such prophets as Elijah who slaughtered the prophets of Baal. In such a context, Jesus' curse of that fig tree was an act of mercy, not of wrath, for the warning absolutely necessary to be given fell upon an inanimate object rather than upon a person. Who could be critical if Christ had struck the entire Sanhedrin blind or dead? That he did not do so cannot mean they did not deserve such a fate, because they did. And yet, as a warning to them of the wrath that would surely come, he chose instead to wither the fig tree. Therefore, critics who would make something vengeful or evil out of Christ's curse of the fig tree are engaging in cavil and exhibiting a gross lack of understanding. Yet men have done just that, caviling at this instance of judgment upon a tree, imputing caprice, peevishness, spite, and unreasonableness to Christ. We agree with Trench who said, "Of such men, they are the true Pharisees of history.[2] Nevertheless, we note some of their objections: (1) It is affirmed that Christ had no right to expect fruit of that tree because "it was not the time of figs" (Mark 11:13). This objection disappears in the light of the fact that, of the variety of tree indicated here, the fruit always appeared before the leaves; and that, in view of the leaves, Christ had every reason to expect fruit also.[3] (2) A second objection is that Christ pretended to look for fruit when he knew there was none. That too is false, because Christ, seeing the tree decked out in full foliage, recognized it instantly as a perfect example of the Jewish religious economy, which, though it was not the time of fruit (the Saviour having not yet made the sacrifice), nevertheless professed true righteousness the profound lessons applicable to the Jewish nation. (3) The objection that Christ vented anger on a tree overlooks the fact that the incident was a warning of the true anger that would eventually fall upon the disobedient. Men who make this objection are actually of the opinion that God should never be really angry with the wicked. But the overwhelming truth of the Bible is that the full measure of the wrath of Almighty God shall eventually fall upon every wicked man and that every wicked action shall be brought into judgment. Christ's cursing of the barren fig tree was a powerful warning of that eventual overflow of the wrath of God; and, far from being a reprehensible action on the part of Christ, it is an example of how even his warning was accomplished without any inconvenience or suffering on the part of sinful man. The action thus stands as an example of his forbearance and not of vindictiveness. In connection with this, let it be noted that the fig tree was not cursed for barrenness. The fig orchards were full of barren trees he did not curse. This one was cursed for its barrenness while professing by its leaves to be fruitful! That was exactly the case with Israel. They were barren spiritually; yet by their elaborate pretensions to righteousness, they advertised a true religion they simply did not possess. Moreover, they were at that very moment in the process of rejecting the very Head of all true religion. The curse of the fig tree was a true prophecy of God's rejection of Israel (until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in). Not long after the apostles began to preach the kingdom of heaven following the resurrection, the mainstream of Christianity bypassed Israel altogether. Furthermore, it appears that a warning is in this incident for all of every age who may be more pleased with an empty profession of true religion than with a proper exhibition of the genuine fruits thereof. God could not be any more pleased with empty professions now than he was then. The chronology of this event is as follows: The tree was cursed on Monday morning as Christ was on the way to the cleansing of the temple. Matthew indicates that it withered immediately; but the following morning Peter observed that it was withered completely from its roots upward and totally dried up. It was probably not noticed by them on Monday evening as they returned to Bethany, due to its being twilight or dark. See Mark 11:12-14; Mark 11:20-21. [2] Richard Trench, Notes on the Parables (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1953), p. 474. [3] Ibid., pp. 479-480. Verse 20 And when the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, How did the fig tree immediately wither away?Outdoorsmen like the apostles could not fail to be impressed with such a wonder. That a tree should be in abundant foliage one day and dead the next is simply contrary to nature. Even if cut down, it would not be totally dried up, root and all! The one fig tree in all the orchards and by all the waysides of earth which pretended to righteousness was that one chosen by Jesus to represent Judaism. None of the other nations made any pretense of righteousness. Both Jews and Gentiles were equally barren; but the withering of Israel was due to their insistent profession of a righteousness which no nation under heaven could actually have had until the Christ appeared and taught men the way, the truth and the life. "It was not the season of figs" (Mark 11:13). Subsequent history of Judaism constitutes a signal fulfillment of this prophecy of withering away. Before Christ, the Jews made numerous proselytes all over the world; but today they are practically powerless, in any effective way, to make proselytes. No fruit on thee henceforward for ever! (Matthew 21:19). Verse 21 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do what is done to the fig tree, but even if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou taken up and cast into the sea, it shall be done. And all things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.This is a repetition of the remarkable promise Christ made the disciples in Matthew 17:20 (which see). Such a promise staggers the imagination; and the very least that it can mean is that all moral and spiritual difficulties will disappear for those who pray in faith for their removal. However, we do not dare limit this promise. Note also the two great hindrances to effective prayer. Men do not have their prayers answered because they do not ask, or asking, do not believe. What a challenge to prayer is this! Verse 23 And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority does thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?Although propounded by Jesus' enemies, this question must rank as one of the most important ever asked. This question should be addressed to all preachers and teachers of every religion; and every church should also answer it. If the authority is from man, the actions and teachings are worthless; if from God, they are valid and should be accepted. Christ answered their question by asking another which revealed that they already knew the correct answer and were, therefore, asking in the hope of finding some grounds of complaint. Verse 24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one question, which if ye tell me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven or from men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven, he will say unto us, Why then did ye not believe him?The proposition Christ made was fair and sincere. If those complainers would answer a simple question he had for them, Christ agreed to answer theirs. Furthermore, Jesus well knew that they were able to answer the simple question he asked. Then came the question regarding the baptism of John. It was devastating for those hypocrites, because they, contrary to popular belief, had rejected John as a true prophet and had refused to acknowledge his witness of Christ as being the true "Lamb of God." They were quick to see that not Christ but they themselves were trapped by the question; and, after a conference, they elected to lie about it pretending not to know the answer. Of course, Christ rejected their question, not only because they knew the answer already, but because they were completely prejudiced against the truth. It would have been casting pearls before swine if he had answered them. Yet even when confronted by their hatred and falsehood, the Lord uttered a beautiful parable setting their conduct in such a frame of reference as to show, even at that late hour, his hope of recovering some of them from their blindness and sins. Verse 28 But what think ye? A man had two sons; and he came to the first and said, Son, go work today in the vineyard. And he answered and said, I will not; but afterward he repented himself and went. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. Which of the two did the will of his father? THE PABABLE OF THE TWO IN THE PARABLEThe man who had two sons is God. The first son represents the publicans and harlots. The second son represents the self-righteous Pharisees. The vineyard stands for God's true religion. The man's equal treatment of both sons suggests God's impartial dealings with all people. The two sons are also typical of two types of persons in all ages. It is noteworthy that God recognizes only two classes of persons, both shamefully delinquent in one way or another, thus attesting the universal sin and wickedness of man. There is a sense in which this parable stands for the Jews and the Gentiles as represented by the two sons; but the immediate and primary application of it was made by Christ himself who referred it to the publicans and harlots on one hand and the Pharisees on the other. There are two destinies revealed for the two classes of men, heaven and hell (Matthew 25:34; Matthew 25:41); and the two classes are set forth under a number of figures in the New Testament, such as: the wheat and the chaff (Matthew 3:12), the wheat and the tares (Matthew 13:25), the rejects and keepers (Matthew 13:48-49), the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:32), builders on rock, or on sand (Matthew 7:24-26), etc. The two sons of this parable represent the grand moral cleavage in humanity, which in God's sight forms two and only two classes, the good and the bad. THE FATHER'S : "Son, Go work today in the vineyard," is a marvel of tenderness and reasonableness. It is , being addressed to both alike; it is loving and tender, being prefaced by a term of endearment, "Son." It is , since nothing could be more proper than for a son to work in the vineyard he himself may inherit; it is , not any vineyard, but THE vineyard being indicated; it is URGENT, work being required not tomorrow, but today; it is , because without work which was commanded, the vineyard would perish. All of these characteristics of the father's command have an application today in God's command, or invitation, for men to work in his vineyard, the church. THE FIRST SON'S : "I will not." This is typical of the response of publicans and harlots whom Jesus made the heroes of this parable. Theirs was an open, frank, rude rejection of the Father's command. This should not be glamorized. Some are tempted to do so, boasting that they do not attend church, having no time for such things, are not the religious type, etc.; and, although frankness has merit under some conditions, there can be no merit on the part of that son who wounded a loving father, rejected an altogether reasonable commandment to work in the vineyard, and who flouted the father's authority. He refused to accept any responsibility to honor and obey the one who had given him life, nourished him in infancy, supported him in weakness, and who was entitled to his respect and obedience. All who refuse to serve God in his church are guilty of the same thing. Let it be further observed that the first son's response did not cancel or remove any of his duties or obligations. His duty did not derive from his commitment (if he had made any), but it sprang from the father's inherent right and authority to lay upon him such a requirement as working in the vineyard. Some in the church do not see this. They "won't promise anything," "will not make a pledge," etc., as if such refusal would cancel or diminish any duty. However, all of man's duties in the church derive their authority, not from man's voluntarily accepting them, but from God who has the right to command his creation. The fact that the first son later repented and went to work did not make his first refusal any less wrong. This suggests that Christians, even after they have begun to accept the Lord, are still unprofitable servants. THE SECOND SON'S : The second son said, "I go, sir," but went not! Such a response was proper and correct as far as it went. The fact that he was a smooth hypocrite who did not follow his profession with valid obedience cannot negate the correct nature of his verbal response. He said exactly what he should have said. His later failure cannot change the righteous character of his words. Those who profess to serve God are right in such a profession, and it ought to serve as a stimulus to perform deeds consistent with it. In the parable, the second son's response represents that of the Pharisees and their crowd who professed a hos they would not exhibit. Verse 31 Which of the two did the will of the father? They say, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you that the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.Christ's application of the parable to the Pharisees and to the class of sinners they most despised is in some ways rather shocking. It must have appeared positively outrageous to the hardened hypocrites who first heard it. It does not appear, of course, that Christ condoned or endorsed gross sin in any manner. He was only stating an incomprehensible fact, witnessed in all generations, that many who have the finest inheritance, the best upbringing, the most sacred privileges, and the maximum exposure to truth and righteousness, far from taking the lead in true religion, actually despise it, and who definitely must be classed as secondary to far grosser persons who, though scarred and burned by sin, nevertheless reject evil ways and turn humbly to the Lord for forgiveness! Every congregation has its examples of both classes. Why did the publicans and the harlots enter into the kingdom of God before the Pharisees, or, as was generally the case, WITHOUT them? The reasons are plainly given in the word of God: (1) The class composed of publicans and harlots were conscious of sins, whereas the Pharisees were not, as shown by Luke's account of the Pharisee and the publican (Luke 18:9 ff), indicating that no sin is greater than being conscious of none. (2) The publicans and sinners heard him (Luke 15:1), but the Pharisaical class refused to hear. (3) They believed him (Matthew 21:32). (4) They repented. (5) They were baptized (Luke 3:12; Luke 7:29-30). If the Pharisees had been willing to do this, they too might have entered into the kingdom. In the very next words, Christ shows how they failed. Verse 32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye saw it, did not even repent yourselves afterward, that ye might believe him.Thus, the prior entry of publicans and harlots was not due to any divine preference for their kind of sins, but was the result of their response, their hearing, believing, repenting, and being baptized. All the vaunted righteousness of the Pharisees could not save them while they were in rebellion against God's commands, nor can all the moral excellence of upright men today avail anything for them apart from faith and obedience of the Lord's commandments. By the same premise, all the sins of the publicans and harlots could not take away their hope as long as they heard and obeyed the Lord. Christ himself put it like this, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark 16:15-16). Verse 33 Hear another parable: There was a man that was an householder, who planted a vineyard, and set a hedges about it, and digged a wine press in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into another country, ... THE PARABLE OF THE WICKED FARMERSThe following analogies are discernible in this parable: The householder is God. The vineyard represents the privilege of the Jewish nation. The planting of the vineyard refers to God's establishment of Israel as a favored nation. The hedge, winepress, tower, etc. represent the Law of Moses. The husbandmen represent the religious leaders. The servants who came to receive the fruits are the prophets whom God sent to Israel. The maltreatment of the servants shows Israel's maltreatment of the prophets of God. The husbandman's desiring the fruits shows God's earnest desire for true religion in Israel, especially God's desire for a consciousness in Israel of their NEED of redemption. The son in the parable stands for God's Son, Jesus Christ. The killing of the son is the crucifixion of Christ. The son's being sent last of all shows that Christ is God's last word to man. Their casting the son out of the vineyard prefigures the suffering of Christ without the camp. The taking of the vineyard away from the wicked husbandmen and giving it to others represents the displacement of Israel by the Gentiles in the church of Christ. The householder's going into another country represents God's leaving Israel to their own devices for a long period prior to the coming of Christ. Verse 34 And when the season of the fruits drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, to receive his fruits.There were numerous prophets who came again and again, to arouse in Israel the truly spiritual response which the Father desired and which it was impossible for the Law to produce. No age is devoid of such a requirement; but there were some occasions when, it seems God especially desired a quickened conscience in Israel. To be sure, the Law brought forth fruit of a kind, such as outward observance of ceremonial duties and avoidance of some of the grosser sins; but the inner desire and soul-longing for redemptive forgiveness was a fruit God sought in vain in Israel. As the season ... drew near likely refers, at least in part, to the approach of the times of the Messiah, in which case John the Baptist would surely be among the more honorable servants who came to receive God's fruits from Israel, but who, like the others, was rejected. Verse 35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.Such maltreatment of God's messengers, the prophets, is detailed in Hebrews 11:37-38; Jeremiah 37:15; and other passages which stress the abuse which was heaped upon God's servants, the prophets. Matthew 23:31-35 and Acts 7:52 reveal that both Christ and Stephen the martyr made very pointed references to the same maltreatment of the prophets. Verse 36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them in like manner.This verse only emphasizes the long-continued and aggravated misconduct of Israel with reference to God's prophets. Their long-standing procedure was to kill them in one generation and memorialize them in the next. Verse 37 But afterward he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. But the husbandmen, when they saw the son, said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and take his inheritance.Mark's account of this has these words, "He had yet one, a beloved son: he sent him last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son." In the light of Mark's words, it appears that the King James Version has the true thought in the words, "Last of all, he sent his son." Certainly, there is a sense of finality that is definitely intended in the sending of the son. There is to be no other after Christ. The rejection of Christ by the human race is not to be followed by other offers of reconciliation. This is surely one of the big revelations from this parable. "Last of all, the Son!" If Matthew 21:37-38 above are understood to give a true and accurate picture of the inner thoughts and intentions of the Jewish religious hierarchy in Jerusalem (and so they are understood by this writer), it is crystal clear that they recognized him as the Messiah, decided to destroy him, and intended to replace him with their own system and with their own personnel in charge. How could they possibly have done such a thing? First, having no consciousness of sin, and supposing that they were the custodians of salvation from God through the Law, they that type of religion (thinking of course that it would give eternal life) to the humility, self-denial, sobriety, purity, and meekness of the religion Christ taught. Knowing from the very first who he was, they carefully observed his teaching, but they had decided to reject it in favor of what they already had, or supposed they had. There was one fatal flaw in their thinking. They did not recognize Christ as GOD IN HUMAN FORM, to whom the Father hath committed judgment, whose words must be obeyed upon pain of eternal remorse for those who reject them, and who is the only sacrifice for sins ever conceived in the entire universe that was of sufficient merit actually to accomplish forgiveness. Christ warned them, but they did not seem to get the point. He said, "He that rejecteth my word hath one that judgeth him, the word that I speak shall judge men in the last day" (John 12:48). Therefore, their awful crimes against Jesus were not merely sins against God in the sense that all sins are sins against God; but their sins against Christ were actually sins against the very person of God in Christ, multiplying the condemnation which they merited by their shameful actions. In the parable, it is seen that Christ appears as the heir of all things. However, Christ, as God, was not the heir of all things, for, as God, he is the Creator of all things. It is as man that Christ is heir of all things. Thus, the Arian heresy finds no support in this parable. Returning to the incomprehensible truth that the Pharisees deliberately decided to kill Christ in spite of the fact that they knew he was the Messiah, this may seem to be at variance with 1 Corinthians 2:8, "Which none of the rulers of this world hath known: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." However, careful reading of Paul's words shows that what the rulers did not know was the "mystery" of God in Christ! The Pharisees thought he was only the Messiah but did not know that the Messiah was God robing himself in human flesh. That was the mortal error on their part. Even though they did not comprehend his eternal power and Godhead, however, they did recognize him as the true heir of the temple, "a teacher come from God," as Nicodemus confessed (John 3:2), and as a holy and righteous person without any sin whatever. Yet they would kill even one like that rather than give up their lucrative exploitation of the temple which had become, in their eyes, their private domain to be maintained at the cost of any crime, however great, even at the cost of murdering the Messiah whose actions in twice cleansing the temple had demonstrated that his teaching would not allow the continuation of those gross perversions on which their profits depended. Here then, without any doubt, is the commercially motivated reason why they took such diabolical action against the Christ. It is impossible to gloss over their conduct or to find any extenuation of their frightful guilt. They knew he was Christ, but alas, they did not know that he was God in Christ! Thus, their crucifixion of Christ was a crime against God himself. Verse 39 And they took him, and cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed him.This adds another graphic detail to the prophetic delineation of the crucifixion of Christ. The casting out of the vineyard corresponds to the suffering of Christ, of which it is written, "Let us therefore go forth unto him WITHOUT THE CAMP, bearing his reproach" (Hebrews 13:13). Jesus, of course, suffered without the camp, that is, outside the gates of the city. "Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people through his own blood, suffered without the gate" (Hebrews 13:12). Verse 40 When therefore the lord of the vineyard shall come, what will he do to those husbandmen?Jesus was about to extract from their own lips the sentence of doom which their conduct deserved. Just as Nathan the prophet extracted a self-pronounced sentence of death upon King David, and just as a disguised prophet drew a sentence of condemnation from the lips of another wicked king who uttered his own condemnation (1 Kings 20:41), in the same manner Christ drew from the lips of those proud adversaries their self-pronounced doom. Verse 41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those miserable men, and will let out the vineyards to other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons.That was precisely what God would do, and did do, to them. Israel was removed from being the special custodian of God's spiritual planting, and the Gentiles were brought in. Christ next moved to clear up one part of the parable that might not have been clear otherwise. True, the son in the parable represented himself; but their killing him would in no sense mean that they were rid of him permanently. God had committed judgment to the Son. Christ would rise the third day, ascend to heaven, and sit down upon the right hand of the Majesty on high. The rejected stone would yet be made the head of the corner. See next verse. Verse 42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner; This was from the Lord, And it is marvelous in our eyes?Christ quoted Psalms 118:22 ff. The example of a rejected stone becoming the chief stone was founded on historical fact. Dean Plumptre said: The illustration seems to have been drawn from one of the stones, quarried, hewn, and marked, away from the site of the temple, which the builders, ignorant of the head architect's plans, had put to one side, as having no place in the building, but which was found afterwards to be that on which the completeness of the structure depended, that on which, as the chief cornerstone, the two walls met, and were bonded together.[4] Christ as the Cornerstone suggests that: (1) law and grace; (2) God and man; (3) time and eternity; (4) B.C. and A.D.; (5) the Mosaic dispensation and the Christian dispensation; (6) the letter and the spirit; and (7) judgment and mercy, both begin and end, thus forming, in a metaphor, a true corner in him! Following a little further the analogy of a rejected stone, we note that David, the despised one of Jesse's sons, was raised to be the king of Israel; Zerubbabel was despised, but it was he who began and finished the building (Zechariah 4:7-10). ENDNOTE:[4] Dean Plumptre, as quoted by R. Tuck, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1961), p. 356. Verse 44 And he that falleth on this stone shall be broken to pieces: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust.The apostle Peter, referring to this metaphor, quoted Isaiah 28:16 and added, "A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; for they stumble at the word, being disobedient" (1 Peter 2:7-8). Thus, our Lord's reference to the Pharisees' falling on that stone (himself) is a reference to their stumbling at his word. The passage also suggests Daniel 2:45 and the "stone cut out of the mountain without hands" which smote the kingdoms and broke them in pieces. Christ's virgin birth was "without hands," in the sense that it was not dependent upon human agency or upon the natural processes of procreation. That little stone, Christ, from such humble beginnings (in the earthly view) grew and filled the whole earth (Daniel 4:34-35). This intriguing statement of our Lord (Matthew 21:44) suggests another remark he made, "The scriptures cannot be broken" (John 10:35). Men who think they break the Scriptures only break themselves; those who stumble or fall upon Christ and his word do not break him but are themselves broken. Furthermore, there are two theaters of confrontation with that "stone" which is Christ. In time, men may receive or reject him; but in eternity (the judgment), the stone will fall upon the disobedient with devastating and total punishment for their sinful and obdurate hearts. CHRIST TO A STONE: (1) He is a cornerstone (Matthew 21:43); (2) he is a rejected stone (Matthew 21:43); (3) a stone of stumbling and rock of offense (1 Peter 2:7-8); (4) a living stone (1 Peter 2:4); (5) a precious stone (1 Peter 2:6); (6) a tried stone (Isaiah 28:16); (7) a growing or increasing stone (Daniel 4:34-35); (8) the Rock that followed Israel (1 Corinthians 10:4); (9) like a meteorite, he is from another world; and (10) he is the Rock of Ages, from everlasting to everlasting (Hebrews 13:8). Verse 45 And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.With the two parables recorded in this chapter, Christ finally got through to the Pharisaical intelligence! Before that time, it appears that they regarded his parables as too homely and simple to be worthy of their lordly attention. Apparently they discounted them as having no pertinent application to things they were interested in. But at last, under the hammer blows of logical truth, their crust of indifference was shattered. With a genius surpassing that of any mortal, Christ wove eternal truth into the fabric of the parables. He held the completed picture up before his enemies, as one might hold up a mirror; and at last, confronted with a likeness of themselves as plain as any photograph, they got the point! Their fury was unbounded. No longer would they seek any accommodation with him. They probably would have rushed upon him to kill him then and there, but the Master had too carefully laid the plan for that to happen. The popular support of Christ was so great that they simply dared not to touch him in front of the people. Two courses were open to them: (1) They could secretly assassinate him, or (2) they could contrive his legal condemnation and death. The Providence from on high had closed the first alternative, although they did not know it; and without doubt that would have been their favorite method of disposing of him. God's plan called for the tribunals; and the manner in which they found themselves maneuvered into doing it God's way is recorded in Matthew 26:4; Matthew 26:14. See further notes on this phenomenon on those references. Verse 46 And when they sought to lay hold on him, they feared the multitudes, because they took him for a prophet.The die was then cast. Before that week ended, those evil men would by falsehood, suborned and lying witness, political pressure, intimidation, and mob violence, accomplish his crucifixion, under Christ's permissive will, and with themselves and others as the instruments of Satan. They would seek and find a traitor among the Twelve. They would disperse the vast concourse of people who loved Jesus and hailed him as the son of David. They would use their wealth, official prerogatives, social position, and political power to intimidate and frighten into silence all who disagreed with them. They would recruit and surround themselves with whatever scum and riffraff were available from the dark alleys of the vast city, and they would form those into a rabble to stand in for "the people" and cry, "Crucify him!" at the propitious moment. They would even stoop to take the part of loathed and hated Caesar in order to strengthen their presentation before the governor. They would perform like skilled actors upon a stage of far greater dimensions than any of them could have imagined. Their every word and action would appear in full view and understanding of millions of millions for all ages, who, in a sense, would have box seats to see the most classical case of legal lynching ever seen on earth! The dark drama would soon move to its shocking culmination. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 21:2. Jesus knew all things that pertained to his activities and hence could tell the disciples what they would find in the nearby village. 21:3 "The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof" (1 Corinthians 10:26), therefore it was right for Jesus to "commandeer" these beasts. It was not an act of taking them just because he had the authority to do so, but it was because they were needed. Take note that he needed them and not the mother or colt only. Verse 4. Matthew explains that what is about to take place had been prophesied in the Old Testament and it is recorded in Zechariah 9:9. 21:5 Any statement of an event may include more than is specifically mentioned but it will never take in less than is named. Verses 3 and 4 clearly stated that the mother and the colt were to be loosed and brought to Jesus. Also in verse 7 both colt and mother were brought and the people put their clothes on them. And now our present verse cites a prophecy which definitely predicts that Jesus was to ride on an ass and its colt. Most commentators believe that Jesus rode the colt only, and that the mother was taken along because of a humane feeling for the mother and her young offspring. It is true that neither of the other three accounts says a thing about the mother, but that could be accounted for by the fact that the use of an unbroken colt was the unusual feature of this event and hence it only is given notice by them. If it should be questioned how one man could ride two beasts, the explanation is that he would sit on the back of the mother and place his feet on the colt in the place of stirrups. This would identify the rider as the one foretold by the prophet, while the fact of riding only one would not be so rare as to attract attention. Even the riding of an unbroken colt would not be so unusual because somebody had to ride it for the first time, and besides this, the public crowd would not know it was an unbroken animal since it would be under control of this supernatural rider. :6-7 This paragraph merely records the doing of the things commanded. 21:8 It was an ancient custom to honor an approaching dignitary by making a carpet of garments and the foliage of trees on which he might proceed. It says a very great multitude made this display of honor. It was at the season when the Passover was soon to be observed by the Jews, and great numbers were at Jerusalem from all over the world to- attend that feast in obedience to the law of Moses. 21:9 Hosanna is a Greek word and Robinson defines it, "Save now, succor now, be now propitious." He says further that it is from a Hebrew word that means a joyful acclamation." Thayer's definition agrees with this but is more condensed. The passage means an expression of good will to him who is able to save others because he is a descendant of David. Blessed is he, etc., is an acknowledgment that Jesus was coming to their city in the name of the Lord. Verse 10. The foregoing conversation was taking place as Jesus was entering the city. When he reached the inside the people were moved. That word is from SEIO which Thayer defines, "to shake, agitate, cause to tremble; to quake with fear." This means the citizens of the city in general who were not informed upon the state of affairs nor upon the prophecies that were being fulfilled; they were the ones moved. In their agitation and fright they asked who is this? 1:11 The multitude means the group that had been witnessing the entrance of Jesus into the city. They were aware of what was going on and what connection it had with the iden tity of Jesus, and they gave the information to the citizens. 1:12 The reader should see my comments on Deuteronomy 14:24-26 in Volume 1 of the Old Testament Commentary. It was right to sell doves and other creatures to be used in the services at the altar, and it was necessary to have an exchange table to trade local money for the foreign, because the money brought in by foreigners was not good in the markets of Judea. But it was wrong to transact that business in the temple because it was intended for the religious services only. They having committed an outrage against the sacred temple, it was proper for Jesus to treat them as outlaws and force them out of the place they were desecrating. 1:13 It is written is cited from Isaiah 56:7 where the prophet was writing about the restoration of the Jews after the captivity, but where he also included some words that referred to the age of the church. Jesus called the temple as it was used then a den of thieves because they were taking advantage of the situation to charge undue fees for their transactions; they were profiteering. 1:14 This work that Jesus did was far different from that of the "thieves." They were in it for unright-ous gain while Jesus was doing good to the unfortunate people by healing their infirmities. 1:15 The original word for crying is defined in the lexicon, "to speak with a loud voice," and means the children let themselves be heard in shouting their good wishes for Jesus. The chief priests and scribes were sore displeased evidently because they were envious of the attention that he was receiving. 1:16 These envious men called the attention of Jesus to the cries of the children as if to suggest that he stop the disturbance, but in reality as an expression of their displeasure caused by their envy. The quotation Jesus made is in Psalms 8:2, and in both places the words babes and suck-lings have about the same meaning. Both mean small children but the first denotes those who are somewhat the older of the two. The simple, childlike trust that a little one shows in the existence and goodness of God is one of the sweetest things that can be seen in this world. Even those still young enough to be feeding at the breast will manifest characteristics that can be explained only by the fact that they are the handiwork of a gracious Creator. 1:17 Bethany was a small village about two miles from Jerusalem. Although it was an unimportant town from the standpoint of size, it was very noted by the things that took place there. It was the home of Lazarus and his two sisters where Jesus was always a welcome guest. On the present occasion we are merely told that Jesus left the presence of this envious crowd and spent a night in the quiet little village. 1:18 The body of Jesus was both human and divine and subject to the needs of bodily maintainance the same as other men. At this time he sought to satisfy his hunger by the use of the fig which is indeed a wholesome food. 1:19 In the account given at Mark 11:13 the statement is added: "For the time of figs was not yet." Our verse says that Jesus found only leaves on the tree when he expected to find fruit also. If it was not the time for figs why would Jesus curse the tree for not having the fruit as well as the leaves? This matter is explained by the editor's note on Jo-sephus, Wars, Book 3, Chapter 10, Section 8, as follows: "It may be worth our while to observe here, that near this lake of Gennesareth grapes and figs hang on the trees ten months of the year. We may observe also, that in Cyril of Jerusalem, Cateches, 18, section 3, which was delivered not long before Easter, there were no fresh leaves of fig trees, nor bunches of fresh grapes in Judea, so that when Mark says (11:13), that our Saviour, soon after the same time of the year, came and 'found leaves' on a fig tree near Jerusalem, but 'no figs,' because the time of 'new figs' ripening 'was not yet,' he says very true; nor were they therefore other than old leaves which our Saviour saw, and old figs which he expected, and which tven with us commonly hang on the trees all winter long." Jesus cursed the fig tree for having leaves but no fruit, since its opportunity for bearing the one was as good as the other, regardless of whether it was the old or new crop that was expected. Many people have moralized on this circumstance and compared the leaves to the empty Profession of righteousness that men make and the absence of fruit to the failure of doing one's duty to the Lord. We may make our own comparison to it for the purpose of an illustration, but nothing in the text indicates that to have been in the mind of Christ. Rather, it was just another opportunity to perform a miracle for the instruction of the disciples, for that was the only subject they discussed about it afterward. Presently is from which Thayer defines, "Immediately, forthwith, instantly," and Robinson says, "On the spot, forthwith, straightway." 1:20 This verse indicates that the disciples made their remark at the time when Jesus pronounced the curse upon the tree, but according to Mark 11:20-21 it was the next day. However, our verse does not disagree with that for it only says "when the disciples saw it," meaning the complete withering away of the tree, and that could have been the next day. Hence we should understand the word presently in the preceding verse to have been used in a figurative or comparative sense. 1:21 For comments on the extent of faith here see chapter 17:20.. 1:22 In prayer, believing corresponds in thought with chapter 17:21. In that passage the faith was to be connected with a season of "prayer and fasting." The part that was performed by the disciples in each instance was an evidence of their faith. 1:23 When he was come into the temple was the day after Jesus had driven the moneychangers out. It was that act the chief priests and elders meant when they called upon him for his authority to perform it. 1:24 Jesus never evaded any proper question that was asked of him. However, rather than directly accuse them of insincerity he chose to expose them by a counter inquiry. He promised to answer their question if they would do likewise to his. 1:25 The fact of John's baptism was not denied by anyone, the only question being his authority for teaching and practicing it. John either was doing so by the authority of the Lord of heaven or merely as a work of man, and they were asked to say which they thought it was. But the question, although a perfectly fair one, put them in an embarrassing position because of the inconsistency of their general conduct. If they were to admit that John's baptism was from heaven they could not explain why they did not endorse it. 1:26 They were afraid to accuse John of acting on man's authority because of the pressure of public opinion that was favorable to his work. These hypocritical leaders of the Jews did not have much love for the common people, yet they wanted to hold on to their esteem for the sake of popularity. 1:27 They refused to answer and falsely stated that they could not tell, for they had an abundance of evidence that John was a man of God. Jesus also refused to answer their question but did not misrepresent his position as did the Pharisees; he simply said neither tell I you. 1:28 This is a parable of two brothers and hence refers to people of the same family group. The contrast, then, is not between Jews and Gentiles as some of the parables apply. The first son was the publicans and harlots of the 31st verse, and the second was the chief priests and elders of verse 23. Both sons were asked to work for their father, likewise all ranks of Jews were invited to accept the work of preparation for the kingdom of heaven soon to be set up. 1:29 The publicans and harlots did not actually refuse the favors offered them, but that action of the son was supposed in order to show the better disposition in that they thought better of the offered favors than did the others. 1:30 This verse was virtually carried out as stated, for the chief priests and elders made great pretensions of being interested in the work of John and Jesus, but in the final test they refused to work at it. 1:31. The kingdom of heaven was not set up in fact in the earth lifetime of John, but his work was that kingdom in preparation, and whatever attitude anyone showed to-ward his work was counted for or against the kingdom. 1:32 In the way of righteousness means the way of life that John taught was righteous. But the self-righteous Jews only pretended to accept his teaching and did not actually do so (Matthew 3:7-8; Matthew 21:25). But the publicans accepted the teaching of John and came to his baptism and so fulfilled the parable. 1:33 Unlike the preceding parable, this one has to do with the Jews and the Gentiles. The Jews were God's exclusive people for 15 centuries but did not appreciate their good fortune and even mistreated the righteous prophets and other teachers who were sent among them. Finally the Gentiles were admitted into the family of God on an equal basis with the Jews. The story of the householder was told in detail to bring out these truths, some of which were still future when Jesus spoke. God was the householder and the services and benefits of the Mosaic system were "hedged" about with the Lord's oversight (Isaiah 5:1-7). 1:34 It takes time to produce fruit, hence the householder did not expect any products until the proper time and then he sent special servants to get them. 5-36 This refers to the mistreatment that the Jews showed to the prophets and other righteous teachers who were sent among them by the Lord. 1:37 Jesus was a Jew and was sent to that nation as the rightful heir of all that his Father possessed, and he should have been reecived with great respect. 1:38 Being the heir, if he could be removed there would seem to be no one to claim the property, hence the workers planned to make away with him. 1:39 The wicked workers carried out their plot and slew the son of the householder. It refers to the treatment that Jesus was soon to receive at the hands of the wicked Jews in thrusting him into the hands of the Gentiles to be killed. 0-41 Jesus asked the hearers for their opinion of the case. Still thinking of some literal case of earthly relationship, they answered correctly as to what would happen to such husband men. 1:42. Jesus began opening their understanding of the parable by referring to a prediction in the Old Testament. They doubtless were aware of this statement and must have begun to see the light that was exposing them. 1:43 The Lord made a literal application of the parable to the Jewish nation of which his hearers were members. The nation that was to be given the kingdom was the Gentiles. This does not mean that the Jews would be barred from the kingdom of heaven, but they no longer would be the sole workers in the Master's vineyard. 1:44 This stone means Christ who is the stone of verse 42 that had been rejected by the builders, meaning the leaders in the Jewish nation. There are two applications of the illustrations about the falling upon the stone and its falling upon the victim. It would be bad enough to fall down on a stone for one would be hurt thereby, but it would be far worse for that stone to be elevated and then fall upon that same one. So the Jewish nation had stumbled over this stone and it was complaining about it. The leaders had even tossed it aside as unfit even to be used at all in the building. But it was to be elevated to be the head stone in the building and from that position was to fall (figuratively speaking) upon the nation and demolish it. That event took place in A. D. 70 when the Romans overthrew Jerusalem and disorganized the Jewish commonwealth. The illustration applies also to individuals in general. Those who "stumble at the word" (1 Peter 2:8) will be offended in this world, and at the judgment they will be crushed by the weight of Christ's authority and sent into eternal ruin in the lake of fire prepared for the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:46). 1:45 The Jewish nation as a whole was to suffer in the fate predicted by the parable, but the chief priests and Pharisees were especially responsible which truth they realized when they heard the parable. 1:46 Sought to lay hands means they tried to think of some way they could use to overpower Jesus. Feared the multitude is to be understood in the same light as was their fear over John the Baptist in the 26th verse. Matthew 22 "THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Chapter Twenty-Two Jesus told a third parable directed toward the religious leaders: the parable of the wedding feast (Matthew 22:1-14). The leaders responded as various factions tried to trip Jesus with questions. Pharisees and Herodians asked Jesus about paying taxes to Caesar (Matthew 22:15-22), Sadducees presented an argument against the resurrection of the dead (Matthew 22:23-33), and a lawyer asked what was the greatest commandment of the Law (Matthew 22:34-40). Jesus answered easily, and then silenced them with a question of His own regarding the Christ as David’ s son (Matthew 22:41-46). POINTS TO PONDER * Many are called, but few are chosen * Paying taxes, the resurrection, and the greatest commandment * How Christ is both David’ s son and David’ s Lord REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter? - The parable of the wedding feast - Matthew 22:1-14- Pharisees with Herodians: Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar? - Matthew 22:15-22- Sadducees: What about the resurrection of the dead? - Matthew 22:23-33- Lawyer: What is the great commandment in the Law? - Matthew 22:34-40- Jesus: How can Christ be both David’ s son and David’ s Lord? - Matthew 22:41-46 2) What two groups are depicted in the parable of the wedding feast? (Matthew 22:3; Matthew 22:11) - Those who refuse the invitation; those who accept, but improperly adorned 3) How did Pharisees and Herodians try to entangle Jesus in His talk? (Matthew 22:15-17) - By asking whether it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar 4) What did Jesus reply that prompted them to marvel? (Matthew 22:21-22) - "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’ s, and to God the things that are God’ s." 5) How did Sadducees try to trip Jesus? (Matthew 22:23-28) - With a hypothetical situation intended to show the resurrection is an impossibility 6) What two-fold answer did Jesus give the Sadducees? (Matthew 22:29-32) - Marital relations don’ t exist after death; Exodus 3:6 proves the dead still exist 7) What were the two greatest commandments in the Law? (Matthew 22:37-38) - Love God with all your heart, soul, mind; love your neighbor as yourself 8) How can Christ be both David’ s son and David’ s Lord? (Matthew 22:45) - His son by virtue of physical ancestry, his Lord by virtue of His deity Matthew 22:1-46 Verse 1Mat 22:1-46THE PARABLE OF THE OF THE KING'S SON; THE TRIBUTE TO CAESAR; IN HEAVEN; WHOSE WIFE SHALL SHE BE? THE GREAT ; HOW THEN DOES DAVID IN THE SPIRIT CALL HIM LORD? THE PARABLE OF THE KING'S SONAnd Jesus answered and spake again in parables unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a certain king, who made a marriage feast for his son (Matthew 22:1-2)This is the third of a series of three parables Jesus directly addressed to the Pharisees. There is a definite connection in all three, revealing a progressive intensity in the sins of the Pharisees, and setting forth stronger and stronger punishments to be incurred by them. For a comparison and analysis of all three parables, see under Matthew 22:14, below. This parable has the following analogies: The king represents God. The king's son is Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The marriage supper stands for the privileges of the true faith. The messengers are the evangelists of all ages who preach the truth. The mistreatment of the messengers refers to the hostility of the Pharisees against the apostles, first, and to other preachers later. The rejection of the invitation is the rejection of Christ's message by the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders. The destruction of their city is the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and Vespasian in 70 A.D. The sending of the messengers into the byways prefigures the call of the Gentiles. The man without a wedding garment represents all who despise the privilege of true faith, and, while professing it, prove themselves unworthy of it. The coming in of the king to see the guests is the arraignment of all men at the final judgment. The binding of the offender and casting him out show the punishment of the wicked in hell. The speechlessness of the offender shows that evil men at last shall concur in their own punishment, being able to make no defense of their own conduct. Verse 3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the marriage feast: and they would not come.Israel had long known of that approaching appointment to receive and honor the King's Son when he should appear in their midst. Their whole nation had been protected and nurtured through long history for the specific purpose of equipping them to recognize and hail their Messiah when he came. The first of those servants sent to announce that the great feast was at hand was John the Baptist. They rejected him. They also rejected the apostles, mistreating them and bluntly rejecting the invitation, offering no excuse, but simply refusing to come to the marriage feast. Verse 4 Again he sent forth other servants saying, Tell them that are bidden, Behold I have made ready my dinner; my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come to the marriage feast.These other servants and their invitation represent the evangelistic program of the church following the resurrection of Christ. Trench said: This second summons I take to represent the invitation to the Jewish people, as it was renewed to them at the second epoch of the kingdom, that is, after the resurrection and ascension.[1] Two things support Trench's view: (1) God was willing to overlook the first blunt rejection of Christ (even his crucifixion), attributing it to ignorance (Acts 3:17). (2) Also, the Jews continued to have a priority in hearing the gospel for a long while after Pentecost, as indicated by Paul's motto, "To the Jew first and also to the Greek" (Romans 1:16). The marvelous solicitation and tenderness of the apostolic preaching, even after the resurrection, shows the forbearance and mercy of God as he yet pleaded with those evil men to acknowledge and receive their true King. That the messengers in this second invitation were the same as the first, in many cases, is no problem. In the most genuine sense, they were "born again" and thus were "other servants." Besides, there were many more of them in the second appeal, including many who were not in the first group. ENDNOTE:[1] Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Parables (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1953), p. 227. Verse 5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his merchandise.That was the crowning insult, not merely rejecting it, but belittling it and making light of it. Matthew Henry saw in the two classes mentioned here examples of rural and urban mankind, thus including practically all people.[2] It has also been suggested that the two great classifications of all human activity, involving production and distribution, are also indicated. ENDNOTE:[2] Matthew Henry, Commentary (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company), Vol. 5, p. 313. Verse 6 And the rest laid hold on his servants, and treated them shamefully, and killed them. But the king was wroth; and he sent his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned their city.The shameful treatment and murder of the servants were fulfilled by the imprisonment of the apostles by the Pharisees and Sadducees, and their stoning of Stephen. The first few chapters of Acts record a graphic narrative of events exactly in keeping with the words here. This passage also shows that the destruction of Jerusalem was a direct action of heavenly vengeance upon the Jewish nation for their rejection of Christ. People may temporize and avoid the fact if they will, but the wrath of God is the ultimate answer to all human perversity. Nor can the Gentiles afford any complacency. The type of historical visitation upon cities and nations that disobey God, like that which fell upon Jerusalem, has not disappeared but may still be seen. France rejected the Bible, tied it to the tail of an ass, dragged it through the city, and burned it on the city dump, elevating at the same time the low goddess of Reason; but since that time, the government of France has fallen 35 times! Hitler burned the Bibles at Nuremburg in 1933, but it was that same generation that saw God's armies split open the ugly heart of Nazism and spill its filth upon the ground. God still uses armies to punish wicked nations. The armies of destruction which visited wrath upon Nazi Germany were no better than the pagan legions of Titus (referred to in this parable as the armies of the king, who stands for God in the metaphor), but they were nonetheless instruments of the divine wrath. God grant that our own beloved America, now on a collision course with most of God's teachings, receives an awareness of this truth before it is too late. Verse 8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they that were bidden were not worthy. Go ye therefore to the partings of the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage feast.God's purpose is never defeated by sinful men. There will be guests at the wedding feast, even if those first bidden despise it. We have already noted that Christ was praised with Hosannas in the temple (Matthew 21:16), even though the Pharisees would not honor him. Children took up the song they should have sung, and the temple rang with his praises anyway. The king did not cancel the royal wedding because certain invited guests insulted his gracious invitation. The Jewish nation rejected Christ (although not all of them), but the city responsible for it was utterly destroyed, because it was no longer the King's city but, in the words of the parable, "their city." When people reject God's will, even the sacred institutions they had formerly received from God become no longer his, but THEIRS. The true privileges will always go to those willing to receive them. The Gentiles would be called to the feast which the Jews, for the greater part, rejected. Verse 10 And those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was filled with guests.The wedding was a success. So also will the true religion of God prevail at last. His will will be done. No man or group of men, no nation or group of nations, can prevent the accomplishment of the eternal design of God. The fact that the ultimate guests were "both bad and good" emphasizes the probationary nature of the church in this dispensation. Christ was always at pains to make that clear. The kingdom, under the figure of a drag net, also was represented as having "both bad and good," or "fishes of every kind" (Matthew 13:47-48). Invariably, in all Christ's teaching, it is also clear that mankind in the broadest sense is not worthy of salvation; that is, they cannot merit it. In the three parables in this series here delivered to the Pharisees, it is clear that in the case of the two sons, neither of them was what a son should have been; and in the case of the one before us, the total population, in the truest and highest sense, were not to be invited, the first because they were unworthy of it, and the others because they were not of sufficient excellence. In the light of this, how can any man feel that God, in any sense, "owes" him eternal life? Then there is the case of the laborers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16). The owner of the vineyard could not have been impressed with either class, either those who worked all day and murmured at the end of it, or those who idled all day and put in only an hour's work. Surely it must be glaringly plain that GRACE is what enables any to stand justified in the sight of God. So also in the parable of the prodigal, both sons were unworthy. Verse 11 But when the king came in to behold the guests, he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment.This stands for the final inspection of all men in the judgment. To be sure, the King is constantly beholding the men of his kingdom, and continually observing the conduct of all his servants; but this coming in of the king on a formal and stated occasion to view the guests indicates a far more auspicious examination. It is the judgment of the great day when the King shall suddenly appear and review the credentials of those who have accepted his invitation. Judgment shall indeed begin at the house of God (1 Peter 4:17). Verse 12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.That man's apparel was an insult to the occasion, indicating that immoral and shameful conduct on the part of Christians is an insult to God that will at last be punished. We may not excuse him on grounds that he was poor, unable to obtain a wedding garment, or that he had no chance to supply one. Note that the man himself was speechless. It was totally his fault, and he could not think of any word to utter in defense of what he had done. We do not appeal to traditions handed down, nor to customs of monarch's who always provided royal garments for their guests, nor to anything else except the speechlessness of that intruder who thus marred the happy festivities by entering without a wedding garment. He could not defend himself or offer any excuse; rash is the person who will trump up one for him. What kind of person could fabricate a defense for that rude person's insult of the king? In cases where men have sought to defend him, it appears that their cavil should be avoided and stored up for the time when those persons who make it will need it in their own defense; and yet it is certain that such persons will be as speechless as was he. This simply means that, at last, every condemned sinner will have to agree in his very heart that he deserves condemnation, and that it is no one's fault but his own! Verse 13 Then the king said to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and cast him out into the outer darkness; there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.This does not bestow inquisitorial rights on God's ministers in this dispensation. The exposure and punishment of that offender occurred at the arraignment before the king, not before. The servants in this verse therefore cannot be the apostles or ministers of the word, but the angels of God (13:47ff). The punishment refers to hell (Matthew 25:46). Verse 14 For many are called, but few chosen.Sitting down at the marriage feast was not alone sufficient to insure the favor of the king. Membership in the church, and acceptance of its privileges, are not enough to assure eternal life. Every diligence to appear before God, not naked, but clad in the garments of righteousness, should be exerted by all who hope to enter eternal fellowship with God (Revelation 3:18). AN STUDY OF THE THREE (a) The Parable of Two Sons; (b) of the Wicked Husbandmen; and (c) the Marriage of the King's Son There is a remarkable progression in this series of three parables. I. There is progression in the obligations violated. In (a), it is the respect and honor due a father; and in (b), it is the legal and binding requirements of a commercial contract; and in (c), it is the honor, loyalty, and submission due to a great and noble king on the part of his servants. II. There is a progressive aggravation of the guilt incurred. In (a), it is the rejection of a loving father's request. In (b), it is murder to escape a legal debt. In (c), it is a hateful and insulting degradation of the king himself, in the person of his messengers, not to escape an obligation but to deliver an insult, against all reason, against the highest government of the land, and upon an occasion when the king, far from exacting a tax or requiring a benefit, was in the gracious attitude of bestowing honor and privilege upon them. Moreover, their guilt reached such a climax of wickedness that it appeared on the occasion of the royal wedding and in such a way as to dishonor the most important and sacred event possible, the marriage of the king's son! III. There is a progression in the penalties exacted. In (a), the father disapproves. In (b), the wicked husbandmen are destroyed, their contract canceled, and the vineyard let out to others. In (c), the offenders are not only destroyed but their city is razed and burned, and great armies of the king move upon them for swift and total vengeance. IV. There is a progression in the duration of the offenses. In (a), the conduct of the sons, while serious enough, is a matter of only one day's disobedience. In (b), the wicked husbandmen rejected their duty over an extended period of time. In (c), the hatred of the king had become a permanent part of the lives of the offenders. This is seen in the fact that they could not have rejected such an invitation except from reasons of prior hatred in their hearts. Their mistreatment of the king's messengers, shameful as it was, was only the symptom of a far more terrible offense within themselves, namely, their hatred and animosity against the king. As Drummond said concerning such a thing, "It was the occasional bubble rising to the surface, that betrayed the rotting carcass at the bottom of the lake."[3] ENDNOTE:[3] Henry Drummond, Sermon, The Greatest Thing in the World. Verse 15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might ensnare him in his talk.Far from being humbled and reproved by those wonderful parables in which the Lord had held up, as in a mirror, the truth concerning themselves that they might see it and repent, the Pharisees were all the more ready to destroy him. Their first maneuver was to confront Christ with some questions from which, if they could, they would obtain words from the Master which they would twist or misquote, thus giving them some pretext for condemning him to death. They thought to do this through intermediaries while they remained in the background. Verse 16 And they, send to him their disciples, with the Herodians, saying, Teacher, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, and carest not for any one: for thou regardest not the person of men.How could the Pharisees have said a thing like that? Did they in conscience know, as they said, that Jesus taught the way of God in truth? From the parable of the wicked husbandmen, it appears that they did. It will be recalled that they said, "This is the heir; come, let us kill him" (Matthew 21:38). The same fatal admission is here. Their disregard of what the people might think (who were necessarily privy to this admission) was quite astonishing. It is as though they said, "We do not care who knows he is the Christ, we intend to destroy him anyway!" Such words spoken by his enemies were truth of very truth; but in their mouths even the truth underwent a metamorphosis, becoming vile, deceitful, hateful, and repulsive to Christ. How completely they misjudged him is seen in their thinking to deceive and ensnare him with such flattery. Verse 17 Tell us, therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?The design of the question is plain from the Herodians having been made a part of the group asking this question. The Herodians ardently advocated Caesar's cause and favored a complete submission of Israel to Caesar's government. If the Christ made it unlawful to give tribute to Caesar, they would, of course, have haled him into court on a charge of sedition, punishable by death. On the other hand, if Jesus had made it right to pay the tribute, they would have advertised it in order to diminish his popularity with the people who groaned under Caesar's yoke and longed to throw it off. They thought they had him impaled upon the horns of a dilemma. Verse 18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why make ye trial of me, ye hypocrites? Show me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a denarius. And He saith unto them, Whose is the image and superscription?In view of their true character, the Lord's designation of those men as "hypocrites" is mild enough. They were far more. They were cowardly, crooked murderers, intent on committing the crime of the ages. Christ fully understood their most secret thoughts; and, although the Pharisees were not actually present, his words were more addressed to them than to those visible emissaries who were carrying out their orders. Only God can know men's thoughts; therefore, this passage is another which carries the necessary inference that Christ is God in the flesh. Specimens of the coin that came into view here may still be seen in the Museum of Money on West 50th Street, New York City. It had a value of about 17 cents and bore an engraving of Caesar with a superscription making him the ruler of the land. The very prevalence of those coins in Israel identified the land as Caesar's. It showed his title and authority to be recognized there. At that point in the interview, the inquirers must have felt that they had Jesus going their way. They reacted accordingly and promptly answered his question regarding the coin. Verse 21 They, say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.Nearly two thousand years have not diminished the wisdom and truth of that sensational answer. It fell like a blow on the questioners. It gave the truth about the tribute question, namely, that it should be paid, and that it could not be wrong to do so since it was paid with Caesar's own money, a plain fact attested by his picture and title on the coins! Christ then went far beyond their question and commanded the tax be paid, but in such a manner that no breach in the popular esteem of Jesus would result. Then, vaulting over all earthly and secular considerations, Christ, as always, directed their attention to the higher ground of God's authority rather than to Caesar's, pointing out that man also is, in a sense, a coin, bearing the image and superscription of his maker, God, and commanding that men should not merely pay taxes to those entitled to receive them but also render to God his just dues also. Thus, while answering the evil question about the tribute, Christ continued to press the claims of the Father upon people for their true allegiance and obedience. Verse 22 And when they heard it, they marveled, and left him, and went their way.The trap they had devised for Jesus was sprung upon them. Viewing the whole incident without its underlying connotations, the occasion had produced a remarkably bold admission by the Pharisees that they knew Jesus taught the way of God in truth, yet without producing the slightest thing that they could use against him. No wonder they marveled and withdrew from the scene. Verse 23 On that day there came to him Sadducees, they that say that there is no resurrection: and they asked him ...The Sadducees were the sophisticated materialists of their day, relatively few in number, but holding most of the important offices of the Jewish system. They despised spiritual things, especially anything bordering on the supernatural, and were thoroughly detested and hated by the Pharisees who made common cause with them only in opposition to Christ. They too had a question for Jesus. Verse 24 Saying, Teacher, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed to his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first married and deceased, and having no seed, left his wife unto his brother; in like manner the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And after them all, the woman died. In the resurrection therefore whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.First, note the question on its merits, or ! As Matthew Henry said, "The seventh who ventured last to marry the widow (many a one would say) was a bold man!"[4] The possibility of such a thing happening must be set down as remote. Like all fancy arguments trumped up as an objection to God's word, the whole proposition, on its face, is a lie, designed to support a lie, namely that there is no resurrection. Yet Christ allowed the question to stand, at least for the moment, because it COULD have happened. The Sadducees' statement of Moses' position on the Levirate marriage was correct, as witnessed by the case of Boaz and Ruth (from the Book of Ruth). Yet, in the reply that followed at once, Christ, as always, resolved the issue, not on the basis of what Moses said, but upon what God said, affirming, in effect, that it was not Moses but God whom they were quoting. ENDNOTE:[4] Matthew Henry, op. cit., Vol. 5, p. 321. Verse 29 But Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.Certainly, the Scriptures teach the resurrection. Many passages, such as Daniel 12:2; Job 19:25-27; etc., plainly indicate the resurrection; and the Sadducees' disbelief of it was due to their ignorance of the Scriptures. As for their objection that a resurrection would be impossible because of the absurdities it would create, Christ disposed of that by attributing it to their ignorance of the power of God. They were practical atheists and made light of such things as the resurrection. Christ went further and disposed of their vulgar ideas of what a resurrection must be in the enlightening teaching he gave a moment later. Verse 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven.The Sadducees' ideas were founded on ignorance and a common and vulgar view of all spiritual things, including the resurrection. Christ, in refutation of their false views, unveiled some of the glories of the future state. Men shall not marry. They will have no such need or desire. All earthly ties and relationships shall have been outgrown, their purpose ended, and no longer needed or desirable. Like the holy angels, men shall have an existence in God, apart from all limitations and necessities of the flesh. They shall hunger no more, nor thirst. Weeping and crying shall not exist. How strange that such thoughts had not occurred to the Sadducees! Mention of angels was a further comment on the ignorance of the Sadducees, for they did not believe in angels either. Thus, as usual, Christ answered far more than his questioners intended. Verse 31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, 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. And when the multitudes heard it, they were astonished at his teaching.Note the contrast. The Sadducees had spoken of what "Moses said," but Christ quoted from the same source and declared the message to have been spoken "by God"! The endorsement of the Bible as God's word is plainly intended. Nor may it be supposed that the "by God" imputation is limited to the conversation of Moses. By the words here and elsewhere, Christ boldly declared the Old Testament to be the word of God, and it should be so received by Christ's disciples forever. Christ went much further in his effort to correct the ignorance of the Sadducees, and dealt with their fundamental trouble, namely, a failure to believe the Old Testament as God's word. Christ, then, in the presence of the multitude, made an argument for immortality of the soul, basing it absolutely upon what "God said" in Exodus 3:6. The argument is bold, plain, and easily understood. Since God used the present tense in that Old Testament passage, saying, "I AM" instead of "I WAS," etc., it means that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are still living. This is a most important case. Christ made an argument on such an important subject as the resurrection to turn upon a single word in the Old Testament, a single verb, and the very tense of the verb at that! What bold confidence in the Scriptures! How strongly Jesus relied upon the Scriptures which the Sadducees despised through their ignorance of them. If the Son of God could afford to put such trust in a single word in the Holy Scriptures, his disciples need not hesitate to trust every word of it without doubt or reservation. No wonder the multitudes were "astonished" at his teaching. Christ demonstrated that he was no prudent scribe with his proof-texts, no fawning sycophant deferring to the opinions of superiors in the Jewish hierarchy, no mealy-mouth uttering platitudes; but he stood forth plainly in that interview as the Son of God, the Christ of glory, answering with certainty and authority the deepest questions of the human spirit, and doing so with a perfection and grace that confounded the opposition. The Sadducees, like the Pharisees before them, withdrew from the scene, vanquished and shamed in the presence of all. Verse 34 But the Pharisees, when they heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, gathered themselves together.Of course the Pharisees had already been routed too, but since they had maneuvered the Herodians into fronting for them, they decided to have a try at it in their own name. It is amazing that they should not have regarded Jesus' triumph over the Sadducees (their perpetual enemies) with jubilation. Their old enemies had been put to silence by Christ, in the presence of a multitude, and that in reference to the very points of difference between them and on which they opposed the Sadducees, namely, the resurrection, and the existence of angels. How happy they should have been that their old enemies had had the intellectual rug pulled out from under them, and that at the hands of Jesus, whom they denominated as ignorant! The joy of such a victory over their foes by Jesus, however, was lost in their hatred of the Lord. The news of the Sadducees' failure only spurred them to greater efforts. Better, in their view, that the truth should fail than that it should be championed and upheld by one whom they despised. Apparently all of the questions in this chapter followed each other in rather close sequence, as Satan doubled and redoubled his efforts of opposition and hatred. Verse 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, trying him: Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?One of them means one of the Pharisees. The "first team" would now take up the challenge, and the Pharisees themselves would confront him with a question in a field wherein they imagined they had a vast superiority. Their strategy was to ensnare Christ in some technical fault regarding countless questions of the law. One of their best legal minds was put forward with a question regarding the "great commandment." Of course it is obvious that they hoped Christ would name a commandment, ANY commandment. They would then accuse him of belittling the others! That they were themselves guilty of what they hoped to accuse in him was no problem. Their motives and intentions were totally devoid of any honesty or fairness. Like the Sadducees, the Pharisees were also ignorant of the Scriptures, in the sense that they lacked any true perception of them. Their pre-assumption in asking such a question was founded on the false opinion that there are relative ranks among God's commandments, some being more and others less in importance. God said, "ALL thy commandments are righteousness" (Psalms 119:151). Yet, in a sense not intended by them, Christ singled out the "great commandment." Verse 37 And he said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments, the whole law hangeth, and the prophets.Jesus' answer is far more than a clever summary of all the commandments. It is the fundamental commandment underlying the whole economy of redemption. Above everything else, God desires and commands his human children to love him totally and completely. That is why Christ came. That is the purpose God had in saving man, that the Father might be loved for his own blessed sake. Such a plea for love was lost upon people like the Pharisees. A bleeding child might have pleaded for the affection of a mad dog with the same results! In a technical sense, all the law and prophets do hang on the twin injunctions Christ named before the Pharisees. The first five words of the decalogue deal with man's relation to God, and the second five have to do with man's relationship to men. The fifth commandment might go in either group. A profoundly significant deduction required by Christ's words on that occasion is that man's heavenward duties are more important, ranking higher, than his man-ward duties. The first commandment is to love the Lord; the second is to love thy neighbor. This, of course, is utterly different from the prevailing concept that lays great stress on human obligations such as "Thou shalt not kill," etc., but makes the other class of religious obligations secondary. Verse 41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I put thine enemies under thy feet? If David then calleth him Lord, how is he his son?Christ in that question pinpointed the precise truth the Pharisees had missed concerning him, that he was (and is) God in man. "What think ye of Christ?" is the most important question ever asked. All depends on the answer. No man can be saved who fails this test. To recognize and hail Christ as God come in the flesh, this is the beginning of eternal life. Without that perception, man must forever remain guilt-ridden, soul-blinded, and condemned forever. By propounding that question, it would seem that Christ, even at that late hour, was trying to relieve the sad condition of those evil men. He would even then have removed the scales from their eyes and directed their attention to the precise problem where their error lay, and which gave rise to the most important reason for their failure to recognize him. The reason the Pharisees did not recognize Christ (though some did) was that not all the Messianic prophecies were received by them. In the very nature of God's revelation to humanity of the coming of that Holy One who is both God and man at once, there were necessarily SEEMING contradictions. Thus, Isaiah hailed the Coming One as "Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace," etc., while at the same time portraying him as a man or sorrows, acquainted with grief, with no form nor comes, a root out of dry ground, bruised, chastised, and suffering death. That was too much for the unspiritual Pharisee to understand. They did the natural, human thing: they believed the more agreeable prophecies and rejected the others. One outstanding example of such duality in the prophecies was singled out by Christ and made the subject of the question here. The Old Testament passage Christ stressed in this confrontation of the Pharisees is Psalms 110:1. Of course, they had access to that information and could have known that Christ was both David's son and David's Lord; but they could not explain it, thus being liable, as were the Sadducees, to a charge of ignorance. Their ignorance, however, was not so much their sin as was their pride and egotism that prevented their learning from him who alone is "the Truth"! Verse 46 And no one was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.Thus in that profound question of Jesus, the Pharisees no longer had a case of knowing the answer, and through self-interest avoiding a reply. They WERE ignorant of the riddle Jesus propounded, but they would not accept the truth from him. But their day of grace was almost over. The plot was laid. Before the week expired they would kill him. Never again would they ask him any questions. They confessed themselves unable to stand before his searching words. Intellectually, morally, and spiritually, they were vanquished by the Lord; and, like a wounded serpent that sinks its fangs again and again into its own flesh, those unfortunate men would kill their own head and Redeemer, involving themselves and their whole nation in irreparable ruin. What a commentary on religious bigotry is that! Some commentators attribute his characterization of the Pharisees to a kind of prejudice on Matthew's part, but that is not true. As a former tax collector, he had indeed enjoyed a peculiarly advantageous position from which to learn the true character of the Pharisees, but it must not be thought that Matthew colored or perverted that picture in any way. On the contrary, his emphasis on their conduct was ; and, as God always chooses his instruments, Matthew was ideally suited to the task of presenting those enemies of Jesus in their true light. Reasons for the need to expose those men rise from the fact that, as the official representatives of Judaism, their failure to recognize and accept their Messiah would ever afterwards be used by Satan as an argument against the validity of Christ's claim upon all mankind as the true Messiah. If there had been, therefore, the least vestige of anything honorable or upright in the Pharisees et al., there could have continued through history some suspicion that since "good men," as they were supposed to be, rejected the Messiah, there must have been some reason for their doing it. Matthew successfully broke that crutch of infidelity. His analytical, yet fair and generous, treatment of those bigots in their hatred of Christ forever removes any suspicion or even the outside possibility of any doubt that their actions were otherwise motivated than through blind, fanatical, and selfish hatred of the truth. Their every argument, invented through despair, maliciously urged, and distorted to appear plausible; their every connivance with even their worst enemies to find some pretext against him; their reliance at last upon suborned and lying witnesses, perversion of Sacred Scriptures, malevolent torture of truth itself, and, withal, their prejudice against him, not desiring to accommodate with him but only striving for a means of his murder - all these things are so faithfully detailed in Matthew's gospel that, two thousand years after the facts, any fair-minded person can easily understand WHY SUCH MEN rejected the Christ. McGarvey Commentary For Matthew Chapter Twenty-TwoParable of the Royal Wedding, Matthew 22:1-141. Jesus answered.—He answered, not a question or an argument from them, but their violent purpose declared by Matthew in the preceding verse (21:46). The parable points out, as did the parable of the laborers in the vineyard, the fate which their violence was preparing for them 3, 4. to call them that were bidden.—The guests had been invited before, but no exact time had been fixed for them to come. Now they are notified that it is time to come; that "all things are ready." 5-7. the king was wroth.—It was an insult to the king to treat his invitation with contempt by going, one to his farm and another to his merchandise; but to seize the servants who had brought the kind invitation, and to mistreat and slay them, was an act of the most malignant hostility, justifying, according to the usages of kings, the most fearful retribution. 8-10. into the highways.—The first invitations had been extended only to those of suitable rank to be guests of the king; but now all persons found on the highways, "both bad and good," are invited, and they, appreciating the honor conferred on them, accept the invitation, and the king triumphs in reference to the number, if not in reference to the rank of his guests. The conduct of those first invited brought ruin on themselves without defeating the purpose of the king. 11, 12. a wedding garment.—There is much difference of opinion among the commentators (see Lange in loco) as to whether kings and men of wealth were in the habit of furnishing the proper garment for their guests on such occasions; but whatever may be the truth on this point, this guest, when called on to say why he had not on the wedding garment, was "speechless," which shows that he had no excuse. 13. there shall be weeping.—In this verse there is a transition from the symbol to the thing symbolized, beginning with the binding of the insolent guest, and ending with the weeping and gnashing of teeth in outer darkness which are to befall those represented by the guest. 14. many called... few chosen.—This is the subject illustrated by the preceding parable. The parties first called, who slighted the invitation and mistreated the king, are the Jews. The words, "He sent forth his armies and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city," would answer for a description of the destruction of Jerusalem. The persons called in from the highways are the Gentiles; and the fact that the wedding was supplied with guests from this source, after those first invited had been slain and their city burned, answers to the fact that after the destruction of Jerusalem the Church was filled up almost exclusively from the Gentiles, The entrance of the king to see his guests (11) clearly represents the final judgment; and the man without a wedding garment, those who will be found in the Church without a suitable character. All such, together with all who reject the gospel invitation, are among the many who are called but not chosen; while the few who are chosen are those who shall be found at their posts clothed in the garments of righteousness. These will be few, not absolutely but relatively; that is, few as compared with the number that should be chosen. Such is the leading train of thought in the parable, but incidentally it contains other valuable suggestions. The parties who slighted the invitation were moved, a part of them by indifference born of business cares (verse 5), and a part of them by malice (verse 6). The enemies of the gospel, and those indifferent to its claims, are both represented. Again, the man without the wedding garment was guilty of insolence as well as neglect, and so it is with him who holds a place in the Church without the character of a Christian. Question about Tribute to Cζsar, Matthew 22:15-22. (Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26)15. how they might entangle him.—The task of a detective who seeks to entangle a bad man in his talk for the sake of exposing him, is not an enviable one; but to lay such snares for a good man is truly diabolical. Yet this is what the Pharisees deliberately took counsel to do, and the wonder is that they could look each other in the face while taking counsel for such a purpose. 16. their disciples with the Herodians.—The leading Pharisees did not themselves go on this detestable mission, for fear that Jesus would suspect their design; but they sent their "disciples," or pupils, young men acquiring an education like Paul under Gamaliel; and with them some Herodians. The Herodians were political partisans of Herod— men who defended his administration against the opposition of the chief part of his subjects, and whose services were engaged on thin occasion in order that they might report promptly to Herod or to Pontius Pilate any disloyal utterances which might be extorted from Jesus. 16, 17. Master, we know.—Though the plot does great discredit to the hearts of the Pharisees, it does none to their shrewdness and their knowledge of human nature; its malice is equaled by its cunning. They would try him in a way which they had never before attempted; they would compliment him until they induced him to speak words which they would almost put into his mouth. Their compliments would be based on characteristics which were in themselves most admirable, and would be spoken by persons who came in the guise of honest inquirers. They say, "Master we know that you are true, and that you teach the way of God in truth, neither do you care for any man; for you regard not the person of men. Tell us, therefore, what think you? Is it lawful to give tribute to Cζsar, or not?" Thus, his unimpeachable veracity, his truthful exhibition of the "way of God," his disregard of human opposition and of the distinctions of rank and power, traits of character which should have excited their admiration, they endeavored to employ as instruments for his destruction. Is it lawful.—That is, in accordance with the law of Moses. It was said in the law, "When thou comest into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will sec a king over me like as all the nations that are about me; thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thine own brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest not set a stranger over thee who is not thy brother." (Deuteronomy 17:14-15.) This passage furnished at least plausible ground for refusing to pay tribute to any foreign potentate, and the idea was popular with the Jews. The Pharisees supposed that Jesus was in sympathy with the people on this subject, and that the kingdom which he intended to set up would be in opposition to Cζsar's; consequently they expected him to say that the tribute was unlawful, and the Herodians were present to report the fact. On the other hand, if they should fail in pressing him to this answer, the alternative which they left him was to say that the tribute was lawful, and this would be calculated to impair his popularity. 18. Why tempt ye me.—Deeply as they had laid their plot, and cunningly as they had approached him, they knew, from the first word of his answer, that he saw through it— that he detected their design and their hypocrisy. 19-21. Render therefore.—After showing them that he detected their design, he proceeds to answer their question, first asking them to show him a piece of the tribute money, or the coin in which the tribute was paid. The image and superscription were indicative of the sovereignty under which the tribute was exacted, and the fact that this coin was the tribute money showed that this sovereignty was here established. As these were Cζsar's, the answer logically followed, "Render to Cζsar the things which are Cζsar's." The answer is general, and in teaching that tribute must be rendered to those to whom tribute is due, it teaches that other obligations to civil rulers are to be discharged as well. While thus pronouncing unmistakably in favor of paying the tribute, he saves himself from popular prejudice by adding, "and unto God the things that are God's," asserting, in a manner which carried conviction with it, that the payment of enforced tribute was not inconsistent with maintaining complete allegiance to God. The answer was not inconsistent with the statute in Deuteronomy, for this had reference, not to enforced subjection by a foreign power, but to the voluntary choice of a king. 22. they marveled and left him.—They had several causes for astonishment: his instantaneous discovery of their plot, his skillful escape from their dilemma, his loyalty to Cζsar while proposing himself to establish a kingdom, and his insusceptibility to flattery. Amazed and baffled, they left him and went their way. Question about the Resurrection, Matthew 22:23-33. (Mark 12:18-27; Luke 20:27-40)23. The same day.—Only on one previous occasion have we found the Sadducees engaged in active opposition to Jesus. (See 16:1.) Although, as a party, they were unbelievers, they had participated but little in the controversy with Jesus and his friends; but now that all Jerusalem and the multitudes who had come to the passover were in a fever of excitement over his pretensions, they too come forward and try him with their favorite argument against the resurrection of the dead. which say... no resurrection.—They denied not only a resurrection, but also the existence of angels and of spirits. (See Acts 23:8.) All of their errors sprang from the last: for if there are no spirits, then there are no such beings as angels, who are spirits, and there is no need of a resurrection of the body, seeing that there is no spirit awaiting such a resurrection. On the other hand, if spirits exist, then there may be such an order of spirits as are called angels, and there is a demand for the resurrection of the human body in order that the disembodied spirit may again dwell in it, and make use of its organs of communication and enjoyment. 24. Master, Moses said.—The saying is found in Deuteronomy 25:5. The custom of taking a deceased brother's wife when he died childless, and raising up seed to the brother, was much older than the law which gave it divine sanction. It was observed in the family of Jacob long before the giving of the law. (See Genesis 38:6-11.) 25-28. whose wife shall she be.—The force of the question depended on the assumption that the marital relation would still exist in the resurrected state, and this assumption could be denied only by one competent to speak authoritatively of that state. On this account the Pharisees could not answer the objection satisfactorily. The case was strongly put; for not only were seven men supposed who would have equal claims on the same woman, but these seven men were brothers, between whom a wife in common, or a strife for possession of her, would appear more incongruous than if the seven were strangers to each other. 29, 30. Ye do err.—Jesus strikes their argument in its weak point— its assumption that marriage would exist after the resurrection. He declares on his own authority, that "in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage," but that they will be "as the angels," among whom there is no marriage. He also traces their false assumption to its source in their ignorance of the Scriptures and of the power of God. Had they known the Scripture doctrine of the resurrection, they would have known that it did not involve the continuance of marriage; and had they known the power of God, they would have known that he could raise the saints without those carnal propensities on which marriage is based. 31, 32. as touching the resurrection.—Having refuted the objection of the Sadducees, Jesus next furnished a proof of the resurrection. The major premise of his argument is the proposition that "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." Here the term dead is used in the sense attached to it by the Sadducees. If he had been disputing with Pharisees, they could have answered, He is the God of the dead; for Abraham and Isaac and Jacob were dead when he said "I am their God." But to the Sadducees a dead man was non est— he had ceased to exist, he was nothing; and to say, in their sense of the term, that God is the God of the dead, is to say he is the God of nothing. It would be nonsense. But God did say, hundreds of years after the death of the three patriarchs, "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." (Exodus 3:6.) The conclusion follows, that these patriarchs were not dead in the Sadducean sense of the term; and as the conclusion applies only to their spirits, it proves that spirits continue to be alive after the bodies which they inhabited are dead. The thoughtful reader may have observed that the conclusion of this argument falls short, in its terms, of the demands of the subject. The subject is the resurrection of the dead, while the conclusion affects only the question whether the spirits of the dead are still alive. We can not escape the difficulty by supposing, as some have done, that the resurrection spoken of is that of the spirit, not that of the body; for there is no such thing as a resurrection of the spirit. The spirit does not die, and therefore it does not rise from the dead. It leaves the body as the latter dies, its departure is the immediate cause of death, and it departs in the full possession of life. Resurrection is always spoken of in the Scriptures with reference to the body. How, then, does the Savior's proof that spirits continue to live apart from the body, include proof of a resurrection? It seems quite certain that the argument appeared conclusive to the Sadducees; for Jesus assumed that it was so, and they tacitly admitted the fact, while the bystanders who knew the views of the party "were astonished at his doctrine." (Verse 33.) In other words, the Sadducees admitted that if the existence of human spirits apart from the body were proved, the necessity for a resurrection would follow. The argument, then, was conclusive at least to them; but was It no more than an ad hominem argument? We think not; for human spirits, having been originally created for the exercise of their powers through the organs of a body, must, unless their original nature be changed, which is an inadmissible supposition because unsupported by evidence, be dependent for their highest enjoyment on the possession of a body. This being so, the continued existence of spirits after the death of the body creates a demand for the resurrection of the body, and the Sadducees were philosophical enough to see this. 33. they were astonished.—The astonishment of the multitude arose from two circumstances: first, that Jesus was at all able to answer the boasted objection of the Sadducees; and second, that he found the answer in the writings of Moses, where it was supposed then, and has been supposed since, that the doctrine of a future life is not taught. Question about the Great Commandment, Matthew 22:34-40. (Mark 12:28-34.)34. when the Pharisees had heard.—The rivalry which existed between the Pharisees and the Sadducees caused each to rejoice at the discomfiture of the other. When the Pharisees, therefore, heard that Jesus had "put the Sadducees to silence," they were not only "gathered together," but they came with a better spirit and purpose than before. This will appear as we proceed. 35. a lawyer.—Lawyers among the Jews were not attorneys as with us, but simply men well versed in the law of Moses. He was a suitable person to propound the question which follows, for he was qualified to judge of the answer. tempting him.—The purpose of the lawyer, as the nature of his question implies, was not to incite Jesus to evil, but to test his knowledge of the law. The Pharisees had given up the contest in regard to his miracles, and now they hoped to defeat him in a trial of his knowledge. 36. the great commandment.—The one preeminently great. Here is exhibited the same conception with which the rich young man had inquired, "What good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?" (Matthew 19:16.) The Pharisees themselves had fallen into the mistake of supposing that there was preeminent merit in fasting and paying tithes. (See 23:23; Luke 18:12.) 37, 38. first and great commandment.—The commandment cited was not, as the lawyer might have expected, taken from the decalogue, but from a comparatively obscure place in the Pentateuch. (See Deuteronomy 6:5.) It is called the first and great, as the sequel shows (verse 40), not because, apart from all others it is great, but because in observing it all others are observed. 39. second is like.—The second was also selected from an obscure passage (Leviticus 19:18), and was as little expected as the first. The best explanation of its meaning is that given by Jesus when another lawyer, conversing on the same subject, inquired, "Who is my neighbor?" Jesus showed him by the parable of the good Samaritan that every man, even an enemy, is our neighbor, and that to love him as the commandment requires is to entertain toward him such feeling as will cause us to relieve him when in distress. (See Luke 10:25-37.) The love enjoined is a benevolent goodwill toward all persons. 40. On these two... hang all.—There is a tacit comparison of these two commandments to a hook in the wall on which are hung all the books of the law and the prophets. As the hook supports all, so to keep these two commandments is to do all that is required by the Scriptures. He who loves God as required will keep all of God's commandments, and he who loves his neighbor will fulfill every obligation to his neighbor. The lawyer went away with the idea not that one specific commandment of God is more important than another, but that the great thing is to have a heart for doing all that God commands. Question about the Lordship of the Christ, Matthew 22:41-46. (Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44)42. What think ye of Christ?—It should be, of the Christ. Waiving, for the time, his own claim to be the Christ, he inquires of them, "What think ye of the Christ?" And to give a specific aim to his question he adds, "Whose son is he?" It is not, then, a general question about their opinion concerning the Christ, nor is it at all a question concerning their opinion of Jesus; but he inquires whose son the true Christ must be. Their answer was his own answer — he was to be the son of David. 43-45. How then.—The argument is this: If David in the spirit— that is, by inspiration— called the Christ his Lord, as he does in the passage quoted (Psalms 110:1), how could the Christ be at the same time the son of David. The two are inconsistent if the Christ is not divine as well as human. 46. no man was able to answer.—They were not able to answer because they believed not in the divinity of the Christ. They supposed that he would be only a man: they were Unitarians. By propounding the question, Jesus gained two important points: he showed that the promised Christ was to be divine, and he showed that his own claim to be the Son of God was in perfect harmony with his claim to be the Christ. If he is the Christ, then he is David's Lord. neither durst any man.—Ever since his arrival in the city his opponents of every party had plied him with questions, taxing their ingenuity "to entangle him in his talk;" but all their questions had been answered successfully, and some of them had been turned to his own advantage. Finally, he had propounded to them one question which they could not answer, and which carried with it an unanswerable argument for his own divinity. They were so completely discomfited that they feared to ask him any more questions. Argument of Section 3The disputations of the preceding section contain two distinct arguments in favor of Jesus— one based on the conduct of his enemies, and the other on his own words. In all of these disputations except the last two, the wickedness of his enemies is made to appear. In their answer concerning the source of John's mission, their hypocrisy appears (Matthew 21:23-27); in the parable of the two sons it appears again in unfavorable contrast with the open wickedness and subsequent repentance of the publicans and harlots (Matthew 22:28-32); in that of the wicked husbandmen, their wanton cruelty, demanding their final destruction, is made prominent (Matthew 22:33-46); in that of the royal wedding, the indifference of some and the malice of others (Matthew 22:1-14); and, finally, the wickedness of the Pharisees and the ignorance of the Sadducees are exhibited in their attempts to "entangle him in his talk. Now, if the enemies of Jesus had been the candid and the honest-hearted of his generation, it would have puzzled his friends to reconcile this circumstance with the character which is ascribed to him, and with the evidence which he is said to have placed before them. But seeing that it was the dishonest and the hypocritical who were his enemies, their characters furnish an argument in his favor. The other argument of the section is more direct. In answer to the demand for his authority, the latter was proved to be divine; in the two parables, that of the husbandmen and that of the royal wedding, his prophetic powers are displayed by his very clear prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem and of the predominance of the Gentiles in the kingdom of God; while his transcendent wisdom is displayed in his answers to the questions concerning tribute, the resurrection, and the great commandment. The reader should observe that in this part of Matthew's narrative, including all from the public entry of Jesus into the city until his arrest, Jesus is presented, not as a miracle-worker and a fulfiller of prophecy, but as himself a prophet. His miracles of power were chiefly, though not exclusively, wrought in Galilee and Perea, while his miracles of knowledge were wrought chiefly in the intellectual center of the nation. Even here, however, as John's narrative abundantly shows, had occurred some of the most signal miracles of the former class. (See.) Questions by E.M. Zerr For Matthew 221. With what method did Jesus again speak? 2. What was the subject spoken upon? 3. For what did he send forth his servants ? 4. Whom do these invited guests represent ? 5. How did they treat the call? 6. What did the king then do? 7. How was this call first treated? 8. Tell how the servants were finally treated ? 9. At this what did the king send forth? 10. What did they do? 11. Tell what city is represented. 12. Was the wedding then called off ? 13. Who were bidden next? . 14. Why were the bad invited as well as the good ? 15. Who inspected the guests? 16. How did he find one of them? 17. Repeat the question asked him? 18. What was the answer? 19. Explain this. 20. State the orders against this guest. 21. What indicates his punishment was conscious? 22. Which are more, the called or the chosen ? 23. On what did Pharisees then hold consultation ? 24. Whom did they send to Jesus? 25. What flattery did they first attempt? 26. Were their statements actually true? 27. State the question they then asked him. 28. Who was Caesar? 29. What was meant by tribute? 30. State what Jesus perceived in them. 31. What did he call them? 32. And what did he accuse them of doing to him ? 33. For what did he then call? 34. State his question to them. 35. And their admission. 36. To what is Caesar entitled? 37. What are the things that are God’ s ? 38. Was Jesus entangled? 39. How were they affected by his answer? 40. State the doctrine of the Saddueees. 41. What supposed puzzle did they propose to Jesus? 42. Tell what was erroneous in the puzzle. 43. Are we to be angels after the resurrection? 44. Was the resurrection taught in the Old Testament ? 45. Whose God is He ? 46. Of what class is he the God ? 47. Were not Abraham, Isaac and Jacob dead? 48. Can one be dead and alive at the same time? 49. How did this teaching affect the multitude? 50. What did the Pharisees hear ? 51. Was the report true? 52. Whom did they put forward to tempt Jesus ? 53. By what question did he make the attempt? 54. In the answer, which of the 10 commandments implied 55. How many implied by the "second” ? 56. What hangs on these two ? 57. Who now did the questioning? 58. Did they correctly answer his first question? 59. And did they attempt to answer the second? 60. What is the answer to it? 22:1 Mark reports the parable of the wicked husbandmen which we have just studied in the preceding chapter. He also tells us (chapter 12:12) that after the parable the chief priests and Pharisees left the hearing of Jesus, hence the present parable was spoken to the multitudes in general. :2-3 This parable was to show the attitude of the Jews toward the kingdom of heaven as it contrasted with that of the Gentiles. The Lord chose a very familiar subject for the illustration, that of a marriage and the feast that was given to the guests. Call them that were bidden. Invitations were sent out some time before the date of the wedding, and as that time approached the invited guests were notified that the date of the wedding had arrived and for them to be present. The Jews were told in the Old Testament that the kingdom of heaven was going to be set up but no definite date was stated to them. They would not come. The Jews were not very responsive to the invitation offered to them to partake of the good things provided by Jesus. 22:4. Perhaps the invited guests did not take these servants seriously, or they thought there was no need to hurry as the time was not so near. So the king sent out more servants who told the guests that even the animals intended for the wedding feast were killed and prepared for the occasion and that they should come on. Many of these details have no direct bearing on the application but needed to be told to make the story complete. The point is that the Jews were pleaded with to accept the kingdom of Christ but they did not show the interest they should. 22:5 Some were more interested in their worldly possessions than in the things that pertained to their spiritual welfare. 22:6 Others were more active in their opposition to the work of the King and persecuted the servants. They went so far as to put to death the most prominent ones which included John the Baptist, the apostles and even the son (Jesus). 22:7 This verse was literally fulfilled by the wars between the Jews and the Romans. That conflict ended with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A. D. I shall quote from Myers Ancient History, page 499, which shows the fulfillment of this prediction: "The accession of Flavius Ves-pasian marks the beginning of a period, embracing three reigns, known as the Flavian Age (A. D. 69-96). yes-pasian's reign was signalized both by important military achievements and by stupendous public works undertaken at Rome. After one of the most harassing sieges recorded in history, Jerusalem was taken by Titus, son of Vespasian. The temple was destroyed, and more than a million Jews that were crowded in the city are believed to have perished. The miserable remnants of the nation were scattered everywhere over the world. Josephus the historian accompanied the conqueror to Rome. In imitation of Nebuchadnezzar, Titus robbed the temple of its sacred utensils and bore them away as trophies. Upon the triumphal arch at Rome that bears his name may be seen at the present day the sculptured representation of the seven-branched golden candlestick, which was one memorial of the war." 22:8 They which were bidden means the Jews who were first called to the honors of the kingdom of heaven. Were not worthy or deserving on account of the way they treated the notice that it was time to come to the wedding feast. 22:9 When the Jews had been given the first opportunity of accepting the Gospel and they rejected it, the servants of Christ turned to the Gentiles. This is clearly taught in Acts 3:26; Acts 13:46; Acts 28:27-28. 2:10 Highways means the world in general whereas the first invitation was restricted to the Jews. (chapter 10:5, 6.) Bad and good. Even in the world there is a difference between men both socially and morally. But no man is so bad but the Gospel can purify and redeem him, and no one is so good that he does not need its saving qualities in order to be worthy of attending the wedding feast. 2:11 The date setting of the parable has been changed and the time is at the end of the world when Jesus will come to claim his bride. (See Revelation 19:7.) In the Bible an espousal or engagement for marriage is spoken of in the same sense as the actual marriage in many respects (Genesis 19:14; Matthew 1:20). The reason is that when two persons have pledged themselves to become husband and wife they are as bound morally as if they had entered into the relationship. In other words, an "engagement ring" would be as much of a bond morally as the "wedding ring," so that if while the first only has been offered and accepted, either party should be intimate or even familiar with a third, it would be considered as an act of unfaithfulness. That is why Paul wrote what he did about the "espousal" of the Corinthians to Christ, in the second epistle, chapter 11:1, 2. Hence the portions of the parable we have considered thus far pertain to the courtship and engagement only, but this verse transfers the story to the time of the actual marriage. Had not on a wedding garment. For the sake of unity in appearance all the guests were expected to have on a uniform especially appropriate for the occasion. 2:12 And he was speechless. It was customary for a man arranging a wedding to provide garments for the occasion so that all would be in orderly appearance. It would therefore not be on account of poverty or lack of opportunity to procure the garment that this man was not wearing one, hence he was speechless because he had no excuse. The garment to be worn by the guests at the marriage of the Lamb is "the righteousness of saints" (Revelation 19:8). This robe has been provided by the Lord and offered to the espoused bride without money and without price (Isaiah 55:1; Romans 13:14), hence there will be no excuse for any professed Christian to appear at the day of judgment not properly adorned. 2:13 The figurative or illustrative part of the parable is now dropped and the direct application is made. Those who are found wanting at the day of judgment will be cast into the place of punishment spoken of in Matthew 25:46. 2:14. See the comments at Matthew 20:16 for the explanation of this. 2:15 Took counsel means the Pharisees consulted together to decide upon some plan to entangle Jesus in his talk. The word is from which occurs in no other place in the New Testament. Thayer defines it, "to ensnare, entrap," and he explains the definition to mean, "of the attempt to elicit [draw out] from one some remark which can be turned into an accusation against him." 2:16 Herodians is from the Greek word . Thayer and Robinson define it the same, but the latter gives more information in his historical comments and I shall quote his definition and the comments as follows: "Herodians, partisans [those who take sides] of Herod Antipas, and therefore supporters of the Roman dominions in Palestine; which the Pharisees were not. It was consequently a political rather than a religious party; though it would seem to have embraced many Sadducees." This information explains why the Pharisees sent the Herodians to Jesus. They had no particular love for those people, but as they (the Herodians) were in sympathy with the political interests of the Romans of whom Caesar was king, they would try harder to get Jesus to say something that would get him into trouble with the government. They made their approach with a series of compliments that were pure flattery as verse 18 shows. 2:17 In their ignorance of the nature of the kingdom of heaven they thought that Jesus would be opposed to all other governments. Were that the case he naturally would oppose giving them financial support. Had he answered them to that effect it would have been ground for accusing him of disloyalty to the "powers that be." 2:18 Jesus called these men hypocrites because they pretended they wanted information, when they knew that was not the case as verse 15 plainly indicates. 2:19 Jesus met the situation in a manner that was doubtless unexpected. Instead of answering their question with a direct yes or no, he asked for a piece of the very kind of money that was being used in paying for the government's finances. 2:20 Image and superscription means the human likeness on a coin, and the words that are stamped on it in connection with the image. The coins of all nations are made with the likeness either of their rulers or other important persons in the government. The key to the difficulty which confronted these hypocrites is in the words of Christ after they handed him the coin, whose ...is this? 2:21 In their answer they committed themselves beyond recall, for they directly said the whole thing belonged to Caesar, the very article that he was asking people to give to him as tribute. No one would say it is not "lawful" to give to a man what belongs to him. They had said this money belonged to Caesar, hence it would be lawful to give it back to him. And by the same token it would be right to give to God what belongs to him, namely, their religious devotion. 2:22 Robinson defines the original for marveled, "to wonder, to be astonished, to be amazed." Hence we are not to get the Idea these hypocrites had any great respect for Jesus, but they were so defeated in their attempt to entrap him that they were capable only of silent astonishment. That is why they left him and went their way with nothing more to say. 2:23 See at Matthew 16:12 for more complete details on the doctrine of the Sadducees. The same day was the day the Herodians failed in their attempt to entrap Jesus, and the Sad-ducees thought they would try it. It is a proper argument to confront a man with an actual inconsistency that comes from his teaching, for whenever a man is inconsistent he is bound to be wrong, but the Sadducees either- misunderstood or wilfully misrepresented the Lord's position concerning the resurrection. He did not teach that men would resume their earth life after they came from the grave. Neither did he teach that the resurrected righteous (and they are the only ones being considered here) could engage in such a manner of life even if they desired. 2:24 They correctly repeated the law of Moses on this subject which is recorded in Deuteronomy 25:5, which also was a ruling of Judah in Genesis 38:8-9 in the Patriarchal Dispensation. 5-28 The Sadducees described a case (whether supposed or actual does not matter) in which they thought the position of Jesus would find great difficulty. It is evident that if a woman should meet seven men alive, each of whom had legally been her husband, she would be embarrassed to say the least as also would the men. But their supposed problem was based on the theory that human beings were to recognize each other after the resurrection in the same way they did when they lived on the earth. There are some Sadducees now with reference to this matter of future recognition. Such a theory is fathered by the wish which is based on a fleshly desire, and which has to deny the teaching of 1 Corinthians 15:42-54; Philippians 3:21; 1 John 3:2. V 2:29. Err, not knowing the scriptures. At the time Jesus was speaking the New Testament had not been written, hence he had reference to the Old Testament. That book does not say much about the future state, yet had the Sadducees been as familiar with it as they pretended to be they would have understood that in the next world the marriage relation will not be continued because it will not be needed. The beginning paragraphs of Genesis reveal the command given to the first man and woman to multiply and replenish the earth. After the earth ceases to be there will be no need for the marriage relation. Nor the power of God. The Sadducees supposed they could disprove the truth of a resurrection by describing a situation that would make it impossible without causing great domestic trouble. They should have understood that nothing is "too hard for the Lord" (Genesis 18:14). 2:30 Note It does not say the saved of earth will become angels, but they will be as angels, and that only as regards the marriage relation for they are without sex. It is true that whenever the Bible makes any reference to the gender of angels it is always the masculine. That is due to a rule of language that when reference is made to intelligent creatures by a pronoun, if the gender is not specifically known the masculine is always used. 2:31. Jesus was going to make a reference to the Scriptures (which he said they did not know) to prove that another life is taught in them. The Sadducees professed to believe that writing, so they should be impressed with what will be shown to them. 2:32 The passage referred to is in Exodus 3:6. The argument Jesus made was based on two great truths. God is not the God of the dead as the Sadducees would admit; yet Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had been in their graves for centuries. The conclusion is, then, that although the bodies of these patriarchs were dead, something else about their beings was still living. And if their spirits can live outside of their fleshly bodies, there should be no difficulty in believing that they could be reunited with those bodies and thus be resurrected. 2:33 No wonder the multitudes were astonished at the doctrine (teaching) of Jesus, for it put the Sadducees to silence. 2:34 The Pharisees were gathered together for the purpose of consultation as in verse 15. Their object was to plot some way of entrapping Jesus in his talk. 2:35 Thayer defines the original for lawyer as follows: "One learned in the law, .in the New Testament an interpreter and teacher of the Mosaic law." Because of his profession this man could pretend to be interested in the law, and hence his approach to Jesus would have an outward appearance of being an honest one. However, the inspired writer says his purpose in asking the question was to tempt Jesus. 2:36 The question would seem to be prompted by a good motive since it pertained to the law. But it was unfair because the Lord never put any more of His authority behind one commandment than another. (See James 2:10-11.) Had Jesus specified one command as being greater than another, the lawyer would have accused him of showing discrimination between things that were equal as to their divine origin. 2:37 Jesus stated to him the commandment that requires wholehearted love for God, against which even this lawyer could not have any objection. 2:38 The Lord did not say that even this was the greatest, only that it was great. And it was great because it was the first one, which was proper since it pertained to God, and everyone would agree that God comes before all other beings. 2:39 If the lawyer thought he had caught something by the word great on which to make an ado, he was soon deprived of that motive because Jesus said the next one was like it. He then stated the commandment to love one's neighbor as one's self. 2:40 The first four commandments pertain especially to man's attitude toward God, and the other six have to do with man to man. (See Exodus 20:1-17.) If a man loves God with all his heart he will observe the four commandments that pertain to Him; and if he loves his neighbor as himself, he will observe all of the six that pertain to that neighbor. That is why Jesus said that the whole law and prophets hang on these two. That word is from which Thayer defines, "To be suspended, to hang," and he explains it as follows: "The meaning is, all the law and the Prophets (i. e.. the teaching of the Old Testament on morality) is summed up in these two precepts." 2:41 The Pharisees had been trying to entrap Jesus with questions they thought could not be truly answered. That is, could not without contradicting something in his teaching, but they failed as we have seen. Now the Lord turned and put a question to them that was fair, and yet which would be impossible to explain without exposing some of their opposition to him. 2:42 The Pharisees did not profess to dislike Jesus (they dared not because of public opinion, chapter 21:46), but pretended to regard him only as a good man and not divine. When they answered the question of Jesus by saying he was the son of David they only recognized his blood relation to the great ancestor, not that he was anyone higher than a human being. 2:43 If Christ was no more to David than an earthly descendant why did he call him Lord. This question was based on a statement in Psalms 110:1 which the Pharisees would have to accept unless they denied the Scriptures which they would not do. 2:44 The first Lord is God and the second is Christ. The pronoun my in the first instance refers to David and the second to God. Using names instead of pronouns, the verse means that God invited Christ to sit on His right hand until He had made Christ's enemies his (Christ's) footstool. The point at issue is that in this statement David acknowledged Christ to be his Lord. 2:45 The argument of Jesus was, how could David recognize Christ as his Lord if he was only his son as the Pharisees claimed. 2:46 The verse says that no man could answer the question. The reason is that they either did not know or were unwilling to acknowledge the divine-human character of Christ's being. This put an end to the tempting questions of the multitude, for they were completely defeated in their hypocritical attacks on the great Teacher. Matthew 23 "THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Chapter Twenty-Three With the religious leaders silenced by their inability to entangle Jesus with their questions, Jesus proceeded to decry the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees in a series of scorching rebukes (Matthew 23:1-36). Despite His strong condemnation, His love for them was manifested by His lament for the people of Jerusalem (Matthew 23:37-39). POINTS TO PONDER * The hypocrisy of the scribes and the Pharisees * Jesus’ grief over the apostasy and fall of Jerusalem REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter? - Jesus denounces the religious leaders - Matthew 23:1-36- Jesus laments over Jerusalem - Matthew 23:37-39 2) What does Jesus tell people to do in regards to the scribes and Pharisees? (Matthew 23:3) - Do what they say, even though they do not practice what they preach 3) List some things for which Jesus rebuked the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 23:3-7) - They say, and do not - They bind burdens on others they themselves would not bear - Their works they do to be seen of men - They make their phylacteries broad, enlarge the borders of their garments - They love the best places at feasts, best seats in the synagogues - They love greetings in the marketplaces, to be called "Rabbi" 4) What did Jesus tell His disciples not to do? Why? (Matthew 23:8-11) - Not to use religious titles like "Rabbi", "Father", "Teacher" - Rather then be esteemed by such titles, they were to be humble servants 5) List the reasons for the eight woes expressed by Jesus (Matthew 23:13-16, Matthew 23:23; Matthew 23:25; Matthew 23:27; Matthew 23:29) - Preventing others from entering the kingdom of heaven - Devouring widows’ houses and making long, pretentious prayers - Making proselytes twice the sons of hell as themselves - Making inconsistent distinctions between the swearing of oaths - Paying tithes of minute things while neglecting justice, mercy, faith - Cleaning the outside while neglecting the inside - Outwardly appearing righteous while inwardly full of hypocrisy and lawlessness - Building the tombs of the prophets while persecuting prophets 6) What did Jesus say was the condition of Jerusalem? (Matthew 23:38) - "See! Your house is left to you desolate" Matthew 23:1-39 Verse 1Mat 23:1-39 EXPOSED AND BY JESUS; THE SEVEN WOES; UPON AND THE TEMPLEThen spake Jesus to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying, The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat: all things therefore whatsoever they, bid you, these do and observe: but do not ye after their works; for they say and do not. (Matthew 23:1-3) Christ recognized that the scribes and Pharisees were successors to some of the dignity and authority of Moses, not in the sense of really possessing such authority, but in the sense of being responsible for teaching Moses' word and faithfully interpreting it to the people. They were the custodial heirs and terminal beneficiaries of the system which God gave through his servant Moses. The Pharisees did not practice what they taught, but their failure was no excuse for disobedience by those who knew God's will. The authority of God's word does not derive from the righteous life of the teacher but from the prior authority of God himself; although, of course, the righteous life of the teacher is always a strong encouragement to obedience. The evil and inconsistent life of the scribes and Pharisees was a strong deterrent to the acceptance of God's will in that day; and similar evil on the part of Christian teachers in all ages has the same hindering results. Verse 4 Yea, they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.The Pharisees always took the strictest and most legalistic view of every religious duty and always applied the law in such a way as to make it as onerous as possible - that is, FOR OTHERS! They themselves? Ah, that was something else again. They did not observe their own strict rules, and their personal laxity was an open scandal. Why? Christ immediately gave the answer in the most vituperative and scathing language ever to fall from his blessed lips. Verse 5 But all their works they do to be seen of men: for they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments ...John A. Broadus, quoting Rabbinical writers, described the phylactery as follows: In Exodus 13:16; Deuteronomy 6:8 and Deuteronomy 11:18, it was said to Israel concerning the teachings of the law, that they should be bound, "for a token upon thy head, and for frontlets between thine eyes." In the inter-biblical period, we find the Jews converting this figure into outward fact. They took four passages adjacent to the thrice repeated injunction, namely, Exodus 13:2-10; Exodus 13:11-17; Deuteronomy 6:4-9; and Deuteronomy 11:13-22, and writing them on strips of parchment, encased the folded strips in minute leather boxes. These four boxes were set on edge and fastened upon one leather base, which was placed in the middle of the forehead, and held there by a string tied round the head with peculiar knots which had a mystical meaning.[1] Naturally, the bigger the phylactery the more attention the device would get for its wearer. If this seems strange to anyone today, it ought to be remembered that the making of a figurative statement to become a literal statement is an error that certainly was not confined to ancient Jews. The doctrine of transubstantiation is a similar error, resulting from exactly the same kind of mistake, and just as illogical. Borders of the garments were considered sacred by the Jews, and the enlargement of the border was another device for ostentation and gratification of the pride of its wearer. ENDNOTE:[1] John A. Broadus, American Commentary on the New Testament (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1886), p. 465. Verse 6 And love the chief place at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues.It is an eloquent warning against pride, even of the variety held harmless by many, to observe that the rejection of Christ by the Pharisees was directly the fruit of their social and religious pride. When Christ finally denounced them and pronounced judgment upon them, as in this chapter, he made their pride to be their principal sin. The vainglory of greetings extended to them in market places, the deference shown them in social gatherings, and the presumption of piety which they received and invited by the ostentatious use of wide borders, phylacteries, etc. - these may appear to be small things, but they were the root of the Pharisees' trouble; and it is certain those same encouragements to pride have been in every age a stumblingblock to faith. Verse 7 And the salutations in the market places, and to be called of men, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven.They were little men, puffed up with their supposed learning, parading like peacocks before the admiring eyes of their followers, and inwardly gloating over titles of honor and deference. Such empty superficiality blinded the Pharisees and will also blind all others in all places in all times who become infected with the deadly virus of human pride. Christ assuredly condemned the employment of religious titles denoting any kind of authority. The acceptance of title, no less than its bestowal, was forbidden by Christ. "Be not ye called ... Call no man ..." In the teaching here, Christ struck at one of the great failings of mankind, the reliance upon human authorities for the settlement of religious truth. In apostolic times, the living teachers were called "rabbis" and the ones who formerly lived were called "fathers." (The latter term even crept into the speech of Stephen, Acts 7:2). But Christ taught there is just one authority in religion, namely, God, and that which God has revealed in Christ through the apostles. Plummer expressed it: "They were to abandon the practice of appealing to `the fathers,' which had done so much evil in perpetuating misleading traditions."[2] The sense of Christ's teaching recorded in this place is always violated when men are willing to accept the authority of "Doctor So and So" instead of the teachings of the word of God. Call no man your father on earth ... At least the Jews are consistent who, rejecting Christ, reject also what he said about "rabbi"; but it appears unbelievable that so large a part of Christendom should be so blind to Christ's commandment as to flaunt the title "father" as the just inheritance of all their priests and to bestow upon their sovereign the near-blasphemous title, "Most Holy Father"! Such reminds one of the custom of Wilhelm II, emperor of Germany, the Kaiser of World War I, who allowed it to be printed in the court circular, on the occasion of Wilhelm's going to church, that "This morning, The All-Highest paid His respects to the Highest"![3] Wherever the title "father" is received and allowed, there is also a sinful implication of the authority of such persons and of the deference due their opinions regarding religious questions. It is precisely there that the damage is done. Positively no Father, Rabbi, Reverend, Doctor, or other religious title-holder has any authority at all to legislate, absolve, bind, loose, require, or demand, in any religious sense, anything whatsoever, upon anyone whomsoever! The principal heresy of the ages has been and continues to be the human failing in this very area. Humanity confers upon itself, in the person of those whom it denominates "fathers," "rabbis," etc., prerogatives which pertain and can only pertain to God. As for the titles themselves, they are forbidden to all who honor the word of Christ. Let any person who uses such a title in a religious sense beware of the consequences. Titles, apart from their religious implications, are not necessarily condemned by Christ; the distinction is seen in the fact that one may refer to his earthly parent as his father without violating the prohibition taught by Christ; but if the very same title, or any other, should be applied in a religious sense and in order to confer dignity and authority upon the conferee, then Christ's law is violated. The consent of long centuries of men to disobey Christ's law on these matters does not change it. The word "reverend" may be used of a man if it should be used in the sense that one is revered, respected, or God-fearing, and if not at the same time intended as a title of religious authority or distinction. Psalms 111:9 reads, "Holy and reverend is his name." The words HOLY and are applied to God in that passage, or rather to God's name; but it is not true that all words so applied are therefore forbidden to be used as applicable to men. The word HOLY, for example, is applied to people, even by the apostles (Hebrews 3:1; 1 Peter 3:5, etc.); and it would be hard to find authority for any dogma to the effect that there are no reverend men, or that it would be wrong thus to describe them. But both those words (holy and reverend) violate Christ's plain word the moment one is made a title or symbol of religious authority to which other men are expected to give obedience, allegiance, submission, or deference. All titles that seek to elevate one man above another in the solemn business of the faith in Christ are wrong. Some of the arguments brethren use to maintain this truth may sometimes be described as illogical, but the truth is overwhelmingly plain and undeniable. Christ condemned religious titles of preferment and authority because all of them are founded upon a false premise: that one man, more than another, has the right to interpret God's word. Needless to say, such terms as Brother, Evangelist, Elder, Minister, Bishop, Deacon, Cardinal, Pope, Metropolitan, Monsignor, etc., etc., violate Christ's law when such are used as food for vanity of the designate or for procuring the acceptance of his views by others. How far the race has drifted in this matter might be realized by the imposition of some modern terminology upon an ancient incident. Could we say, for example, that His Eminence, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Christ, His Hos Simon Peter, the Pope of all Christendom, was once withstood to his face by the Right Reverend Monsignor Paul, Metropolitan and Bishop of Ephesus! This writer has no delusion that these words on this subject will be much noted or long remembered; but to the devout, who believe in Jesus, we dare to suggest that they are true. It is prayerfully hoped that Christ's warning against the virus of seats (the chief ones, of course) will be heeded by those who truly desire to follow him. [2] Alfred Plummer, Commentary on Matthew (London: Elliot Stock, 1909), p. 315. [3] Edmond Taylor, The Fall of the Dynasties (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, 1963), p. 149. Verse 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, even the Christ.Christ paid his respects to three titles in the passage before us, namely, Rabbi, Father, and Master; but the principle certainly applies to all titles that might be used in such a manner, that is, to elicit religious respect and acceptance. Even the use of "Brother" as the exclusive property of the preacher serves to take it away from others equally entitled to it; and therefore it should be used for all and not parlayed into a title which, for all practical purposes, takes the place of "Reverend"! Moffatt's translation makes this verse read, "Nor must you be called `leaders,' for One is your leader, even the Christ." Verse 11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled; and whosoever shall humble himself shall be exalted.Thus, Christ climaxed his teaching on the basic moral failure of the Pharisees. It was their love of preference, desire for social or worldly acclaim, delight in popularity, affinity for pompous titles, and their constant jostling each other for positions of eminence - these were the outward symptoms of their deadly pride within, which blinded their eyes to the Lord of glory and shut the gates of light against themselves. Humility is the indispensable virtue. All the Pharisees' excellence, all their strict attention to observe details of the law, all their visible identity with religion could not save them without humility. Humility is that low sweet root From which all the heavenly virtues shoot! -Thomas Moore Lack of humility is at the bottom of practically all the trouble that ever came into the church. Proud, arrogant men, striving against each other for some type of advantage, stand squarely in the center of every division that ever occurred among the followers of Christ. Through pride, Satan fell; through pride, he holds countless souls in captivity to do the will of the devil! Having thus laid bare before all the true source of guile and wickedness in the Pharisees and scribes, namely pride, Christ then proceeded to pronounce a number of "woes" upon them. Verse 13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye shut the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye enter not in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering in to enter.THE FIRST WOEThe Pharisees should have accepted Christ and set an example for all to follow by receiving and honoring him; but instead they rejected him, hated him, and tried to turn the popular mind away from him, thus, in a figure, standing in the gate and virtually shutting it in the face of all who were trying to do God's will. Those who enter God's kingdom will cause others to do the same thing; and those who refuse to enter will also prevent others from being saved. Thus, every man is either for Christ or against him. Verse 15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he is become so, ye make him twofold more a son of hell than yourselves.THE SECOND WOEJust prior to this verse, some authorities insert Matthew 23:14, which reads thus: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, even while for a pretense ye make long prayers: therefore ye shall receive greater condemnation" (see the margin of the ASV). To say the least, such is in complete harmony with all else that Christ said of the Pharisees and scribes. Matthew 23:15 does not condemn the making of proselytes, far from it. It condemns the making of a proselyte to human opinion rather than to God's word. This was the guilt of the scribes and Pharisees. Had they made converts to the true Jewish faith, that would have been all right; but, instead, they made converts to THEIR PARTY. Boles said, "They exalted the opinions of men above the word of God, which rendered them worthy of such condemnation."[4] Plummer understood this passage in the same way, saying, "The main point here seems to be that the Pharisees, while professing a great zeal for the spread of the true religion, were chiefly bent on winning another adherent to their party."[5] There were two classes of proselytes: (1) proselytes of the gate, who were not circumcised, and who accepted only portions of Judaism, and (2) proselytes of righteousness, who became true converts. Some of the noblest names of the New Testament were found among such proselytes. The centurion of Mat 8:5 is an example.[6] Proselytes, however, often become a problem, sometimes coming to represent all that is worst, both in their old religion and in their new one. This is nearly always the case where one is proselyted to a "system" rather than to Christ and him crucified. Proselytes to error frequently become even more zealous and diligent purveyors of the new doctrine than persons brought up in it. Clare Booth Luce and her diligence for Catholicism show a good example of this. The son of hell, as Christ used it, refers to the final overthrow of the wicked, and is equivalent to a "son of the devil." [4] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Matthew (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1936), p. 447. [5] Alfred Plummer, op. cit., p. 318. [6] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 447. Verse 16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, that say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor. Ye fools and blind: for which is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gift that is upon it, he is debtor. Ye blind: for which is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? He therefore that sweareth by, the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. And he that sweareth by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein. And he that sweareth by the heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.THE THIRD WOEThe Pharisees' punctilious preoccupation with trifles appears in all its ridiculous pettiness in this passage. What was so wrong with the practices Christ pointed out? Plummer hit the nail on the head when he said, It is grievous enough that men should be encouraged to think that there are two kinds of TRUTH, one of which is important, and the other not; namely, that which is sworn to, and that which is stated without an oath. That leads men to think that unless they take an oath, they may tell lies with little or no blame. But to tell men that, even when they have sworn, they are not bound to tell the truth or abide by the promise, UNLESS THEIR OATH IS TAKEN IN A CERTAIN WAY, is far worse, and far more destructive of men's sense of honor and love of truthfulness.[7] Intervening centuries have not diminished the amazement one feels when considering the hair-splitting nonsense of those blind and foolish hypocrites, glorying in all those minuscule distinctions and disputations concerning the super-fine points of religion. The big point in the whole passage is that the whole is greater than any of its parts, and that the whole is equal to the sum of its parts. In spite of truth so plain as to be considered axiomatic, the scribes and Pharisees had become champions of small distinctions such as those regarding oaths. Their thinking on such matters was foolish. Theology today is just as foolish, for example, in allowing that a man may tell a lie if he is doing it (or thinks he is) for the good of the person deceived. During the great religious wars of the sixteenth century, many a "safe conduct" was violated, even by the highest ranking prelates, by just such a devious intellectual device as that so severely condemned by Christ. See under Matthew 5:33-37. ENDNOTE:[7] Alfred Plummer, op. cit., p. 318. Verse 23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye tithe mint and anise and cummin, and have left undone the weightier matters of the law, justice, and mercy, and faith: but these ye ought to have done, and not to have left the other undone. Ye blind guides that strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel!THE FOURTH WOEIn the fourth woe also, the Pharisee was presented as a specialist in trifles. To be sure, there was nothing wrong with tithing mint, dill (see the margin of the RSV), and cummin. Christ admitted that such was a duty, "These ought ye to have done!" The trouble was that such petty little deeds of scrupulosity were the concern of the scribes and Pharisees. They could murder the Son of God but would not think of neglecting to tithe a sprig of dill on the back doorstep. It was precisely in such a tradition that they finally appeared before Pilate to extort a death sentence for the Master, while refusing at the same time to enter the governor's court lest they be defiled! Jesus contrasted justice, mercy, and faith with small things like tithing herbs, and then laid down the proposition that some things ARE more important than others in God's kingdom. Furthermore, the BIG END of all obligation is in the ethical and moral realm, rather than in ceremonial and external observances. Without wishing to appear as a judge of others, we may nevertheless urge upon all brethren everywhere the fact that such questions as HOW orphans should be cared for, whether from the church treasury or by individuals, is just such a proposition as some of those so dear to the Pharisees and so repulsive to Jesus. The "weightier matter" as far as orphans are concerned, and as far as Christ is concerned, is that they shall be properly and affectionately cared for, and not "how" it is done. Blind guides ... the gnat ... the camel ... In Christ's day, any small impurity in a glass of milk or water would have been filtered out. Jesus contrasted this straining of such a thing as a gnat out of a glass of water with swallowing a camel! This is hyperbole at its best and a perfect picture of the unbalanced thinking of those unfortunate men. For example, they literally stoned Stephen to death with their own hands, but scrupulously avoided stepping on an old grave, neglecting to tithe a sprig of dill, or putting foot inside a Gentile's house. The figure of the gnat and the camel emphasizes the difference in the culture of that day and ours. Today, any good housekeeper would throw a glass of milk in the garbage if it had a gnat in it; but in those days, such things as germs were unknown. Therefore, the gnat was strained out! Presumably this may still go on wherever there is such poverty as to require it or such ignorance as to allow it. Of course, Christ did not endorse that type of sanitation, or lack of it, but was merely drawing an illustration from the customs of the day. Verse 25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye cleanse the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup and of the platter, that the outside thereof may become clean also.THE FIFTH WOEIn this woe also, another remarkable imbalance in the thinking of the Pharisees was pinpointed by Jesus. All of the dishes they used were subjected to the ceremonial washing to avoid legal defilement; but Christ made it clear that cleans of another kind had been neglected. It was far more important that food be "clean" in the sense of its not having been obtained through extortion, and that gluttony or excess could occur in spite of all ceremonial cleans. Of course, extortion and excess were two of the Pharisees' commonest sins. They robbed widows and orphans, dealt deceitfully, defrauded in money-changing, and violated wholesale the great moral precepts of the Law; in a genuine moral sense, therefore, their food was contaminated with extortion and excess. That was the real uncleanness which should have concerned them but did not. On the other hand, they never forgot the ceremonial washings! Christ did not condemn outward cleans, nor even the washing of cups and platters, but made such things secondary. And how did Christ teach that the INSIDE of the cup and platter should be cleansed? That was to be done through no outward ceremonial but was to be accomplished by honesty, industry, thrift, temperance, truthfulness, fairness, regard for the needs of others, and, in short, by living righteous lives. Verse 27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear beautiful, but inwardly are full of dead men's bones, and all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but inwardly ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.THE SIXTH WOEHere is another figure drawn from the customs of the day and the practice of the scribes and Pharisees, who customarily whitewashed graves in order to make them more easily visible and to prevent one's stepping on one of them accidentally or unknowingly. Such graves were a fair figure of the Pharisees, who were outwardly clean and beautiful, but inwardly were full of wickedness. The implications in such a comparison by the Lord are profound. The Pharisees, with all their pomp and glamour, earthly glory and prestige, outward beauty and ostentation, were, for all that, actually dead in the eyes of Jesus. They were dead spiritually and morally. Although their inward decay was concealed with an attractive veneer of political and social respectability, it was not hidden from the penetrating knowledge and vision of the Son of God, who knew their hearts. Verse 29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and garnish the tombs of the righteous.THE SEVENTH WOEIn this seventh woe, Christ began to pronounce sentence upon those religious leaders and the nation they had so basely led and betrayed. In this seventh woe, Christ suddenly revealed himself as the Judge of those evil people and dramatically assumed the prerogatives of judgment and gave sentence against those who had the vanity to suppose they were judging him! The time of pleading, persuading, and reasoning with them had passed. Without hesitation, in the clearest and most powerful language, in the presence of his disciples and all the people, Christ uttered the judgment of God upon the flower of Israel's religious hierarchy, condemning, along with the nation which, alas, had blindly followed them, and consigning them to the judgment and punishment of hell. The seventh woe, as all the others, dealt with hypocrisy, the sin reiterated over and over. In the seventh case, they were making a fine "to do" over the tombs of the prophets, building beautiful sepulchres, and decorating their graves, and at the same time declaiming their superiority over their ancestors who had slain the prophets. In this woe, Christ exposed the Pharisees as true sons of their evil fathers. Verse 30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we should not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.Loud professions of moral rectitude on the part of the Pharisees did not conceal their moral leprosy from Jesus. At that very moment, they were plotting to kill him; and, before the week ended, they would commit a crime against the Lord of Life in a manner so revolting and hateful that all succeeding generations would hold it to be the crime of the ages. Whereas others had slain God's messengers, they would slay his SON! Verse 31 Wherefore ye witness to yourselves, that ye are sons of them that slew the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers, how shall ye escape the judgment of hell?Not merely were those men the physical descendants of those who persecuted and slew the prophets, they were also their moral and spiritual sons as well, full of fraud and deceit, fit architects for fashioning a cross for the Beloved. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. This is irony. They had passed the point of no return; and like Balaam of old, they could not have gone back if they had tried at this point, although there was no possibility of their even trying. As the angel said to Balaam, "Go with the men!" so Jesus here commanded them to do the thing they had already purposed to do, and from which there was now no longer any possibility of drawing back. Evil hearts had already committed the foul murder which their external actions would only confirm before the week ended. There is a stark contrast between the wickedness of the men who killed Christ and that of Balaam (Numbers 22:34). Balaam tried to abort his evil mission but could not. These men did not even try to abort theirs. Over against Balaam, an angel with a drawn sword gave the summary command, "Go with the men!" How that must have chilled his heart with fear and dread. In every evil course, there is a point where the sinful soul becomes apprehensive and would draw back but cannot. There is a threshold which, when crossed, admits of no complete spiritual returning. What a terrible moment for the sinful that must be! It is an evil hour, fraught with the pangs of conscience and the fear of hell, but void of any place for repentance even though sought bitterly with tears, as in the case of Esau. Yet such an awareness of the horrors of evil seems never to have come to the Pharisees. They were already dead spiritually. The very Christ of God stood before them in an amazing drama of outraged innocence and thundered the sentence: "Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers!" There was no evidence that they heard him. Spiritual "rigor mortis" had already set in! Ye serpents ... Much of Jesus' language was metaphorical, but this was one of the strongest ever used. Herod was called a fox; the opponents of the gospel were called "wolves" in sheep's clothing; but the Pharisees were compared to the most detestable of all creatures, serpents, and poisonous ones at that, VIPERS! The judgment of hell was a reference to the final overthrow of the wicked in the lake of fire (see the margin of the ASV). The question, "how shall ye escape" ... is actually an affirmation that they shall not escape. Verse 34 Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: some of them shall ye kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city.Behold, I send! These words surely imply Christ's identity with the Father, God himself. It is Christ who would send forth the apostles, prophets, and wise men; it was God who sent the prophets of the Old Covenant, but the two are one. How naturally did those words fall from the lips of our Lord. Such an outflashing of His Godhead was lost on the Pharisees, but the disciples of all ages would note and remember it, nor ever cease to marvel at it. The treatment which God's messengers sent by Christ were to receive was accurately foretold. The stoning of Stephen, the imprisonment of the apostles, the persecutions of Paul and others from city to city, even the crucifixion of Christ - all such things in time demonstrated the accuracy of our Lord's predictions to the Pharisees. The mention of "crucify" among the things the Pharisees would do to those sent by Christ showed that Jesus himself was among those "sent." Thus, in this strange and exciting paragraph, Christ appeared both as the Sender and as One sent, both as God and as man. This deduction follows upon the fact that Christ alone was crucified by the Pharisees. Verse 35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar.Commentators profess to find difficulty with this verse. Alford would reject the words "son of Barachiah."[8] McGarvey supposed that it refers to the circumstances of the death of the prophet Zachariah, although admitting that no record of such an occurrence may be found in the Bible.[9] Broadus found here "a well known difficulty."[10] Why should there be a difficulty? It is obvious that Christ here referred to some secret murder perpetrated, not by the ancestors of those men, but "by them. Whom ye slew!" This could not be an indictment of their ancestors but plainly refers to a murder those wicked men had committed themselves. Christ tried with that one last lightning stroke of truth to get through to them, but even that failed. That no such murder was recorded in either the Old Testament or the New Testament, and that there was no general knowledge of it in the days of Christ, and that no traditions were developed with reference to it - these things present no difficulty at all, but point squarely at the Pharisees and show their effectiveness in covering up their evil deeds and hiding them from popular view. (It was precisely this ability they relied upon when they decided to make away with Jesus secretly. See Matthew 26:1-4). It is further evidence of their depravity that none of them ever confessed it, even after he who knew their thoughts revealed it publicly! Their guilty secret went to the grave with them, except for this ray of light from the lips of Christ who made it known on the occasion of their being sentenced to hell for their wickedness. This is a revealing glance at the judgment to come, when the secrets of men's hearts shall be revealed. Commentators ought not to marvel that this judgment scene revealed a crime hitherto unknown; the great judgment will reveal innumerable others! One of the very significant things from that judgment of the Pharisees and Israel is that nations, no less than individuals, are accountable to God. The Pharisees were made the terminal heirs of the total Jewish history of rebellion against God. Plumptre's words are appropriate: Men make the guilt of past ages their own, reproduce its atrocities, identify themselves with it; and so, what seems at first an arbitrary decree, visiting on the children the sins of their fathers, becomes in such cases a righteous judgment. If they repent, they cut off the terrible entail of sin and punishment; but, if they harden themselves in their evil, they inherit the delayed punishment of their fathers' sins as well as their own.[11] [8] J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on Matthew and Mark (Delight, Arkansas: The Gospel Light Publishing Co., 1875), p. 202. [9] Ibid. [10] John A. Broadus, op. cit., p. 476. [11] Ibid. Verse 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.The Jewish nation itself was laid under sentence by those words. Before that generation expired, the armies of Vespasian and Titus moved against the stricken city with ruthless destruction. God's patience, exhausted at last, became God's wrath! Verse 37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her! how often would I have gathered the children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!Morgan's comment on this chapter has this passage: Here, indeed, if ever, we have thoughts that breathe and burn. One can almost feel the withering force of his strong and mighty indignation - indignation directed, not against the people, but against their false guides. And yet behind it all is his heart; and the woes merge into a wail of agony, the cry of a mother over her lost child.[12] This lament over the doomed city occurred at a most appropriate time: upon the occasion of the Lord's sentencing her to destruction. One who has ever attended a courtroom in which the judge announced a death sentence and has observed the heart-breaking scenes that inevitably follow can appreciate the sorrow that overwhelmed the Saviour in that tragic hour when the glory and power of Jerusalem, the city of the great King, as Jesus himself called it, were consigned to the torch and the sword, the heel of the invader, the pestilence and the siege, the brutality of plunder, and the dashing of the heads of her infants against the stones! "Sin when it is finished bringeth forth death" (James 1:15, KJV). Sin for Jerusalem was finished by the rejection of Christ, and it brought forth death. A cry of pity and of sorrow went up from her Saviour, but not even that could spare Jerusalem. Ye would not! Man's freedom of the will makes it possible for him to reject even his God; but when he does so, he cannot avoid the consequences. The reference to a hen and chickens is one of the tenderest, commonest, and most appealing figures Jesus ever used. The common barnyard fowl was to be used again by our Lord in the incident of Peter's denial. The commonest and most ordinary things on the planet grew luminous at the touch of Jesus and sprang into glorious significance. As for the particular time when the above lament was spoken, Matthew's including it at this juncture might not be chronological. F. W. Farrar placed it on the day of the Triumphal Entry and treated it as occurring as Christ approached the city along the southern route from Bethany on Palm Sunday.[13] We believe Farrar was following Luke's account which certainly places it on that day (Luke 19:41), but Luke also gives a second weeping over the city (Luke 13:34), and it is reasonable to suppose there may have been a third one, in which case Matthew's account might very well be a chronological record of it. Certainly, the sheer logic of Jesus' weeping upon the very occasion of sentencing the city to its doom lends support to such a consideration. [12] G. Campbell Morgan, An Exposition of the Whole Bible (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1959), p. 420. [13] F. W. Farrar, The Life of Christ (New York: A. L. Burt Company), p. 378. Verse 38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.Scholars omit the word "desolate" (see the ASV margin). Whether or not the word is in the original, the meaning surely is. "Behold your house is left unto you!" This was a seven-word summary of the seven woes just pronounced by the Lord. No longer would the city be disturbed by the teaching of her Saviour. His last public discourse was ended. The Holy City was then left to those vain captains of their sinking ship, unaware of their doom, even when the last lifeboat had departed and no means of escape remained. Plummer expressed it thus: These sorrowful words of warning are the Messiah's farewell to his people. He never again taught in public, and perhaps he never again entered the temple. It was perhaps only a few hours after uttering these woes upon the teachers, and this lamentation over the inhabitants of Jerusalem, that the Sanhedrin met to consider how they might destroy him who had uttered them. That was their answer to his condemnation of their past and his warnings respecting their future.[14] Note that Christ refers to the temple as "your house," meaning that the most sacred institutions have genuine value only so long as they are blessed with the presence of the Lord. It was, after Christ's rejection, no longer God's house, but theirs! ENDNOTE:[14] Alfred Plummer, op. cit., p. 326. Verse 39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.Some believe that this verse refers to the ultimate acceptance of Christ as the Messiah on the part of the Jews of some subsequent age, basing it upon Paul's words in Romans 11:1-36; but, although such a possibility might be allowed, it is the view here that no such prophecy was intended in this place. On the other hand, the exact opposite seems indicated by this emphatic declaration. See notes on Matthew 18:34. But even if passing ages should reveal an ultimate acceptance of their King on the part of some Jews of some future generation, the emphatic declaration here would still be true enough as applicable to the millennia intervening. This verse is, in fact, a challenge to all men. None shall see the King until they are willing to forsake worldly pride, fall upon their knees in repentance, and say, "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." McGarvey Commentary For Matthew Chapter Twenty-ThreeDenunciation of the Scribes and Pharisees, Matthew 23:1-39 Their Moral Inconsistency, Matthew 23:1-41. to the multitude and to his disciples.—Jesus is still in the temple, and in the presence of the opponents with whom he had been disputing, but he now addresses himself to the disciples and the multitude. The change of his address is accompanied by a change in his subject-matter. Having exhausted on his hypocritical foes the power of proof and argument, he proceeds to deal with them as hopeless reprobates by depicting to the multitude their true character, and by heaping upon them the sentences of condemnation which were justly their due. 2, 3. sit in Moses' seat.—He begins by recognizing his enemies as teachers of the law of Moses, and the only source of information on that subject accessible as yet to the uneducated people. But his advice, "All therefore whatsoever they bid you, that observe and do," must be understood as limited to things written in the law; for the traditions which the scribes taught he had already repudiated. 3, 4. do not after their works —While their teaching, so far as it was drawn from the law, was to be strictly observed, their example was to be carefully avoided. "They say, and do not." The "heavy burdens and grievous to be borne" which they bound and laid on men's shoulders, were the traditions which they added to the law; for although the law itself was a yoke which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear (Acts 15:10), it could not be said of the law that it was a burden which the scribes bound and laid on men's shoulders. They avoided the task of bearing these burdens themselves, not moving them with one of their fingers, by introducing a class of subtle distinctions like that of the corban (Matthew 15:4-6), and those in reference to oaths (verses 16-22). Their Ostentation, Matthew 23:5-12. (Mark 12:38-39; Luke 20:45-46) 5. to be seen of men.—While avoiding all heavy burdens, they performed some works, yet only such as would attract the attention of men and secure to themselves reputation for piety. These they carried to an excess, as is seen in the specifications mentioned below. broad their phylacteries.—Phylacteries were pieces of parchment with certain portions of the law written on them, and worn usually on the sleeve of the left arm, though sometimes on the forehead, and sometimes on the breast. The authority for wearing them was entirely traditionary, the tradition having its origin in a literal interpretation of Exo 13:9 Exodus 13:16, and Deuteronomy 11:18-21. For a minute description of them, and for some of the frivolous notions of the Rabbis concerning them, we refer the inquisitive to Smith's Dictionary, article Frontlets. The sin of the Pharisees was not in wearing phylacteries, for it was in itself a harmless practice, but in making theirs broad for ostentatious display. enlarge the borders.—The children of Israel were required by the law to make fringes in the borders of their garments, and to put upon the fringes "a ribband of blue." (Numbers 15:37-39.) The Pharisees made these, as they did their phylacteries, larger than did other people, in order to appear more religious than others. 6. uppermost rooms.—Not rooms in the modern sense, but reclining places (πρωτοκλισίας). The Jews, in the Savior's time, like the Greeks and Romans, ate their meals in a reclining posture. Long couches were provided in their dining-halls, on each of which three persons would usually recline. The first, reclining on his left side, rested his left elbow on a cushion at the end of the couch, his feet thrown back toward the rear so as to allow another to recline just below and in front of him. The third was an equal distance below the second, the head of each being far enough below his neighbor above to keep from interfering with the free use of his hands in eating. The middle position was the position of honor, here called the uppermost room, and the Pharisees are charged with loving to secure it. chief seats in the synagogues.—At the end of the synagogue building, opposite to the entrance, was the chest or ark containing the books of the law, and the seats near that end were the "chief seats in the synagogue." 7. greetings in the markets.—Not markets in the modern sense, but open spaces in the city to which the populace resorted for conversation and for business transactions of various kinds, and where judicial tribunals often held their sittings. There was one such in every city, called by the Greeks the agora, and by the Romans, the forum. The Pharisees delighted in the formal greetings and salutations which were here lavished on men of distinction by the fawning multitude. 8-11. Rabbi... father... master.—The ostentation which showed itself in the dress of the Pharisees and in their greediness for popular applause, was also seen in their fondness for honorary titles. Rabbi means teacher, but it was used not merely to point out the fact that one was a teacher, but as a title of honor; and it is only the latter use of it that is here prohibited. The apostles frequently applied the title teacher to those who were such in the churches. (See Acts 13:1; 1 Timothy 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:11.) The term father was also applied figuratively by Paul to himself, when he said to the Corinthians, "You have not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." (1 Corinthians 4:15.) He also called Timothy his "own son in the faith," thus by implication calling himself Timothy's father. He had reference in each of these cases to his actual relationship in the gospel to these parties; hence it is the merely honorary use of the term which is prohibited. So of the title Master (καθηγηταί, leaders); its use in an honorary or complimentary style is alone prohibited. Our modern titles, Reverend, Right Reverend, Doctor of Divinity, etc., are all of the prohibited class and should be scrupulously avoided by men who desire to please God. Alford, in this place, combating a note by Albert Barnes, says that "to understand and follow such commands in the slavery of the letter, is to fall into the very Phariseeism against which our Lord is uttering the caution." This remark would be unaccountable but for the fact that the learned commentator was himself a dignitary in a church which has been peculiarly given to the practice here condemned. Surely it can not be Phariseeism to scrupulously avoid that for which the Pharisees were condemned; and in repudiating all honorary titles we are complying with the spirit of the command even more certainly than with the letter; for in the letter only three such titles are specified. 11, 12. shall be your servant.—In these two verses the meekness becoming a Christian is put in contrast with the ostentation of the Pharisees, and the consequences of both are stated. The pathway to true greatness is found in humble service for others, while self-exaltation insures abasement. The results are brought about providentially in this world, and judicially in the world to come. Their Conduct toward Believers and Proselytes, Matthew 23:13-1513. ye shut up the kingdom.—Here the term "shut up" (κλεετε) is used metaphorically; for the scribes and Pharisees could not literally shut up the kingdom of heaven. There is a tacit comparison of the kingdom to a walled city, and of the conduct of the Pharisees to men standing at the gate but refusing to go in, and shutting the gate against those who would go in. The application is easy. Their refusal to go in represents their refusal to accept the doctrine of the kingdom of Christ; and their shutting the gate, their efforts to keep those who would accept this doctrine from doing so. To argue from this passage, as some have done, that the kingdom of heaven must have been already set up, is illogical, because the figure is as well suited to a kingdom about to be established as to one already in existence. 14. — This verse is omitted by the recent critics and by some of the best manuscripts. It was interpolated from Mark 12:40, or Luke 20:47, in both of which places it is genuine. We will consider it at the proper place in Mark. 15. to make one proselyte.—Not a proselyte from heathenism to the worship of the true God, but a Jewish proselyte to the sect of the Pharisees— to the traditionary observances and corrupt practices which they exalted above the word of God. To compass sea and land for the former purpose would have been most commendable, for it would have made men better; but for the latter purpose it was deplorable, because it made men worse. (See a fine article on Proselytes, in Smith's Bible Dictionary.) twofold more.—Their proselytes were worse than themselves, because it is the tendency of corrupt systems to make their adherents worse and worse, generation after generation; and also because the proselyte, having, as a general rule, less knowledge of the law than his teacher, was under less restraint from that source, and was more completely devoted to the traditions of the sect. Their Folly in Reference to Oaths, Matthew 23:16-2216. blind guides.—In this paragraph the denunciatory term is not hypocrites, as above and below, but "blind guides," "ye fools and blind;" for here it is not so much their hypocrisy as their folly which is exposed. 17-19. whether is greater.—The first point made against their teaching is that it reverses the relative importance of things. They esteemed more highly the gold of the temple (16) than the temple which gave that gold all its sacredness; and the gift at the altar, than the altar which made the gift holy by its touch. (Exodus 29:37.) 20-22. whoso shall swear.—Here the people were taught the binding nature of every oath, and both the folly and wickedness of the distinction made by the Pharisees. Their Corruption in Reference to Tithes and Morals, Matthew 23:23-2423. tithe of mint.—The articles here mentioned, mint, anise, and cummin, were garden herbs grown in small quantities and used chiefly for flavoring. To pay tithes of these was to be scrupulous to the last farthing, for the tithe was scarcely worth the trouble of removing it from the garden. the weightier matters.—Weightier matters than paying tithes, because the interests of society are more deeply involved in them. "Judgment" means here right judgment of our fellow-men; "mercy," forbearance toward the guilty and compassion toward the suffering. "Faith" is both the belief of the truth and habitual manifestation of that belief in the life. The Pharisees omitted these habitually, and especially had they done so in reference to Jesus. They pronounced unjust judgments against him; they were unmerciful toward him in reference to the faults which they pretended to find in him; and they had no faith either in his word or the words of the prophets which were written of him. Greater extremes, of conscientiousness in some things and unrighteousness in others were never, perhaps, united in the same persons; nor has such wickedness ever been exposed in terms more felicitous than these words of Jesus. They have become household words wherever the gospel is known. these ought ye.—It is not uncommon to understand Jesus as teaching in this paragraph that it is not important to be particular about small matters, provided we observe the weightier matters. But while he says in reference to the latter, "These ye ought to have done," he says of the former, "and not to leave the other undone." They should not have left undone even the tithe of mint, anise, and cummin. 24. strain at a gnat.—Greek. "strain out a gnat." Reference is had to the custom of straining wine as it was poured into the drinking-cup, lest a gnat, which was an unclean insect, should be swallowed. While thus particular about the gnats, if a camel were in the cup they would swallow him. The hyperbole is an extravagant one, but the more impressive on that account. The fault exposed does not consist in straining out the gnat, but in swallowing the camel. Jesus would have us to swallow neither the camels nor the gnats. Their Outward Purity and Inward Corruption, Matthew 23:25-2825. clean the outside.—The reference is to their traditionary ablutions, such as had caused them to find fault with him when his disciples ate bread with unwashed hands. (See Matthew 15:2; Mark 7:3-4 Mark 7:8.) Their conduct is satirized by comparing it to that of a woman who would carefully cleanse the outside of a cup or plate, and leave the inside unclean; but when he comes to speak of the inside he passes from the figure to the reality, and says, "within they are full of extortion and excess." 26. that the outside may be clean.—Cleansing the inside of a cup would not necessarily cleanse the outside, yet ordinarily it so results: and so, if a man purify himself inwardly he will be pure externally, and far more certainly than in the case of the cup. He who aims at external purity of life, should therefore exert himself chiefly to cleanse that which is within, that the outside may also be clean. 27, 28. like whited sepulchers.—Jesus still has his eye on the wickedness of their hearts, but he now contrasts it, not with their care about tithing, nor with their legal cleanliness, but with their pretense of righteousness. (28.) While they maintained such outward conduct as gave them great credit with the people, like the beautifully whited sepulchers which were "full of dead men's bones and of all uncleanness," they were full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Their Imitation of the Ancient Persecutors, Matthew 23:29-3629-31. Wherefore ye be witnesses.—The argument is obscure. In building the tombs of the prophets and garnishing the sepulchers of the righteous, and also in their speech— "If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets"— they were acting and speaking commendably; but in this very speech they were acknowledging themselves to be the children of those who persecuted the prophets, and Jesus uses that circumstance against them. They were themselves witnesses that they were children of those persecutors, and he argues that notwithstanding their good professions, they, as children, inherited the very character which they were repudiating. Furthermore, by the term "hypocrites" with which he addresses them (29), he assumes that all their good professions were hypocritical. 32. Fill up the measure.—The accumulating iniquity of the nation is represented as a measure which their fathers had provided and partly filled, and which they were now to fill to the brim. (Compare what is said of the Amorites, Genesis 15:16.) 33. how can ye escape.—This is the most fearful passage in the entire speech. "Ye serpents! Ye offspring (γεννήματα) of vipers!" What words could depict a more despicable character? And what sentence pronounced in advance of the final judgment can be compared with this: "How can ye escape the damnation of hell? By the figure of erotesis it is asserted with awful emphasis that for them there was no escape. It is well remarked by Alford that in this, the last public discourse of the Lord, he repeats almost verbatim the denunciation pronounced against these parties by John in the beginning of his ministry, "thus denoting the unchanged state of these men on whom the whole preaching of repentance had now been expended." He notes one point of difference, however, that John demanded of them, "Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" while Jesus demanded, "How can you escape?" 34. I send unto you.—The "prophets, wise men, and scribes" here mentioned are the apostles and their co-laborers, whom Jesus intended to send, and who are designated by titles familiar to his hearers. 35, 36. That upon you may come.—The expression, "upon you may come all the righteous blood," etc., can not mean that they would be held responsible for it all; for they could not be responsible for what occurred before they were born. But that course of iniquity which began with the murder of Abel, and which, so far as the Jews were as yet concerned, had terminated with the death of Zacharias, was to reach its final consummation in that generation by the crucifixion of Jesus; and the series of earthly judgments which had been visited on the world on account of such bloodshed, was also to reach its consummation by the unparalleled sufferings attendant upon the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. All these things came upon that generation in the sense that the consummation of earthly punishments for such deeds befell that generation. Zacharias son of Barachias.—The only person mentioned in the Old Testament by this name is Zechariah the prophet (Zechariah 1:1); but if he perished in this way there is no other record of the fact now extant. Zachariah the son of Jehoiada was stoned "in the court of the house of the Lord," and it may be "between the temple and the altar;" but he would not be confounded with Zechariah the son of Barachiah. It is conjectured by Alford that the text was originally written, as in Luke 11:51, without the words "son of Barachiah," and that copyists at an early period inserted these words through a mistaken desire to make the reference more definite. If this conjecture shall be found, on further investigation, to be correct, we shall conclude that some more recent Zachariah is meant, and this would agree better with the force of the argument; but otherwise we shall be constrained to think that the prophet Zachariah is the one alluded to, and that he was slain as is declared in the text. Lamentation over Jerusalem, Matthew 23:37-3937. and ye would not.—The inimitable tenderness and pathos which breathe through this lamentation, following immediately the burning denunciations of the preceding speech, show plainly that the latter were not instigated by malice. They were judicial utterances wrung from a heart full of longings in behalf of the people denounced. Notwithstanding the killing of the prophets and the stoning of heavensent messengers in times gone by, his feeling toward them now was like the maternal tenderness of the hen when she nestles her brood under her wings; and the only obstacle to their salvation was, that they "would not." A stubborn will was, with them, as it is so likely to be with us, the only hindrance to the saving favor of God. 38. your house is left.—In the personification, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem," etc., the people of the city are addressed, and consequently their "house" must be the city in which they dwelt, and not the temple which belonged to all Israel. It was to be left desolate by his departure to return no more until the time indicated in the next verse. 39. till ye shall say.—The reference can not be to the return of Jesus after his resurrection, nor to what might be figuratively styled his appearance on the next Pentecost; for on neither of these occasions did the people of the city in general welcome him; but it is to his final coming, when, as the prediction clearly implies, the city will contain a believing population, and will welcome him, as the multitude had done at the time of his publics entry, with the acclamation, "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." Argument of Section 4The argument for the claims of Jesus implied in the preceding section is identical in part with that of the third section (see Argument of § 3, p. 195), but it is here more elaborately presented. If his enemies had been the honest and candid men of his generation, it would have been difficult to reconcile this fact with the supposition that his character was unimpeachable and his miracles unquestionable. But when we find what is so clearly disclosed in this chapter, that his enemies were the hypocrites, the arrogant pretenders, the zealous partisans, the extenuators of perjury, the perverters of morals, the extortioners, the unclean at heart, and the bloody persecutors of innocent men, the argument is reversed, and the character of the opposition is found to be no mean proof of the righteousness of Jesus. A man of spotless purity and of uncompromising zeal against all iniquity is the very man to arouse the enmity of such people. Questions by E.M. Zerr For Matthew 231. Who compose the audience of Jesus now? 2. To whom does he first direct his speech? 3. What position does he allow scribes and Pharisees ? 4. Tell what respect he commanded be shown them. 5. But what must not be imitated? 6. State their unfairness as to burdens. 7. What was the motive of these people ? 8. How did they arrange their attire? 9. What did they seek at feasts ? 10. And in synagogues? 11. What recognition did they crave? 12. Why was Eabbi not to be used? 13. What use of “ father” is condemned? 14. Tell why “ master” is forbidden. 15. Who was to be their servant? 16. How does the rule of exaltation work? 17. To whom does Jesus next direct his speech? 18. What does he pronounce upon them? 19. Tell what he calls them. 20. Describe their pretended zeal for proselyting. 21. How did they leave their converts? 22. What kind of guides did Jesus call them? 23. State inconsistency about gold of the temple. 24. Also about the altar and its gift. 25. What is included in swearing by heaven? 26. State their inconsistency about tithing. 27. Which should have been left undone? 28. What inconsistency about gnat and camel ? 29. And the cup and platter? 30. Who was blind in this? 31. What does Jesus bid him do? 32. Describe the comparison to whited sepulchres. 33. What did these people build? 34. Tell what claim they made. 35. In so saying what did they admit? 36. What measure did they fill up? 37. Give the title Jesus next applied to them. 38. From what could they not escape? 39. Who were to be sent to that people ? 40. How would they be treated? 41. To what guilt would this associate them? 42. With which had that people had actual part? 43. What generation was to receive this blame? 44. What city now received the landent of Jesus? 45. Tell how the prophets had fared by her. 46. Whom did she stone? 47. Tell what Jesus often wished to do. 48. What prevented it? 49. Repeat his prediction of desertion. 50. When would they see Jesus again. 23:1 The audience that heard this remarkable chapter was composed of the multitude and the disciples. The first 12 verses were addressed to that part of the multitude designated scribes and Pharisees, and what should be the attitude of the disciples toward that group. 23:2 Moses wrote the law that was to regulate the Yews during that dispensation. After he died it was the duty of others to teach and enforce it upon the nation, and that was a work done by the scribes and Phari sees which is the meaning of their sitting in Moses' seat. 23:3 The scribes and Pharisees had no authority on their own account, but the law which they enforced was just as binding as was the personal teaching of Moses while he was living. The inconsistency of a teacher does not lessen the force of what he teaches if it is according to the law. These scribes and Pharisees were hypocrites and failed to "practice what they preached," yet the disciples were told to obey the law regardless of the unfaithfulness of these teachers; that was because the law of Moses was still in force at the time Jesus was speaking. Note the two words observe and do that were to be recognized by the disciples. A truth or declaration should be observed or respected although it may not contain any direct command for action. But a practical commandment must be not only observed but also must be done. 23:4 The scribes and Pharisees would apply the duties taught in the law in a severe measure when concerned with others. With one of their fingers is a figure of speech, for a burden that could be moved with one finger would not be very heavy. It means they were not willing to exert themselves in the least toward practicing the commandments of the law. One reason they took such an attitude was the fact that they exaggerated the duties actually required by the law in order to oppress the common people. 23:5 Their works refers to the things these hypocrites did, which were done with a vain motive and that they might be seen of men. "Make broad their phylacteries" may be explained by a quotation from Smith's Bible Dictionary as follows: "Phylacteries were strips of parchment, on which were written four passages of Scripture, Exodus 13:2-17; Deuteronomy 6:4-9; Deuteronomy 6:13-23, in an ink prepared for the purpose. They were then rolled up in a case of black calfskin, which was attached to a stiffer piece of leather, having a thong one finger broad and one and a half cubits long. They were placed at the bend of the left arm. Those worn on the forehead were written on four strips of parchment, and put into four little cells within a square case on which the letter . . . was written. The square had two thongs, on which Hebrew letters were inscribed. That phylacteries were used as amulets [charms] is certain and was very natural. The expression 'they make broad their phylacteries,' Matthew 23:5, refers not so much to the phylactery itself, which seems to have been a prescribed breadth, as to the case in which the parchment was kept, which the Pharisees, among their other pretentious customs, Mark 7:3-4; Luke 5:33, etc., made as conspicuous as they could. It is said that the Pharisees wore them always, whereas the common people only used them at prayers." Borders is from which Thayer defines, "A little appendage hanging down from the edge of the mantle or cloak." He explains his definition, "The Jews had such appendages attached to their mantles to remind them of the law, according to Numbers 15:37." For more detailed comments on this curious subject, see those at Numbers 15:37-41 in volume 1 of the Old Testament Commentary. 23:6 Rooms means places at the table while eating, some of them being regarded as more honorable than others. Chief seats means the first or front seats in the synagogues that gave the occupants a prominent view of the audience. 23:7 Markets were places of general interest where men gathered either to buy or to sell their wares, or to converse on various topics. It was usual to see large crowds in such places and they were so public that no one was of any special importance; but these scribes and Pharisees wished to receive special notice by the crowd. The Mosaic system had no officials with the title of Rabbi; the term was created by the Jews to mean one of dignity and respect. It carried with it the idea of some great one deserving special attention. Thayer defines the original, "My great one, my honorable air." The Pharisees wanted it repeated to give it more emphasis. 23:8 The titles of distinction could be used with various intent, hence that of Rabbi could denote a. great leader which was not to be ascribed to private disciples. 23:9 By the process of elimination we know this verse does not mean our fleshly father for that Is a respect all men are commanded to show. Nor can it mean in the sense of one who leads us to be born into the kingdom, for Paul claimed that relationship to Timothy (1 Timothy 1:1). The conclusion is clear, then, that this verse means not to call any man father as a religious title or one of authority. 3:10 The original for master not only means a leader, but also denotes a great and authoritative teacher. Christ is the only one in the kingdom of heaven that is deserving of that distinction (chapter 28:18). 3:11 This is explained in comments on Matthew 18:1-4. 3:12. We have learned that true greatness consists of sincere humility and a desire to be of service to others. But if a man strives for worldly greatness he will be brought down by the Lord under a state of enforced humiliation. 3:13 Up to now Jesus has been talking to his disciples in this chapter, and a part of that conversation has been about the scribes and Pharisees. From here to the close of the chapter he will be speaking directly to them. A hypocrite is one who pretends to be something he knows he is not. (See at chapter 6:2.) These Jews knew that their pretensions were false as their evasive conversations showed. Shut up the kingdom. They not only refused to receive the teaching of John and Jesus and thus get ready for the kingdom that was at hand, but did all they could to keep others from doing so. Eight times in this chapter Jesus pronounces woe upon the scribes and Pharisees. The word is an interjection and means a term of grief or dismay, and when spoken by an inspired man means that great calamity is in store for those referred to. 3:14 Devour is from which Thayer defines at this place, "To devour i. e., forcibly appropriate." Houses is from OIKIA and the same lexicon defines it in this passage, "Property, wealth, goods." They took advantage of the unfortunate widows who were helpless because of the power of the scribes and Pharisees. After enlarging their own estates at the unjust expense of the widows, they came to the places of devotion and uttered prayers that were unusually long. Greater damnation.. The Bible speaks of only one Gehenna or lake of fire into which the unsaved will be cast after the judgment, therefore the actual punishment will be the same for all who are put into that place. The second word in italics also means condemnation and applies to the estimate that the Lord will place on the wrong deeds of these men. A judge may sentence two men to prison for life, yet he may utter a severer condemnation upon one while in his speech of pronouncing sentence than upon the other. 3:15 The English word "proselyte" means one converted or brought over from one faith to another. The word has virtually the same meaning in the Bible, for the Gentiles were permitted to embrace Judaism, and when they did so they were called proselytes. The Jews recognized a distinction between the extent to which some Gentiles made the change which resulted in such classifications as "proselytes of the gate" and "proselytes of righteousness." The latter went farther than the former and conformed to all of the requirements of the law of Moses. But this distinction need not concern us as far as the present verse is concerned. The point is that the scribes and Pharisees professed great zeal in making proselytes, but through their deceptive methods of pressing their own traditions upon the converts ahead of the written law, they confused them and made them worse characters than themselves. Twofold more the child of hell. This is plainly a figurative statement, for no one can be any more than once a child of another. The word child is used in the sense of one who is worthy of or entitled to a thing. This should be understood in the light of comments on "greater damnation" in the preceding verse. 3:16 The point in this verse is their inconsistency of making a technical distinction between things where there was no difference in principle. It was a usual practice of these pretenders to make a show of importance by performing oaths, yet they evaded their self-assumed obligation by naming the temple in their oaths and claiming it was not binding. But they Verse 26. The activities necessary insisted that if others made their vows for cleansing the inside would also in the name of the gold attached to affect the outside if the process should the temple they would not dare break be carried out completely and sincerely. it since the gold was holy. 3:17 Jesus showed their inconsistency in that if the gold was sacred it was the temple that made it so, being attached to and forming a part of the structure. 8-22 The same argument is made in these verses as that in verse 17 The attachment between the altar and the gift upon it, or between the temple and Him who dwells therein (who is God), or between heaven and the throne therein with its Occupant-that attachment makes the obligation equal all around. The word guilty in verse 18 means the same as debtor in the 16th verse; the person is under obligation to perform the oath. 3:23 The Jews were required by the law to give a tenth of the products of their land to the Lord's service. The plants named were small ones of the mint family and of small value commercially, yet these Pharisees were very scrupulous to turn over the tithe (tenth) as required. At the same time they were so attentive to those comparatively small matters, they were indifferent about such weighty matters as judgment, mercy, and faith. Notice Jesus did not say for them to replace the one by the other, but to observe both the small and great things. 3:24 The point in this verse is the same as in the preceding one but expressed with different terms. Both the gnat and camel were among the creatures classed as unclean by the law of Moses. When the Jews made wine they strained i t through a fine cloth to get out all the objectionable objects. Strain at should be translated strain out, and means they were so particular about having the wine pure they would strain out a gnat, but would swallow a camel (figuratively speaking). The meaning is, they would make a big ado about minor matters but overlook the duties of great importance. 3:25 This verse is intended to teach the same lesson as the preceding one by using the figure of a cup kept for drinking purposes. The inside is where the material is placed that is to be consumed, not the outside. By cleansing the outside instead of the inner part, they showed that their pretended care in the cleansing performance was for the appearance only. 7-28 The inconsistency and hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees is the principal subject of many of these verses, and Jesus uses various figures and comparisons for his purpose. Whited sepulchres is the object used in this paragraph for the comparison, and the occasion of their being whited is explained in Smith's Bible Dictionary as follows: "A natural cave enlarged and adapted by excavation, or an artificial imitation of one, was the standard type of sepulchre. Sepulchres, when the owner's means permitted it, were commonly-prepared beforehand, and stood often in gardens, by roadsides, or even adjoining houses. Kings and prophets alone were probably buried within towns. 1 Kings 2:10; 1 Kings 16:6; 1 Kings 16:28. Cities soon became populous and demanded cemeteries, Ezekiel 39:15, which were placed without the walls. Sepulchres were marked sometimes by pillars or by pyramids. Such as were not otherwise noticeable were scrupulously `whited,' Matthew 23:27, once a year, after the rains before the passover, to warn passers-by of defilement."--Article, burial. The beautiful appearance of these whitewashed places contrasted with the decayed and unclean bones within, and the fact was used by Jesus to illustrate the outward fair pretentions of the hypocrites that were opposite to the corruptions of their hearts. 3:29 The prophets had been dead for centuries and were placed in tombs at the time of their death. The word for build is defined at this place by Thayer, "To restore by building, to rebuild, repair." To garnish is defined, "To ornament, adorn." There was nothing wrong in the work of these scribes and Pharisees respecting the treatment of the burial places of the prophets. 3:30 Neither would there have been anything objectionable about what they said regarding the history connected with those prophets, had the remarks been in harmony with their own conduct in the same matters which were the subject of the history. 3:31 The point Jesus made was upon the admission of these pretenders that it was their fathers who had slain the prophets. That fleshly relation would not have placed any blame on them had it not been a prominent practice of them to justify their lives by boasting of their great ancestry. 3:32 This verse is partly in a sense of irony. It is as if Jesus had said: "Since you are the fleshly descendants of those murderers, you may be expected to show their traits in their moral and spiritual character. In so doing you will fully measure up to the wickedness of your ancestors." 3:33 Serpents and vipers are virtually the same creatures as to general classification, being slightly different in variety. The outstanding characteristics of both are deception, poison and filthiness. John the Baptist called those people by the term "vip ers" in chapter 3:7. How can ye escape, eto. The fire of hell (Gehenna) will have been prepared for the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:41), hence it will logically be the final destiny of the offspring of such wicked characters. 3:34 Jesus concluded his direct denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees, and the rest of this speech is made up of predictions against them soon to be fulfilled. He began it by foretelling how they would abuse the righteous men and prophets that would yet be sent to them in that generation. 3:35 See the comments on verse 32. By filling up the measure of their wicked ancestors, the scribes and Pharisees brought to a climax the long career of murder beginning with the slaying of Abel and including Zacharias in 2 Chronicles 24:20-21. 3:36 All these things means the predictions and charges of the two preceding verses, together with the judgments that were soon to come upon that generation. 3:37 The storm that Jesus just predicted was to have its climax upon the capital city of Jerusalem. Seeing that calamity so near, he uttered the lamentable words of this verse. The many attempts to awaken the city to a sense of its evils and the results to follow are compared to the care that a hen manifests in offering her wings for the protection of her brood. And the refusal of the citizens to accept that warning is compared to a flock of chickens that would not come under the wings spread out for them. 3:38 Desolate is from EREMOS which Thayer defines, "Solitary, lonely, desolate, uninhabited." The word is used figuratively and represents Jerusalem as a house that has resisted all attempts to save it. The city had continued in its attitude of wickedness, unmindful of all the offers of mercy that Jesus extended towards her, and he then sadly left her to her fate that was to come in 70 A. D. by the hand of the Romans. 3:39 Blessed is he that cometh, etc., was said before (Matthew 21:9), so that we may think of the present statement as if it said "till ye shall AGAIN say." However, the other time it was said to him in person, while the next time it will be said to him spiritually. And that cannot be when he cometh in his kingdom on Pentecost, for it was to be after the "house" was left desolate which did not come till 70 A. D. at the destruction of Jerusalem. Hence all conclusions are eliminated except that it means when the Jews accept Christ (Romans 11:26; 2 Corinthians 3:14-16). When that time comes the name Jerusalem will be extended to mean the spiritual starting point of the church and hence its citizens (including the Jews), will recognize Jesus as the Messiah of the Old Testament and will thus say "blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." Matthew 24 "THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Chapter Twenty-Four This chapter records the beginning of the Olivet discourse, prompted by questions following Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of the temple (Matthew 24:1-3). It involves the destruction of Jerusalem which occurred in 70 A.D., though many also see intertwining references to the Second Coming of Christ (Matthew 24:4-51). POINTS TO PONDER * The fulfillment of events foretold by Jesus in this chapter * The importance of being prepared and productive REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter? - The destruction of the temple foretold - Matthew 24:1-3- The sign when things would soon occur - Matthew 24:4-28- The tribulation and events immediately after - Matthew 24:29-35- The need to be prepared and productive - Matthew 24:36-51 2) What questions were prompted by Jesus’ prediction? (Matthew 24:3) - "When will these things be? What will be the sign...?" 3) What did Jesus say would not be the sign? (Matthew 24:4-13) - False christs, wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes, persecution, lawlessness 4) What would happen before the "end" would come? (Matthew 24:14) - The gospel preached in all the world (cf. Mark 16:15; Romans 10:16-18; Colossians 1:23) 5) What would be the sign for those in Judea to flee? (Matthew 24:15-16; cf. Luke 21:20-21) - The abomination of desolation (Jerusalem surrounded by armies) 6) What would happen immediately after the tribulation of those days? (Matthew 24:29-31) - Cataclysmic events involving celestial bodies (sun, moon, stars) - The sign of the Son of Man, His coming on clouds of heaven, gathering the elect 7) Where else is language like this used to describe judgment upon a nation? - Isaiah 13:6-13; Isaiah 19:1-2; Isaiah 34:4-6; Nahum 1:1-5 8) What would not pass away before these things would be fulfilled? (Matthew 24:34) - That generation 9) Why did Jesus stress the importance of preparation and productivity? (Matthew 24:36-51) - No one knows the day or hour - The Son of Man will come unexpectedly - His servants will be judged by their faithful service Matthew 24:1-51 Verse 1Mat 24:1-51CHRIST THE OF THE TEMPLE; SIGNS OF HIS COMING; THE PARABLE OF THE FIG TREE; AND And Jesus went out from the temple, and was going on his way; and his disciples came to him to show him the buildings of the temple. But he answered and said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. (Matthew 24:1-2)Jesus went out from the temple ... The significance of these words is revealed in the prediction Christ immediately made of the final overthrow of the temple. When Christ goes OUT FROM any society, individual, or institution, its overthrow is certain, and the consequence is always destruction. The buildings which the disciples pointed out to Jesus with such evident admiration were fully entitled to praise. Josephus' description of Herod's temple states that the front of it was covered with heavy golden plates, that it was constructed of green and white marble blocks of immense dimensions, 67' 10:5' 10:6' in size, and that it appeared like a mountain covered with snow, the ungilded parts being exceedingly white. The golden facade reflected the rising sun with fiery splendor; and, in the words of the rabbis, "He who has not seen the temple of Herod has never seen a beautiful building."[1] Christ's prophecy of the overthrow of the temple was so remarkably fulfilled that the actual site of that once-glorious ancient edifice is now uncertain. Josephus recorded the thorough demolition and destruction of the proud walls which appeared so beautiful to the disciples; but, even if no history remained of how it was done, the present uncertainty as to the site and the utter absence of any significant remains of the ancient glory are proof enough that Jesus' words were totally fulfilled. Nor was the destruction of the temple intended by Titus who had charge of the siege of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. He even gave a commandment against its demolition, intending to preserve it as "a monument to the empire."[2] But the decrees of kings and emperors and generals were of no avail against the will of him who had sentenced it to destruction. Just as Pilate's order to break the legs of Christ was countermanded by the Lord, centuries before it was given, so Titus' order to spare the temple was not heeded. God's will, not Titus' order, prevailed. Included in the prophecy of the destruction of the temple, there was also inherent the accompanying destruction of Jerusalem, also prophesied by Christ (see latter part of preceding chapter), The departed glory of Jerusalem was mentioned by Farrar in these words: He who, in modern Jerusalem, would look for the relics of the ten-times-captured city of the days of Christ, must look for them twenty feet beneath the soil, and will scarcely find them. In one spot alone remain a few massive substructions to show how vast is the ruin they represent; and here, on every Friday, assemble a few poverty-stricken Jews, to stand each in the shroud in which he will be buried, and wail over the shattered glories of their fallen and desecrated home.[3] In view of the size of the stones used in building the temple, it must have appeared highly improbable that every one of them would be thrown down, and yet that is exactly the way it happened. The fire which ravaged the cedar beams and furnishings within melted the gold with which much of the temple was overlaid. It ran down into the crevices of the mighty stones, and the soldiers literally left no stone unturned as they sought to recover the yellow metal that had adorned Herod's temple as loot. [1] J. R. Dummelow, One Volume Commentary (New York: Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 701. [2] James Macknight, A Harmony of the Four Gospels (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1950), p. 412. [3] F. W. Farrar, The Life of Christ (New York: A. L. Burt Company), p. 378. Verse 3 And as he sat on the mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?The question had been propounded by the four fishermen, Peter, James, John, and Andrew (Mark 13:3); and only these four were present to hear the remarkable discourse which begins with the fourth verse of this chapter.[4] Note that there are three questions raised by the disciples: 1. When shall these things be? 2. What shall be the sign of thy coming? 3. What shall be the sign of the end of the world? Naturally, the disciples considered these three events to be simultaneous occurrences, but in this they were mistaken. Nevertheless, Jesus answered all three questions, giving the sign of his coming, outlining the salient features of the destruction of Jerusalem, making that event a type of his second coming, and setting forth a number of details applicable to both events. Practically all of the difficulties in understanding this astounding chapter will disappear when it is remembered that in a single prophecy Christ foretold the destruction of Jerusalem and the final judgment and destruction of the whole world, making the first a type of the latter, and choosing a number of details that apply to both. Just as the rainbow is not one bow but actually two, a primary and a secondary, so many of the prophecies of the word of God have a primary and a secondary fulfillment. "Rachel weeping for her children" (Jeremiah 31:15) and "Out of Egypt have I called my son" (Hosea 11:1) are two examples (see on Matthew 2:13; Matthew 2:18). Dummelow stated that "Our Lord referred in it not to one event but to two, and the first was typical of the second."[5] H. Leo Boles also noted such a characteristic of divine prophecy, saying: Often prophetic language has a double significance. Jehovah told Adam that he would die in the day that he ate the forbidden fruit (Genesis 2:17); yet Adam lived 930 years. There was a primary fulfillment of this when Adam was separated from the garden of Eden, and a secondary fulfillment of it in his death (Romans 5:12). Isaiah foretold the birth of a son by a virgin, yet added a prophecy which confined it to his own generation (Isaiah 7:14-17). The prophet combined type and anti-type in the same words.[6] [4] J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on Matthew and Mark (Delight, Arkansas: Gospel Light Publishing Company, 1875), p. 204. [5] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 702. [6] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Matthew (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1936), p. 472. Verse 4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man lead you astray.This admonition was especially appropriate in view of the amazing answer Christ was about to give to a complex question, the complexity of which was unknown to the apostles and would not be revealed to them except through their experience of unfolding future events. The wisdom of God is seen in the fact that the inadvertent confusion on the part of the disciples with reference to the two events, actually to be separated by thousands of years but appearing to them as scheduled simultaneously, has preserved incontrovertible proof of the authenticity of Matthew's gospel, placing it BEFORE the destruction of Jerusalem. No writer after that event could possibly have arranged this material as does Matthew (see Introduction). Verse 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am the Christ; and shall lead many astray. And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that ye be not troubled: for these things must needs come to pass; but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and there shall be famines and earthquakes in divers places; but the end is not yet. But all these things are the beginning of travail.The "signs" that Jesus mentioned in these verses are essentially ordinary; and thus it may be inferred that the usual run of human conflicts and misfortunes, as well as the claims of false teachers, are not the things which shall reveal the nearness of events prophesied. Historians have pointed out that all of the phenomena above did occur in profusion before the destruction of Jerusalem. Grotius was quoted by Macknight concerning earthquakes in at least eight parts of the Mediterranean world.[7] Such things as famines, wars, and earthquakes seem to have been multiplied during that period, but hardly any period of world history failed to exhibit the same things. Thus it may be concluded that Jesus' lesson here is that all such basic phenomena may be ignored except as characteristics of human wretchedness and misfortune upon which the more imposing signs were not signs of the end. Note the repeated warning, "but the end is not yet"! Such catastrophes were to be viewed only as the "beginning of travail," and the true signs of the events foretold were to be sought, not in them, but rather in what happened to the disciples. ENDNOTE:[7] James Macknight, op. cit., p. 417. Verse 9 Then shall they deliver you up into tribulation, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. And then shall many stumble, and shall deliver up one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall arise, and shall lead many astray. And because inquiry shall be multiplied, the love of many shall wax cold.Conditions outlined in these verses were fulfilled before the destruction of Jerusalem; and, without doubt, the same conditions will prevail before the second coming. The rising persecution and hatred from without and the deteriorating conditions within the body of his disciples were to mark the onset of both events. That called for a strong and special admonition from the Lord for his true disciples to remain faithful no matter what happened. Christ plainly foresaw that the same evil influences which had clouded his personal ministry, and through which the entire nation of the chosen people had been misled and turned against their Messiah, would not cease to operate following his resurrection and the establishment of the kingdom, but would be present in perpetuity. Verse 13 But he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.Faithfulness on the part of Christ's followers is required, regardless of the state of prosperity or adversity in the church, and without respect to hardships, doubts, and difficulties that may appear. Verse 14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a testimony unto all nations; and then shall the end come.The success of God's design is certain, in spite of fears within or foes without. The gospel shall be preached in the whole world. The first fulfillment occurred in the proclamation of the gospel to the "whole world" of that period; and the ultimate fulfillment will be the proclamation of the truth to all nations on the planet earth! That the first fulfillment actually occurred is seen in the fact that Paul witnessed the truth before "the kings and the Gentiles, and the children of Israel." Paul declared that "The gospel which ye heard ... was preached in all creation under heaven; whereof I Paul was made a minister" (Colossians 1:23). The same phenomenon will also occur before the second event, the end of the world. The end of the age is mentioned in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:20) and vividly described by the apostle Peter in 2 Peter 3:1-8. In retrospect, how bold was the prophecy of Christ! That the gospel of a man who had absolutely none of the worldly advantages of power and prestige, who never wrote a book, who owned no property, who was rejected by the powerful leaders of his nation, who never traveled far from home, whose chosen followers were humble and obscure men, who was born in a stable, and at last humiliated and crucified between two thieves - that the gospel of THAT MAN should last thirty years must have seemed an impossibility to those who set him at naught; but not only did it happen, it is still happening, and in the WHOLE WORLD, nearly two thousand years after the prophecy was made. There is no HUMAN explanation of such a fact. Verse 15 When therefore ye see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand), then let them that are in Judaea flee unto the mountains: let him that is on the housetop not go down to take out the things that are in his house.In this place, Christ again used an expression which was customary for him when quoting the prophets. He did not declare that "Daniel said" those things but that it was spoken "through Daniel," thus referring the message to God as the giver rather than to Daniel who conveyed it. This constitutes a strong witness for the authenticity of the book of Daniel. Here also is a clue to understanding the broad implications of the prophecy. The "end" spoken of by Daniel was not to take place for a long, long time after the abomination of desolation was set up (Daniel 12:11); and this proves that the Saviour's words apply to that far-off and final end of the world, no less than to the end of the Jewish economy which was accompanied by the shattering of the power of the holy people and the making of an end to "the continual burnt offering" (Daniel 12:7-11). The abomination of desolation is usually held to mean the encirclement of the Holy City by the Roman armies prior to its destruction. That the Christian might have the opportunity to flee after such a deployment as that might have appeared impossible, due to the encircling armies; but the army of Titus, commanded by Cestius Gallus, for some inexplicable reason, lifted the siege, providing the Christians a chance to escape. In Book II of his Wars, section 24, Josephus said, "For Cestius removed his army, and having received no loss, very unadvisedly departed from the city."[8] The reference to taking the things out of one's house was to emphasize the need for haste and urgency. It is a historical fact that the Christians did, in fact, take flight to safety during the brief respite allowed them by Gallus' withdrawal. ENDNOTE:[8] Josephus, Wars, Book VII, Sec. 9. Verse 18 And let him that is in the field not turn back to take his cloak. But woe unto them that are with child and to them that give suck in those days! And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on a sabbath.Our Saviour's concern for the sorrows and misfortunes of men is apparent in these tender words. He was especially grieved for mothers and their children. The reference to going back for a cloak was due to the fact that most agricultural pursuits were carried on without a cloak, that is, with the upper part of the body naked. His admonition to "pray" regarding the precise time of the flight proves that even in times of calamity the child of God, through prayer, may alleviate suffering and misfortune, and soften the harsh winds of adversity. That those prayers were answered appears in the actual date of the fall of the city, which occurred in the Jewish month Ab (July-August), following a five-month siege in the spring and summer of A.D. 70.[9] No endorsement or acceptance of the sabbath as a permanent institution may be inferred by our Saviour's reference to it here, although it does seem that, due to Jewish background, many of the disciples did keep it. In fact, such was true long afterwards, even in Rome (Romans 14:5). ENDNOTE:[9] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 702. Verse 21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, nor ever shall be.That such a calamity did befall Jerusalem is a matter of historical record. Josephus gave the tally lists of the thousands slain in various cities and villages and places the number slaughtered at the fantastic total of ELEVEN HUNDRED ! This was more than four times the loss of life when the nuclear device destroyed Hiroshima! True, some scholars question Josephus' statistical accuracy, but added to his testimony is this word from Jesus; and this writer rejects the view that Josephus, a Jewish historian, would have falsified a record in order to confirm what Christ had prophesied. One may set aside Josephus, but who would dare to set aside the Saviour's prophecy? Particularly pathetic was the wretched plight of 30,000 young Hebrew men crucified upon the walls and in the vicinity of Jerusalem, so many, according to Josephus, that all the green trees in the area were cut down to make crosses, and all the lumber stores exhausted. The cry, "His blood be upon us and our children," received an awful retribution in kind and a terrible fulfillment in such a demonic atrocity. Verse 22 And except those days had been shortened, no flesh would have been saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.This was fulfilled in the relatively short duration of the siege which lasted only five months. That some degree of mercy was granted "for the elect's sake" lends New Testament emphasis to the principle taught in the Old Testament to the effect that ten righteous persons would have prevented the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities of the plain. Verse 23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or, Here; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. Behold, I have told you beforehand. If therefore they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the wilderness; go not forth: Behold, he is in the inner chambers; believe it not.Although the disciples saw Christ ascend, the very fact that they expected him to return made them vulnerable to the claims of false Christs, pretending to be the Messiah. Christ warned that his second coming would be worldwide, glorious, sudden, and open for all the world to behold, thus contrasting sharply with the secretive pretensions of false Christs in secret chambers, remote wildernesses, or deserts. That many such pretenders did arise prior to the destruction of Jerusalem is fully attested. H. Leo Boles said: Many persons, impostors, and self-deceived, aspire to fill the places of persons of honor. Many did come claiming to be the Christ. There is still a constant stream of men claiming to be God's chosen servants, leading multitudes into sin and infidelity with pretended claims.[10] The mark of secrecy, as of something hidden, known only to the "insiders," was an unfailing characteristic of false Christs and false teachers; but not even the first advent of Christ was distinguished by any such concealment. Those marvelous things of the true Christ "were not done in a corner" (Acts 26:26). The very heavens burst into praise the night he was born. His great wonders were performed before vast multitudes, and his credentials as the true King were presented repeatedly before the highest tribunals of the people, both Jews and Gentiles. ENDNOTE:[10] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 469. Verse 27 For as the lightning cometh forth from the east, and is seen even unto the west; so shall be the coming of the Son of man. Wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.It has been pointed out that Vespasian and Titus were returning from a campaign in the east against Rome's perennial foes, the Parthians, when they decided, on the way back to Rome, to make an end of rebellious Jerusalem. Thus, the destroying power came from the east to the west, although it is said that Titus actually launched his attack from the western side of the city.[11] Whether this should be considered mere coincidence or not, it is a remarkable fact. Of course, the primary meaning of the prophecy would apply to the sensational, worldwide, glorious revelation of Christ at his second coming. Regarding the carcass and the gathering of the eagles, dogmatism may be out of place, but it seems clear enough that the Jewish state was the carcass. Having rejected Christ and planning at that very moment to accomplish his murder, and standing ready to persecute to death his disciples, Israel no longer possessed any right to exist as a separate and chosen people. It had been forfeited. Judaism was morally dead, corrupted and reprobate at the very center and head of their polity. She was not only morally dead but judicially dead also, Christ having pronounced her doom and sentenced her to destruction. A carcass was an appropriate symbol. The eagles? Strangely enough, eagles were the invariable decorations of the Roman standards, under which the veteran legions of Titus gathered to press the siege of the city. Although some scholars, such as Plummer, reject this passage as a reference to the Roman legions, [12] one must nevertheless confess that the analogy is there. Extending the figure to its ultimate fulfillment at the end of the age, when the world itself will have become morally dead and when her day of grace has ended, God will also overwhelm it with destruction. [11] Encyclopedia Brittanica (1962 edition), Vol. 13, p. 7. [12] Alfred Plummer, Commentary on Matthew (London: Elliot Stock, 1909), p. 365. Verse 29 But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken.These are the most difficult words in the whole discourse because they appear to link the second coming with the destruction of the Jewish state, yet we know that this was not the meaning. Christ's reference to the prophecy through Daniel, a little earlier, indicates a long separation between the two events. Therefore, the words of this verse should be understood as a reference to the end of time and the final judgment, of which things the destruction of Jerusalem was only a type. Thus, the words about the carcass and the eagles have a prime application to the judgment of the world, morally dead, ravaged by the birds of prey, and undergoing countless sorrows and tribulations as a result. Their reference to the fate of Jerusalem is not vitiated by this view, because Jesus deliberately described both events with one set of symbols. Proof that Christ knew the two events would be separated by a most extensive period of time is seen in Luke 21:24-34, "And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, UNTIL THE TIMES OF THE BE !" A very long period of time, called by Jesus "the times of the Gentiles," was to follow the destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering of the Jews among all nations. The disciples, including Matthew, might have been confused into thinking the two events would occur simultaneously, but Christ knew otherwise. See also Romans 11:25 and Daniel 9:27. From such considerations as these, we do not hesitate to make "those days" of the passage here refer to the tribulation that shall precede the final end of the world, a tribulation more fully expounded by Christ a little later. Certainly, we reject the speculation of Edgar J. Goodspeed who supposed that Matthew composed these words AFTER the fall of Jerusalem, as "a welcome solution for the problem that perplexed them."[13] On the contrary, the author of Matthew's gospel, by the amazing manner in which the prophecies were intermingled, provides overwhelming proof that the "problem" did not exist at the time he wrote. It is upon this undeniable fact that fair-minded scholars find solid ground for receiving a very early date for Matthew, certainly BEFORE the destruction of Jerusalem. Reference to the sun, moon, and stars presents a problem. Language such as this is perhaps hyperbole, and was sometimes used concerning the removal of illustrious princes and rulers from their estates. Similar language in Isaiah 13:10 likely refers to the fall of Babylon. Lightfoot went so far as to say that the Jews used such extravagant language to refer to the ruin of a single family.[14] However, with all due deference to learned opinion, this commentator finds it very difficult to accept these words of Christ as mere hyperbole. Hebrews 12:26-29 identifies "those things which are shaken" as our material world, both the heavens and the earth! Furthermore, there is strong evidence that even in Isaiah 13:10 ff, far more was intended than the mere overthrow of Babylon (which, incidentally, is the Old Testament type of spiritual Babylon which will be overthrown at the end of the age). If it should be objected that the sun, moon, and stars cannot actually fall, it may be replied that if our planet were "shaken" (as the Scriptures affirm it will be) and removed out of its orbit, the sun, moon, and stars would surely appear to fall, bringing about a literal fulfillment of Christ's prophecy. That Peter understood some such catastrophe would actually occur is plainly evident from the text of 2 Peter 3:1-18. As Plummer declared: That judgment is expressed in symbolical language, but it is no mere image to terrify children; it represents something very real and very awful, and all who hear of it must take account of it in shaping their lives.[15] [13] Edgar J. Goodspeed, The Story of the Bible (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1936), p. 59. [14] James Macknight, op. cit., p. 431. [15] Alfred Plummer, op. cit., p. 398. Verse 30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.The sign of Jesus' coming is thus his actual appearance on the clouds of heaven in great glory. It will not come in a more enlightened social conscience, or in some marked increase of benevolence among men and nations, nor in some sudden forward leap of civilization. The second coming will be a personal and glorious return of Christ in the skies. A materialistic, secular, and wicked age will not accept such a view, a fact prophesied by Christ in the revelation that all the tribes of the earth would "mourn" when they see it, a mourning that would NOT occur if some invisible, psychological, or spiritual return occurred. Christ plainly taught that his second coming would be bad news indeed for the great majority of mankind. b the second coming will occur is not and cannot be known, except to the "Father" (Matthew 24:36). Reference to Christ's coming "on the clouds of heaven, etc." is similar to the words he used before the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:62) and also coincides with the message of the angels who said upon the occasion of his ascension that "in like manner" he would come again (Acts 1:11). The mourning of the tribes of earth should be particularly noted. When evil men, at last caught up in the catastrophe of the final judgment, shall know then, when it is too late, that Jesus is indeed God come in the flesh and that the Father has committed judgment unto the Son because he is the Son of man, no imagination can be strong enough to picture the wretched sorrow of the myriads of the wicked thus summoned to the judgment on the great day. Verse 31 And he shall send forth his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.These words show the strong grounds for referring this portion of the discourse to the final judgment. The parables of the tares and of the fishnet mention the angels that shall come forth and sever the wicked from among the just. The sound of the trumpet is also invariably associated with the judgment and the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:52; 1 Thessalonians 4:16). Also, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9 stresses the appearance of angels with Christ in his coming for judgment. Verse 32 Now from the fig tree learn her parable: when her branch has now become tender, and putteth forth its leaves, ye know that summer is nigh; even so ye also, when ye see all these things, know ye that he is nigh, even at the doors.There is a season for spiritual things and for moral development, no less than for summers and fig trees. A discerning person can sense the onset of summer by the behavior of the natural creation around him; and a spiritually perceptive person can also ascertain the approaching judgment of God, whether upon an apostate city like Jerusalem or upon an evil and reprobate world. One significant departure of some of the versions from the Greek text should be noted. Instead of "HE is nigh" in Matthew 24:33, the Greek has "IT is nigh," thus being a plain reference to the judgment. The ability to predict the visitation of God's wrath extended to the destruction of Jerusalem, but not to the coming of the final judgment. The disciples predicted with great accuracy the fall of Jerusalem, and most of them fled to Pella during the siege and were spared, but no such ability pertains to the knowledge of the end of the world and the second coming. Verse 34 Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished.This verse is the grounds for construing the whole discourse as a prophet of the destruction of Jerusalem and referring it exclusively to that event; but careful attention to the exact words Christ used removes the problem. Jesus used "these things" to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem and "that day" to designate the judgment. Thus, this verse cannot apply to the second coming and final judgment but to the destruction of the Holy City, for he said that that generation would not pass away until all "these things" be accomplished. Furthermore, "this generation" has a much broader meaning than the lifetime of those who heard him. If Christ had intended that kind of meaning, he would have used words similar to those of Mar 9:1. Therefore, we look for some special meaning of the term . As regarded the destruction of Jerusalem, "generation" had a limitation to the lives of persons then living; but, as regards the final judgment, "generation" referred to the descendants of Abraham, meaning the race of the Jews and that they would not cease as a separate people until the end of time. If such an explanation appears ingenious, it should be remembered that in describing two events, plainly separated by centuries of time, some expressions would of necessity have double meanings; and it is the view here that such an understanding of the word "generation" is positively required and that such does no violence whatever to the text. Verse 35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.This verse affirms two propositions: (1) that heaven and earth shall pass away, and (2) that Christ's words shall not pass away. The reference to the first of these grew out of the fact that he had just described the passing away of the heavens and the earth, and he made his word to be more permanent and abiding than any material substance. Christ's word shall judge men at the last day (John 12:48). Long afterwards, Peter was to remember these words of Jesus and write, "The word of the Lord endureth forever" (1 Peter 1:25). Verse 36 But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only.Note again the contrast between "that day" of this place and "these things" spoken earlier, indicating that Christ clearly differentiated between the immediate and remote fulfillment of this great prophecy. The Arian heresy was founded, in part, upon these words of Christ to the effect that he did not know the day and hour of the judgment. Aside from the uncertainty with regard to these words forming a part of the original text (see the margin of the ASV), it should be remembered that there were many things Christ did not choose to know during the days of his fleshly limitation. It was no part of his divine mission to impart knowledge of any category unrelated to man's salvation from sin. The words, therefore, do not imply any limitation whatever upon his godhead or divinity. A due regard to this verse would have prevented many religious teachers throughout the ages from making fools of themselves in predicting the time of the second advent. The precise day and hour of the judgment and destruction of the ungodly is unknown and unknowable by men. However, God DOES KNOW the day and the hour. Why? Because God has appointed it (Acts 17:31). Verse 37 And as were the days of Noah, so shall be the coming of the Son of man. For as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark. And they knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall be the coming of the Son of man. Then shalt two men be in the field; one is taken, and one is left: two women shall be grinding at the mill; one is taken, and one is left.A number of similarities between conditions prior to the flood and those before the final judgment may be noted. The vast majority will have rejected God's word. There shall be no awareness of impending disaster. The normal pursuits of mankind will continue, as always. Ignorance of God and of his designs for mankind will continue up to the very hour of judgment; and the righteous shall continue to live in close proximity to the wicked until the very last. No thought of judgment or of reckoning shall disturb the minds of people; and THEN it will occur suddenly, universally, in a single day, and at a time when men shall least expect it. No wonder, therefore, that the admonition to "watch" was made a part of the discourse. The men in the field and the women at the mill show that no separation between the righteous and unrighteous shall be made until judgment. Verse 42 Watch therefore: for ye know not on what day your Lord cometh. But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken through. Therefore be ye also ready; for in an hour that ye think not the Son of man cometh.The most urgent conclusion from the preceding discourse was presented in a single word by Jesus, "watch"! Since it is impossible to know the day or the hour, the true disciples must be ready ALWAYS. The second coming will occur at a time when men do not expect it, and that should set at rest the speculations of those who have thought to discover it. The constant watchfulness of a householder against a thief is made a parable of the watchfulness of the Lord's followers against the day of judgment. Christ refers to himself in Matthew 24:42 as "your Lord," another incidental witness to his godhead. Verse 45 Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath set over his household, to give them their food in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, that he will set him over all that he hath. But if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord tarrieth; and shall begin to beat his fellow servants, and shall eat and drink with the drunken; the lord of that servant shall come in a day when he expecteth it not, and in an hour when he knoweth not, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.This parable changed the figure from a householder guarding against a thief to that of servants waiting for their lord's return, having, in the meantime, full control of the lord's household, his goods, and all his property. This parable is a profound persuasion for custodians of the treasures of the kingdom of heaven, who, in a sense, have charge of the Lord's kingdom until he returns; and they should be diligent to feed and care for the Lord's household with due respect to the accounting that all must give who undertake so sacred a task. Privilege carries its own responsibility, and the false teacher is certain to be judged and condemned in due season. The "weeping and the gnashing of teeth" are expressions used by Jesus to convey some idea of the anguish and despair of the condemned who shall be cast into the outer darkness. J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Matthew Chapter Twenty-FourDestruction of the Temple Predicted, Matthew 24:1-28 Occasion of the Prediction, Matthew 24:1-3. (Mark 13:1-4; Luke 21:5-7) 1. went out and departed.—Went out of the temple and departed from its vicinity. This was his final departure from the temple, and the preceding discourse denunciatory of the scribes and Pharisees contained the last words which he spoke therein— sad foreshadowing of the doom which impended over the unhappy city. to show him the buildings.—As he had already departed from the temple when the disciples came to show him the buildings of the temple, the buildings referred to must have been the walls and fortifications surrounding the outer court and constituting the defenses of the temple. They were very massive and well calculated to excite the admiration of the Galilean disciples. 2. one stone upon another.—The reply of Jesus to the admiring expressions of the disciples was as brief as it was astonishing. With the simple statement that "there shall not be left here one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down," he dropped the subject until the astonished disciples brought it up again. 3. as he sat upon the mount.—Struck dumb by his announcement, the disciples seem to have said no more until, having climbed the slope of the Mount of Olives, on the way toward Bethany, Jesus took a seat and looked back over the city. Then they come to him "privately" and ask, "When shall these things be, and what shall be the sign of thy coming and of the end of the world?" Their question is twofold, having reference first to the time, and secondly to the sign by which they might know that the event was near. He had said nothing about his own coming or the end of the world, but they inferred from the strength of the temple walls that the time when all these stones would be thrown down could not be sooner than the end of the world and the second coming of the Son of man. So much of this inference as was incorrect he corrected in the course of his answer: for he makes a very clear distinction, as we will see, between the time of his final coming and that of the destruction of the temple. The question had been propounded by the four fishermen, Peter, James, John, and Andrew (Mark 13:3), and only these four were present to hear the remarkable discourse which begins with the fourth verse of this chapter and ends with chapter twenty-fifth. Warning Against False Christs, Matthew 24:4-5. (Mark 13:5-6; Luke 21:84, 5. many shall come.—They were to come previous to the end (Verse 6), and were to come claiming to be the Christ, thus denying the Christhood of Jesus. We have no history of the appearance of such persons, but this furnishes no evidence against the fulfillment of the prediction; for even Jesus does not appear in secular history until after his Church had become a power in the world; and as the false Christs left no institutions behind them, they naturally escaped the notice of the historians of the time. Wars and Providential Calamities, Matthew 24:6-8. (Mark 13:7-8; Luke 21:9-11) 6, 7. wars and rumors of Wars.—Not wars in distant nations, but wars particularly affecting the Jews, as appears from the warning, "see that ye be not troubled" (verse 6), and from the fact that the coming trouble of the Jews was the subject of discourse. The nations and kingdoms which were to rise up against each other were those whose military movements would affect the peace of Judea. History is more satisfactory in reference to this prediction than in reference to the false Christs. Alford, in commenting on this paragraph, takes the pains to enumerate three threats of war made against the Jews by as many Roman emperors; three uprisings of Gentiles against Jews, in which many thousands of the latter perished; an indefinite number of famines referred to by Roman writers; at least one pestilence, during which thirty thousand persons perished in Rome alone; and five earthquakes. These have been gleaned from the writings of Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and other unbelieving writers, and they sufficiently attest the literal fulfillment of the Savior's prediction. This fulfillment served the double purpose of answering as a sign in reference to the destruction of the temple, and of confirming the faith of the disciples in the foreknowledge of Jesus. Sufferings and Success of the Disciples, Matthew 24:9-14. (Mark 13:9-13; Luke 21:12-19) 9. Then shall they deliver you.— "Then" means, not after the preceding events, but at the time in which they are transpiring. The delivering up to be afflicted commenced with the imprisonment of Peter and John (Acts 4:1-3), and the killing, with the death of Stephen. These persecutions were cotemporary with the events of the preceding paragraph, and preceded "the end" mentioned in verse 6, Peter, James the elder, James the younger, Paul, and a great many who were not apostles, having been killed before the destruction of the temple. hated of all nations.—That this part of the prediction was fulfilled, appears not only in the persecutions of the time, but in the statement of the Roman historian Tacitus, that the Christians were "a class of men hated on account of their crimes." (Annals, xv. 44.) 10. many be offended.—Many of the disciples themselves. The mere allusions to passing events which we find in the epistles give sufficient evidence that this prediction was fulfilled. For example, among the sufferings of Paul, were some at the hands of false brethren (2 Corinthians 11:26); the Galatian disciples were taught by false teachers to regard him as an enemy (Galatians 4); and some persons in the church at Corinth denied his authority and sought to bring him into contempt (1 Corinthians 9:1-4; 2 Corinthians 10:1 2 Corinthians 10:10). 11. many false prophets.—The epistles of Paul show that many false prophets did arise. He speaks of men in the Jerusalem church who were "false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty." (Galatians 2:1-4.) In Corinth there were "false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ," and ministers of Satan transformed into ministers of righteousness. (2 Corinthians 11:3-15) The same apostle warns Timothy against similar characters (1 Timothy 1:3-7 1 Timothy 1:19-20; 2 Timothy 3:8-9), and to Titus he writes, "There are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision; whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not for filthy lucre's sake." (Titus 1:10-11.) The testimony of Peter and Jude is also very explicit on the same point, for they speak in words of terrifying earnestness concerning bad characters infesting the churches, "wandering stars to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever." (Jude, and 2 Peter 2) 12. love of many shall wax cold.—It is the universal experience of the Church, that when iniquity abounds the love of many grows cold; and it is also true that under such circumstances the love of some grows warmer, thus reserving and concentrating a sufficient amount of warmth to produce a reaction by and by, and to save the body from utter destruction. 13. endure to the end.—The end here referred to is not the end of the city and the temple; for endurance to this end was impossible with those who were killed for the truth, and those who died a natural death; nor would endurance to the end of the city insure salvation, unless the salvation promised is salvation from the destruction of life attendant on the siege and sacking of the city; and to say that he who endured to the end of that destruction would be saved from it would be a mere truism. The end, then, is not the end mentioned before in verse 6, but the end of life; and the promise is, that he who would resist the false prophets, and would not allow his love to be cooled by the abounding iniquity, until the end of his life, would be saved. (See the same promise in 10:22.) 14. then shall the end come.—Here the nature of the case forbids us to understand "the end" as the end of life, just as, in the preceding verse, it requires this meaning. Here it is used again in the sense of verse 6, for the destruction of the temple, or, as the apostles had expressed it, "the end of the world" (ἀίων, age), verse 3. That the gospel was "preached in all the world" before that event, is declared by Paul when he says, "Be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which you have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven." (Colossians 1:23.) Of course the language of both Jesus and Paul must be understood with reference to the Geography of the earth as then known; and we should doubtless also understand Paul as meaning, not that every creature had actually heard the gospel, but that it had been preached so universally as to be accessible to all. Paul's declaration was written in the year 63 A. D., about seven years before "the end." The Signal for Flight, Matthew 24:15-22. (Mark 13:14-20; Luke 21:20-24) 15. the abomination of desolation.—Many conflicting interpretations of this passage have been suggested by the commentators (see Alford for a statement of them); but after considering them all, I am constrained to adopt the one most commonly received. It is derived from a comparison of this verse with the parallel in Luke, where the idea is expressed in unfigurative language: "When you shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh." (Luke 21:20.) The armies referred to are unquestionably the Roman armies which finally besieged and destroyed the city. They are called the abomination of desolation because, being heathen armies, they were an abomination to the Jews, and because they brought desolation on the country. The "holy place" in which they were to stand is the holy territory round about the holy city. It is a remarkable confirmation of this interpretation, that Josephus attaches the same significance to the words in question. With evident reference to the "abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet" (Daniel 11:31), he says, "Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them." (Antiquities, B. x. ch. xi. § 7.) whoso readeth.— This note of warning, which we also find in Mark's narrative, must be either a remark of Jesus addressed to the reader of Daniel, or a remark of the two evangelists addressed to their own readers. In favor of the latter supposition is the consideration that a reader of Daniel, unless guided by this speech of Jesus, could not understand the abomination of desolation as the sign which Jesus here makes it, while the reader of the gospel narrative would if he would only accept the words of Jesus. Moreover, Mark, in his report, does not mention the writings or name of Daniel (see Mark 13:14), and this makes it almost certain that this remark does not refer to the reading of Daniel. We conclude, then, that the parenthesis was thrown in by Matthew and Mark to fix the attention of their readers on the passage, so that those Christians who would be in Judea at the time might remember the sign and flee as here directed. 16. flee into the mountains.—This direction is give, not to men in general, but to Christians who would be "in Judea." They were to flee to the mountains, because there they would find the safest retreat from the bodies of armed men who would be desolating the land. 17-20. on the housetop... in the field.—In these verses are four admonitions, all indicating the haste with which the disciples were to flee to the mountains on the appearance of the "abomination of desolation." The man on the housetop was not to "take the things out of his house," because he would be delayed in packing them up, and the attempt to carry them would impede his flight. The man in the field was not even to go home for his extra clothing, for the same reason. Women with child and those with infants at the breast (Matthew 24:19) would be unfortunate, because they could not flee rapidly. They were to pray that the flight should not be in the winter nor on the Sabbath-day, because the former would impede them by its rains, and the latter by the shortness of the Sabbath-day's journey. It is here noticeable that Jesus expected his Jewish disciples to continue, at least until after the destruction of the temple, to observe the Sabbath, and even the tradition in reference to a Sabbath-day's journey; and it is a fact that at least the chief part of them did so. 21. such as was not... nor ever shall be.—The statement that there would then be tribulation "such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be," is to be understood literally. It is fully confirmed by the narrative of Josephus, who was an eyewitness of the siege of Jerusalem. In order to appreciate the facts, it is necessary to read his very graphic account, and enter into all the details: we quote from him only the following expression of opinion, and call attention to the striking coincidence between it and the words of Jesus: "It appears to me that the misfortunes of all men from the beginning of the world, if they were compared to those of the Jews, are not so considerable as they were." (Preface to Wars, § 4.) 22. no flesh be saved.—As it is Jewish flesh alone whose sufferings are the subject of discourse, this passage means that but for the shortening of those days no Jewish flesh would be saved; and it follows that the elect, for whose sake those days were to be shortened, were the elect Jews, or Jewish Christians. The Romans made no distinction between believing and unbelieving Jews, but slaughtered all alike. The only safety for Christian Jews, then, was in flight, and even this might not have saved them but for the providences by which those days were "shortened." Another Warning against False Christs and False Prophets, Matthew 24:23-28. (Mark 13:21-23) 23, 24. false Christs and false prophets.—The former reference to these pretenders (verse 5) was indefinite as regards the time of their appearance, but this shows that some of them would appear at the time of flight just preceding the final catastrophe. signs and wonders.—These may have been either pretended signs and wonders, or real signs and wonders of which these men pretended to give the interpretation. That a great many such signs and wonders and such prophets did appear during the siege of Jerusalem, and for some years previous, is attested by Josephus in the remarkable chapters already referred to under verse 21 above. deceive the very elect.—The elect are those who would maintain their faith in Christ, and who, however they might be puzzled and distressed by the signs and wonders of the pretenders, could not be deceived into the recognition of false Christs. The believer in Jesus in all ages and countries has this advantage, that no pretenders can present credentials equal to his, nor give us ground for such confidence in them as we have in him. 25, 26. go not forth... believe it not.—The reference is not to the appearance of false Christs, but to reported appearances of the true Christ. (Comp. verse 27 below.) Jesus had said much about coming again, which was but imperfectly understood by his disciples, and it would be quite natural in times of great commotion and tribulation among his disciples for the report to go abroad that he had come. 27. as the lightning.—The comparison here introduced enforces the warning of the previous verse. Men will not need to be told, "Behold, he is in the desert;" or "Behold, he is in the secret chamber;" for his coming will be like lightning, in that it will shine forth instantly from the east to the west, and all men will see him at the same moment. 28. the carcass... the eagles.—There is nothing in the three verses next preceding this which can be represented by a carcass or by carrion birds (αέτοι, vultures) flocking to it. The reference is to the false Christs and false prophets of verse 24. The carcass is the decaying Jewish nation, and the eagles or vultures are the false Christs and false prophets who would flock together and prey upon the sufferings and fears of their countrymen. If the for (γαρ) is correctly omitted by the critics, this removes the appearance of close connection with the preceding verse, and tends to confirm our interpretation. Argument of Section 5It is impossible for a candid person to study the history of the Jewish nation from the death of Jesus to the destruction of Jerusalem, and compare it with the predictions contained in the preceding section, without being overwhelmed with the evidences which it furnishes of the divine foreknowledge of Jesus. And if such is the force of the evidence to us, who depend for our knowledge of the events on the fragmentary historical records which have come down to us, what must it have been to those who stood in the midst of the stirring events themselves, with the open pages of Matthew in their hands? As sign after sign appeared, they were able to read it in the book as plainly as they saw it with their eyes. We are not slow, therefore, to believe the statement of Eusebius, that the whole body of the church at Jerusalem removed from the city before the final siege began. (Ec. Hist. B. iii. ch. v.) Nor can we fail to recognize these fleeing Christians among those persons of whom Josephus speaks when he says, that "Many of the most eminent of the Jews swam away from the city as from a ship when it was going to sink." (B. ii. ch. xx. § 1.) This flight occurred at the very crisis at which Jesus had warned his disciples to flee to the mountains (Matthew 24:15-22); that is, after Cestius Gallus, having laid siege to Jerusalem, with every prospect of taking it, suddenly, as Josephus expresses it, "retired from the city without any reason in the world." (Book ii. ch. xix. §§ 6, 7.) Questions by E.M. Zerr On Matthew 241. From what place did Jesus depart? 2. To what did the disciples call his attention? 3. State the prediction he made. 4. Where did he seat himself? 5. What did the disciples ask him? 6. Was this one or two questions? 7. State two events involved in their question. 8. Who were likely to confuse the two? 9. Tell the warning he gave the disciples. 10. By what name would they attempt the deception 11. How might the deception be avoided? 12. What rumors were to be heard ? 13. State his encouraging words. 14. Tell how nations and kingdoms were to act. 15. What would nature do? 16. This would be the beginning of what? 17. What was to be the lot of these disciples ? 18. For what sake was it to be done to them? 19. What mutual evil deed would be committed ? 20. Tell who would arise to deceive. 21. What would be caused by abounding iniquity? 22. How long is saving endurance required? 23. State the spread of the gospel predicted. 24. Then what? 25. Who prophesied abomination of desolation? 26. Where was it to be seen? 27. On seeing this to where should they flee ? 28. Should those on the housetop remain there ? 29. How about those in the field? 30. Upon whom is woe predicted? 31. What difference would those conditions make? 32. Compare the tribulation of those days. 33. For whose sake will those days be shortened? 34. What do you understand by “ those days” ? 35. What sayings must then not be believed? 36. Who shall arise at that time? 37. Tell what they will show. 38. With what effect ? 39. Why should this deception be avoided? 40. Compare His coming with the lightning. 41. This would make what saying false ? 42. What does the carcase of verse 28 represent ? 43. And what the eagles? 44. What planets are used figuratively? 45. Tell what is to happen to these figurative bodies. 46. After what is it to happen? 47. What is to appear then? 48. Tell what tribes of earth will do. 49. With what will Christ come ? 50. Whom will he send ? 51. For what purpose will they be sent? 52. What is here used as a parable? 53. In what way is it used ? 54. What are “ these things” in 34th verse? 55. Who were to witness them? 56. What is surer than heaven and earth? 57. State the secret known only by the Father. . 58. Whose days are referred to? 59. State the condition of the people then. 60. How long did their indifference continue ? 61. When will the like be repeated ? 62. What will happen to workers in the field ? 63. And to women grinding? 64. Why should they watch ? 65. What worldly wisdom does he cite for a lesson ? 66. They should therefore be what ? 67. This will make them what kind of a servant ? 68. With what honor will their lord reward them? 69. Describe the conduct of an evil servant. 70. On what account will he thus behave? 71. How will he be surprised? 72. What appointment will be made him? 73. State his condition then. 24:1 The speech of Jesus recorded in the preceding chapter took place in the temple that was the pride of the Jews. After going out, the disciples called his attention to the buildings (architecture) of the structure, evidently admiring its wonderful appearance which the Jews boasted of requiring "forty and six years" to construct as we may read in John 2:20. 24:2 The remarks of the disciples gave an opportunity that was appropriate for Jesus to make an important prediction. He made the simple statment that not one stone would be left resting upon another. In Luke 19:43-44 a more detailed account of the disaster is given, in which it is shown how it was to be accomplished. 24:3 The disciples had learned from the teaching of Jesus that the world was someday to come to an end. (See chapter 11:22, 24; 12:41, 42; 13:39.) Because of that teaching they erroneously concluded that the predictions about the destruction of the temple were to be fulfilled at the same time as the end of the world. They also understood that the destruction of the world was to occur when Jesus comes again. With these ideas in mind they asked him to tell them when shall these things be. That was the one and only question they intended to ask, and the rest of the verse is only a specification of the things they thought were to happen at the time of the end of the world. However, their intended single question involved two great events, namely, the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world which we now know to have been at least nineteen centuries apart. Because of the radical conditions and various human transactions to occur in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus knew that ambitious men would take advantage of the disturbed state of affairs to make statements about the coming of Christ the second time and thus de ceive the people. In order to prepare the disciples against being so deceived, he gave them the teaching that is in this memorable chapter. He gave a description of things to occur at the destruction of Jerusalem, then went ahead to his second coming and depicted some of the things to happen then. He alternated these two subjects throughout the chapter, going back and forth from one to the other in more or less detail, so that his disciples could see the difference between the two events and thus not be deceived. There are a few intervening verses not directly connected with either of the main subjects which will be explained as we come to them. With those exceptions, the chapter should be marked off as follows. Verses 4-26, destruction of Jerusalem; verse 27, 2nd coming of Christ; verse 28, destruction of Jerusalem; verses 30, 31, 2nd coming of Christ; verses 34, 35, destruction of Jerusalem; verses 36-51, 2nd coming of Christ. Trusting the reader will constantly observe which group of verses we are in, I shall now comment upon the verses in their order. 24:4 The warning to take heed indicates a condition that might be misunderstood or even unnoticed if it were treated with an attitude of indifference. By heeding the signs Jesus gave, the disciples would be able to detect the false prophets. 24:5 Come in my name means they will take upon themselves the name of Christ as they come among the people. Just because they will be wearing that name they will deceive many who will not look any farther into the subject than the sound of the name. 24:6 The destruction of Jerusalem was brought about by the war between the Jews and the Romans. That conflict did not begin in Judea but was going on farther up in Palestine for some time before. The report of the battles in the distance reached the ears of the people In Judea, and that is why Jesus said they would hear of wars and rumors of wars. Be not troubled . . . end is not yet. The first rumors of war will not mean that the end of Jerusalem is right upon them. 24:7 The Roman Empire was composed of many nations, and when the war against the Jews broke out it threw the whole empire into commo-tions. These various smaller units of governments in the empire were thrown into confusion and many of them began fighting each other. A state of war often produces shortages in the necessities of life which brings famine and pestilence. A literal earthquake is never caused by warfare, but God has brought them about at numerous times to mark His concern for the conditions. In the present case it was one of the signs the disciples were given by which they could see the approaching storm. 24:8 The word sorrows is from ODIN which Thayer defines, "the pain of childbirth, travail-pain, birth-pang." The suffering destined to come upon the nation and city of the Jews is compared to the pangs of childbirth. And as the full development of those pains are preceded by brief and comparatively light ones, warning the expectant mother that her time is near, so these rumors of wars reaching the ears of the people of Jerusalem are compared with the preliminary labor pains. 24:9 The preceding verse deals with the conditions a short time prior to the actual suffering in Judea, and the present one brings their history down upon the area itself. Deliver you up means the persecutions that were to be imposed upon the Jewish citizens by the Romans, especially those who had become Christians. 4:10 There will be several references in this chapter to Josephus' history of the wars of the Jews and Romans. That history is divided into books, chapters and paragraphs or sections. For the sake of brevity and also clearness, the reader should understand that the numbers used in the references will mean those three divisions respectively. The confusion caused by the war resulted in much violence even between the Jews. I shall quote from Josephus, 5-6-1. "Now while the factions fought one against another, the people were their prey, on both sides, as we have said already; and that part of the people who would not join with them in their wicked practices, were plundered by both factions. . . . And when the parts that were interposed between their possessions were burnt by them, they left a space wherein they might fight with each other; for this internal sedition did not cease even when the Romans were encamped near their very walls . . . for they never suffered anything that was worse from the Romans than they made each other suffer." 4:11 This is the same prediction that is made in verse 5. 4:12 Many people are affected by their surroundings whether good or bad. Iniquity means a state of lawlessness, and because that condition was coming upon the country a great number of disciples were going to become cold in their love for God. 4:13 Endure unto the end first means to remain faithful to the Lord until the end of that war. It would also be true of those who might be slain in the general turmoil provided they were faithful till death. 4:14 World is from a Greek word that Thayer defines, "The inhabited earth." The end means the end of Jerusalem as the climax of the war. That event occurred in 70 A. D., and the Gospel was to have been offered to all the nations of the (civilized) world by that time. Hence the great commission of the apostles (chapter 28:19 and Mark 16:15) was fulfilled in the first century, which agrees with Romans 10:18 and Colossians 1:23. The Lord was not willing for Jerusalem to be destroyed until the Gospel had been offered to the entire extent of human inhabitants on earth, hence He supervised the whole revolution as far as the dates were concerned. 4:15 The prediction referred to is in Daniel 9:27; Daniel 11:31. Abomination of desolation means the Roman army and it is so called because its presence and effects will bring a state of desolation to the city of Jerusalem. Stand in the holy place is referred to by the words standing where it ought not in Mark 13:14. It is so described because the area around Jerusalem was regarded as holy ground, and the presence of a hostile heathen army was considered as a desecration of the place. 4:16 However offensive the presence of a Roman army would seem, the Lord used it as a signal for his disciples to flee for safety while it was possible. In the church history of Eusebius, chapter 5, in a foot note is the following. "But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed [guaranteed as safe] to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella." 4:17. Houses had flat roofs and the buildings were joined one against another even unto the end of the street at the wall. If a man had gone up there for some reason and saw the army of the Romans near he did not need to come down, but could go from one roof to another until he reached the wall. 4:18 The man in a field should not regard his personal belongings at home of more importance than his safety, and hence it would be better to flee immediately for safety. 4:19 Women in the condition described could not well travel. 4:20 Wintry weather would not be convenient time to travel. Neither on the sabbath day. The law of Moses has nothing to say about a "Sabbath-Day's Journey," but that was a tradition of the Jews based on a strained interpretation of Exo 16:29 and Joshua 3:4. On that ground the pious Jews in the time of Christ thought it was wrong to travel more than two thousand cubits on the sab-bath day. A person attempting to go further on that day would be hindered by these Jews who would seek to punish him for what they thought was a violation of the law. Jesus was not endorsing the tradition, but he knew it would be an obstacle against speedy traveling and hence expressed the prayerful wish on behalf of his disciples. 4:21 That the predictions of this verse were fulfilled can be proved by a number of historians. However, I shall quote from Josephus only on this point because he was a Jew and hence had a genuine interest in that nation. Moreover, not being a Christian, his testimony as a historian that so completely verifies the predictions of Jesus will be of special value. I will first quote direct from his own estimate of the sufferings of the Jews in Jerusalem in his preface to the history of the war. "Because it had so come to pass, that our city Jerusalem had arrived at a higher degree of felicity [happiness] than any other city under the Roman government, and yet at last fell into the sorest calamities again. Accordingly it appears to me, that the misfortune of all men, from the beginning of the world, if they be compared to those of the Jews, are not so considerable as they were; while the authors of them were not foreigners neither." If Josephus had intended to point out the exact fulfillment of Christ's predictions, he could not have used stronger language. That was not his purpose, for he was not a disciple of Jesus and hence had no personal interest in him. But he was an able and truthful historian and gave us the facts of history. In giving the readers some details of the sufferings endured by the people in the city I shall not quote verbatim as it would require too much space. Instead, I shall make the statements and give the references to his history of the Jewish war, that the reader may find them and see the full account by consulting the volume, The Wars of the Jews. The troubles of the people of Jerusalem during the war were many and great for they were divided into three seditious factions (5-1-1), provisions were wantonly destroyed (5-1-4), they ate corn unground and uncooked (5-10-2), children would snatch the last morsel from the parent, and the mother from the infant. Children were lifted from the ground by the food they held in their mouths. People were beaten who ate their food before the robbers arrived. Those who were suspected of having hidden some food were tortured by having sharp stakes driven up into their lower bowels (5-10-3), and the famine consumed whole families. Many died as they were burying others. There was no lamentation as the famine confounded all natural passions. A stupefying silence and awe overcame them (5-12-3). Some had swallowed their money, and then had their bodies ripped open by robbers (5-14-4). Some searched the sewers and manure piles for food (5-13-7) and ate hay, old shoes and leather (6-3-3). A mother roasted and ate her son (6-3-4); bloodshed was so great as to quench fire in the houses (6-8-5). 4:22. If the conditions in Jerusalem that have been predicted should continue indefinitely, no one would be able to survive the ordeal. Elect is from which Thayer defines in this and many other passages, "1. chosen by God, to obtain salvation through Christ," and other passages teach us that what one gets through Christ is to be accomplished through obedience to his commandments. When the siege and turmoil in Jerusalem came upon the city and surrounding territory, there were many men and women of both Jews and Gentiles who had become Christians and they are the ones meant by the elect. For the sake of these persons the Lord decreed to bring the conflict to a close as soon as the general purpose of it had been accomplished. 4:23 Then means while these times of tribulation were going on. The false prophets would use the disturbed condition as a pretext for pointing to some outstanding men and calling some one of them by the name of Christ and that the 2nd coming was upon the world. The warning was that such agitators were not to be believed. 4:24 These false prophets were to be able to make such an application of the unusual happenings that even the elect (the Christians) would almost be misled by it. The faith of these elect of God in the teaching of Christ was so great that it made them easy victims of the shrewd false prophets. If it were possible means that the elect would really be deceived had not Christ forewarned them. 4:25 This short verse is for the purpose of defeating the plots of the false prophets to mislead the elect, by impressing the seriousness of it on them beforehand. 4:26 On the basis of the general warning that was given by Christ, the disciples were not to pay any attention to the false prophets. They would think to mislead the multitudes by claiming that Christ had come for a certainty, but that it would be necessary to make a special search for him. They will even announce that Christ is hiding in some secret place or was strolling out in the desert. Jesus warned them not to believe any such statements because that was not to be the manner of his second coming. 4:27 Having warned against letting false prophets take advantage of the disturbed conditions at the time of the Jewish wars to announce the second coming, Jesus then goes over to that event to explain how it will be then. That is why this verse was listed in the comments at verse 3 as the "second coming of Christ." The universal and simultaneous appearance of Jesus at his second coming is compared to that of a flash of lightning. It does not appear in spots only and require that one's attention be called to it before it is observed. When Jesus comes he will be seen by all classes at the same time (Revelation 1:7). There are false prophets in the world today who have been predicting the second coming of Christ, even setting the very date when it was to occur. But the dates all proved to be wrong, so in order to "save face" they have changed their story and now declare that he did actually come but was seen only by his "witnesses." The prophecy of Jesus and John contradicts the theory and shows that all of these so-called "witnesses" are frauds. 4:28 This verse comes back to the destruction of Jerusalem, in which Jesus uses a habit of birds hovering about a dead creature preparatory to devouring it. Were a bird seen flying around over a certain place we would understand that he scented something which he intended soon to attack for food. This very practice of an eagle is referred to in Job 39:30. The same is used figuratively in the case of our subject, because the eagle was inscribed on the banners of the Roman army. (Josephus, Wars, 3-6-2.) The fact was mentioned as another sign that would indicate the attack of the Romans upon Jerusalem, seeing their ensigns gathering round the city as a flock of eagles would hover, over a carcase. 4:29 The most of this chapter is in answer to the inquiry of the apostles which pertains to the two great events, the destruction of Jerusalem and the second coming of Christ. This verse is not on either of those subjects, but is a prediction of events that would concern the church and the world, beginning immediately after the events of the destruction of Jerusalem. Of course it is figurative for the literal sun and other heavenly bodies were not involved in the things predicted. The sun refers to Christ, the moon to the church, and the stars to teachers and other leading men in the church. Soon after the destruction of Jerusalem the influence of evil in the Roman government and the schemes of ambitious men in the kingdom of heaven combined and brought on the period known in religious literature as The Dark Ages, which lasted until the Reformation. During all that time there were faithful disciples in the world, but since the Bible was taken from the common people, it greatly interfered with the light of divine truth that comes from Christ through the church, and taught by faithful men in the church. All this is what is meant by the statements about the sun, moon and stars ceasing to shine. The same thing is meant by the words, the powers of heaven shall be shaken, for all of these sources of light were powers that originated in heaven, but they were shaken (agitated) by the revolution of the Dark Ages. 4:30 Then means after the period predicted in the preceding verse. The Dark Ages lasted until the work of Luther and the other Reformers. That was another revolution in the religious and political world that broke up the union of church and state. After that event the Lord took up the second one of the great subjects that he had been describing since the disciples made their inquiry in verse 3. The length of time that was to elapse before the second coming is not important, but what is of much concern is that the second coming of Christ was not to be until after the Dark Ages. But it is also important that it is to be the next major event in the list of those in the present schedule. The mourning of humanity at that time is the same as John predicted in Revelation 1:7, and the coming in the clouds is the same as was predicted in Acts 1:11 and Jude 1:14. 4:31 The prediction that a trumpet will be heard when Jesus comes again is also made in 1 Corinthians 15:52 and 1 Thessalonians 4:16. We observe also that the second coming of Christ will occur at the same time the world is to come to an end. In this verse the coming of Christ is accompanied with the work of the angels in gathering the elect (saved ones) of Christ, and in Matthew 13:39 we are told that the angels will do this at the end of the world. 4:32 This and the following verse are some of the "exceptions" mentioned at verse 3. They are thrown in to suggest to the disciples the use that should be made of the "signs of the times." He referred to the common fig tree that was so prevalent in Palestine. The preliminary appearance of leaves was observed and from the fact a conclusion was formed that a change of seasons was near. 4:33 By using the same kind of logic with the signs that Jesus had predicted, the disciples could know when the first of the two great events was about due. We know this verse has the application to that event, for the disciples were to be living so that they could see all these things, and of course we are sure that they were not to live to see, bodily, the signs of the near approach of the second coming of Christ. 4:34 In keeping with the preceding verse we may conclude that the present one is in the bracket of the destruction of Jerusalem. Generation is from GENEA, which Thayer defines at this place, "The whole multitude of men living at the same time." Jesus spoke these words in about 30 A. D., and the destruction of Jerusalem was in 70 A. D. We know that the entire population would not have died in 40 years, so the prediction was fulfilled according to the words of our Lord. 4:35 Heaven and earth means the objects composing the material universe such as the earth, sun, moon and stars. They are destined to pass away at the day of judgment, but the truths spoken by Jesus will not fail; they will always be the truth. 4:36 From this verse through the end of the chapter the subject is the second coming of Christ and things that will take place in connection with it. At the time Jesus spoke these words no angel even, much less any man, knew when the end of the world was to come. My Father only might mean that not even Christ knew it, but I would not be too positive about that. The intimacy between the everlasting Father and Son would suggest the possibility of their having this knowledge in common. However, we are sure that no man knows of it, so that men who presume to predict the date must be regarded as false prophets of whom Jesus warned the disciples to beware. 4:37 The comparison intimated is shown in the next verse. 4:38 None of the things mentioned in this verse were wrong. The great mistake was in being wholly absorbed in their temporal interests and not paying any attention to the admonitions of Noah "a preacher of righteousness" (2 Peter 2:5). 4:39 Knew not means they were so concerned with the affairs of this life they did not realize their danger until the flood was upon them, and then it was too late to avoid the disaster. So the coming of Christ will be upon the world in a surprise event even as the flood was in the days of Noah. He and his family were not overtaken by the flood because that patriarch believed the warning of the Lord. Likewise when Jesus comes again there will be some righteous people looking for him and will riot be overtaken and found unprepared (1 Thessalonians 5:1). 4:40 Taken is from PARALAM-BANO which Thayer defines at this and several other places "To take to, to take with one's self, to join to one's self." So it does not mean that one man will be taken out of the field and the other left there. That will be im- possible since the field will be destroyed with the earth. It means one of the men will be taken to Christ as part of the good harvest, while the other will be rejected and gathered with the tares to be burned. 4:41 Grain was ground by rolling one millstone round over another by means of a lever fastened to the stone. The separation of these women will be done on the same basis as that of the two men in the preceding verse. Both cases show that the Lord's people and those of the world may engage together in any honorable occupation while performing work necessary to a livelihood. That is why Jesus said "Let both grow together until the harvest" [end of the world] (chapter 13:30). 4:42 To watch means to be alert and thoughtful concerning one's duty to the Lord, and then regardless of when he comes the servant will be ready. 4:43 Broken up is from and the definition in Thayer's lexicon, is, "To dig through," referring to the attempt to force an entrance into a house. One difference between the coming of a thief and that of the Lord is that the householder did not have any warning that any such attempt would be made upon his house. But we do have warning that Christ is coming again to judge the world and we are not told when, hence the necessity of being always awake and watching. An incidental bit of information may be obtained from this illustration of Jesus. The householder would have been compelled to use force in protecting his home, and the Lord made a reference to the subject in an approving attitude. That shows that it is right for one to protect his home and family, even though he has to use force against force. 4:44 In such an hour as ye think not. Unlike the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, the second coming of Christ will not be heralded by specific signs. Instead, the world in general will be going on in the pursuit of earthly interests, feeling a sense of security and satisfaction, and hence will be taken by surprise as it is awakened to a sense of the awful doom just upon it (1 Thessalonians 5:1-3). 4:45 Jesus finished his speech in parable form, likening himself to a householder who took his leave of the members of his house for a season, instructing them that he would return at some date not announced then. This householder appointed one of his servants to have charge of affairs during his absence, in seeing that the members were served their food at proper times. The practical application is to be made to the service that the disciples of the Lord are expected to render in the house of God. 4:46 The servant does not know when his lord will return, but if he is always faithful to his duty it will not matter when it occurs, for his faithfulness is what will bring him the blessing of the master of the house. 4:47 In the literal procedure of the parable the promotion of the faithful servant would be the thing usually expected. In its application it means that the faithful servants of Christ will be promoted to the higher enjoyment of heaven. 4:48 A servant might be attentive to his duties for a while, but if more time went by than was expected, he may conclude that his lord has postponed his coming for an indefinite period. (See 2 Peter 3:3-4.) 4:49 Under the impression that. "there is plenty of time yet" this servant will relax his vigilance and turn the good treatment of his fellow servants into mistreatment of them; he will even join in the unrighteous practices of some of them. Likewise, some professed disciples of Christ often get tired of faithful service in the kingdom and give way to a life of sin. 4:50 Such a worldly life has the tendency of blunting the mind with regard to spiritual matters. It even may blot from his mind the memory of all the warnings of the Lord. In such a case his coming will be unexpected to him hence it will take him by surprise and find him not ready for a favorable meeting. 4:51 Cut him asunder means to sever him from the Lord's household. An unthinking and self-gratifying servant is not as bad in the abstract as a hypocrite, for such a character that professes to be what he knows he is not is among the worst of sinners. But since both of these individuals are to have their portion together, it teaches us that there is only one lot awaiting the unsaved at the day of judgment. We ordinarily think of a gnashing of the teeth as a much stronger demonstration than weeping. The use of the two is very significant as applied to those condemned in the lake of fire. Gnashing the teeth will be caused by the bodily pain, while weeping (also defined "lamenation") will be the expression of the mind, caused by the realization of what the person has missed of joy, and what he has brought upon himself by his life of sin while in the world. Matthew 25 "THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Chapter Twenty-Five Jesus continued His discourse on the Mount of Olives with two parables illustrating the need to be prepared and productive: 1) the wise and foolish virgins (Matthew 25:1-13), and 2) the talents (Matthew 25:14-30). He concluded the discourse by predicting His judgment of the nations on how they treated His brethren (Matthew 25:31-46). POINTS TO PONDER * The importance of being prepared and productive * The basis upon which nations are to be judged REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter? - Parable of the wise and foolish virgins - Matthew 25:1-13- Parable of the talents - Matthew 25:14-30- The judgment of the nations - Matthew 25:31-46 2) What parable illustrates the importance of being prepared? (Matthew 25:1-13) - The parable of the wise and foolish virgins 3) Why is it imperative that one always be prepared? (Matthew 25:13) - "for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming." 4) Which "coming" is Jesus talking about? (Matthew 25:13) - Either His coming in judgment on Jerusalem or His Second Coming, possibly both 5) What parable illustrates the importance of being productive? (Matthew 25:14-30) - The parable of the talents 6) Based on this parable, what does Jesus expect of His disciples? (Matthew 25:15, Matthew 25:21; Matthew 25:26-27) - To use what "talents" we have to the best of our ability and opportunity 7) In the judgment depicted, who is being judged? On what basis? (Matthew 25:32, Matthew 25:40; Matthew 25:45) - All the nations; their treatment of Jesus’ brethren (His disciples) 8) Where is there a similar judgment portrayed in the Old Testament? - Joe 3:1-2; Joe 3:12-14, in which nations are judged based on their treatment of Israel 9) Even if such "judgments" are limited to the nations, what do they foreshadow? - The coming of the Lord to judge all men at the end of time, cf. Acts 17:31; 2 Corinthians 5:10 10) How are punishment and reward described in this chapter? (Matthew 25:34; Matthew 25:41; Matthew 25:46) - The righteous: inherit the kingdom, go away into eternal life - The wicked: into the everlasting fire, go away into everlasting punishment Matthew 25:1-46 Verse 1Mat 25:1-46THE PARABLE OF THE TEN VIRGINS; THE PARABLE OF THE TALENTS; SCENES FROM THE FINAL ; THE PARABLE OF THE TEN VIRGINSThen shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, who took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were foolish, and five were wise ... Watch therefore, for ye know not the day nor the hour. (Matthew 25:1-13) This is plainly a parable of the second coming and of the judgment, thus emphasizing the presence of that theme in Matthew 24:1-51. IN THE PARABLE The kingdom of heaven = the church The bridegroom = Christ The midnight arrival = the second advent The virgins = church members The wise virgins = the prepared The foolish virgins = the unprepared The lamps = (a) faith or (b) works The oil = (a) works or (b) the Spirit The sleep of the virgins = the sleep of death Tarrying of the bridegroom = delay of the second coming The midnight cry = the call to judgment Refusal to give oil = merit not transferrable Exclusion of the foolish = rejection of unprepared The shut door = impossibility of the last minute This parable pertains to members of the body of Christ; and, although an oriental wedding is made the vehicle for the conveyance of a vital truth relative to church members and their kingdom duties, it will be observed that the bride in this instance is not mentioned, and does not represent the church in this parable. It is the bridesmaids who appear in this analogy as Christians, and their going forth to meet the bridegroom represents the going forth of Christians to meet the Lord eternally. The number ten (10) and their equal division as to wise and foolish appear to be inert factors in the parable. The same is true for part of the conversation between the wise and foolish. Thus, the suggestion of the wise that the foolish go and buy for themselves does not imply any opportunity for preparation after the summons for judgment. The parable is practical, the tragic story of the ready and the unready. It applies to all present-day Christians. The kingdom of heaven is the church, aptly set forth in the analogy as a company of precious bridesmaids. The great shock, therefore, is to realize that some, even of these, shall be summarily excluded from association with the bridegroom. The parable is designed to shock men into realization that a host of good, clean, moral, respectable members of the church will be lost. Through sheer negligence, many of the redeemed shall fail to enter in. The foolish virgins are the Lord's own example of saved persons who at last failed to make the port of everlasting life. This warns against idleness and neglect, but it should not discourage. Those foolish virgins did not provide oil, but they could have done so. What was required of them was nothing extraordinary or especially difficult, but it did require concern and attention which they failed to give. And five were foolish ... A favorite term in Scripture for the unsaved is precisely this, "foolish." It is the "fool" who says in his heart there is no God (Psalms 14:1). The man who built on sand is described not as vicious but as "foolish" (Matthew 7:26). The rich man who mistook his body for his soul was denominated by the Lord, "thou fool!" (Luke 12:20). Those unfortunate bridesmaids of this parable were in no sense reprobate or immoral, but "foolish." One sees their counterpart on every hand in those persons with exquisite tastes, cultural excellence, and social acceptability; but they have no oil in their lamps. They are spiritually bankrupt. They all slumbered and slept ... The sleep in this parable must be identified with the sleep of death, because: (1) it ended only when the midnight cry heralded the second advent, symbolized by the coming of the bridegroom, and (2) because both the unready and the ready entered it. Death must come alike to all, the ready and the unready, except, of course, for those relatively few who shall remain alive at the coming of the Lord. While the bridegroom tarried ... This referred to the long delay prior to the second coming of Christ. It has been vigorously alleged that the early Christians thought the coming of the Lord would surely take place within their life span, and certainly some of them did believe that; but the teachings of Christ afford abundant proof that Jesus taught otherwise. Again and again, Jesus left witness that a very long period would elapse before his return (Matthew 24:48; Matthew 25:19). Observations of Richard C. Trench in this context are helpful. He said: We may number this among the many hints given by our Lord that the time of his return might possibly be delayed very far beyond the expectation of some of his disciples. It was a hint and no more. Had more been given, had he plainly said that he would not come for many centuries, then the first ages of the church would have been placed at a manifest disadvantage, being deprived of that powerful motive to hos and diligence supplied to each generation of the faithful by the possibility of his return in their time. It is not that he desires each succeeding generation to believe that in their day he will certainly return; for he cannot desire our faith and our practice to be founded on a misapprehension ... But it is a necessary element of the doctrine of the second coming of Christ, that it should be possible at any time, that no generation should consider it improbable in theirs.[1] The wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps ... In the list of analogies above, two interpretations for the oil and the lamps were noted. Again, from Trench: Here again we meet with a controversy between the Romanists and the early Reformers ... The Reformers asserted that what these virgins lacked was the living principle of faith ... The Romanist reversed the whole; for him, what they had was faith, but faith which, not having works, was "dead, being alone" (James 2:17).[2] Rather than choosing sides in an old controversy, we take the view that there is no relative evaluation of lamps vs. oil, or oil vs. lamps, intended in this parable. BOTH OIL AND LAMPS were vital and necessary. There is not the slightest suggestion that if the foolish virgins had brought plenty of oil and NO LAMPS, they would have been admitted. Therefore, to take a position with reference to the superiority of either oil or lamps would be only to obscure the fact that both were required. For this reason, it makes no difference whether the lamps are viewed as faith without works, or works without the Spirit of God, or whether the oil is made to be the Holy Spirit without which a person is "none of his" (Romans 8:9), or that living faith without which it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6). The overwhelming message of the parable turns on preparation or the lack of it. The oil happened to be the necessity which the foolish virgins failed to supply; but their failure would have been no less fatal to their purpose if they had failed to supply lamps. We have already noted that the conversation between the wise and foolish at the moment of the bridegroom's appearance forms a somewhat inert portion of the parable, inserted not to teach the possibility of last-minute preparation, but to emphasize the utter impossibility of it. Ralph Waldo Emerson's criticism of the wise virgins for not sharing their oil with the foolish sprang from a profound blindness to spiritual reality. Alfred Plummer noted that: It is impossible for one person to impart to another the spiritual power which comes from frequent communion with God's spirit. That can come only from man's own experience of such communion, an experience which requires much time. "Give us of your oil" is a request which no religious person can grant. The refusal of the wise virgins to give of their oil indicates, not want of will, but want of power.[3] The Romish doctrine of the works of supererogation to the effect that the good deeds done by saints in excess of the requirements of divine law provide a bank of merit or stored-up credit, available, upon terms prescribed by the church, to help supply the lack of sinful souls - this doctrine is dealt a fatal blow by this parable of Jesus. One can be sure that there are no banks of stored-up merit to which the unprepared may have recourse at the last moment. Heaven will be a prepared place for a prepared people; and failure to prepare will mean failure to enter. And the door was shut ... This is a warning to the good, the morally upright, the respectable, and the cultured church member, a warning thundered from the gates of heaven, "There must be oil in your lamp." Do not be deceived by the cliche of Satan to the effect that "works cannot save." Preparation can save, and works are invariably involved in preparation. One shudders to think of some who may be trusting to be saved by "faith alone," as outlined in many of the current creeds, or expecting the stored-up merit of some ancient "saint" to save them. Equally futile are the hopes of those who may rely upon the goodness of their parents, the merits of their families, or the works of their religious group to save them. Is there enough oil in your lamp? Arouse, ye sleepers, and provide oil for your lamps before life's little day is spent. Oil you must have, not merely enough to light, but enough to burn and last. An apostle said, "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12). The unwise virgins simply did not do it, and millions today are in the same condition. They are members of the company called to meet the Bridegroom; they even have lamps, and a little oil, but not enough. Not enough! What awful words are those! This parable is a trumpet call and war cry for men to bestir themselves. "Go and buy for yourselves!" This is the only proper advice; but do it now. The foolish virgins waited, waited until the sun declined, and twilight came, and darkness fell, until their eyes were closed in the sleep of death; and in that wretched state of unpreparedness, the midnight cry overtook them. Then it was too late; may it not be so for us! Watch, therefore, for ye know not the day nor the hour ... This was Jesus' own conclusion from the parable; it should also be ours. The meaning of "watch" is not restricted to staying awake but includes thoroughness of preparation, an alertness that takes account of unseen contingencies, and a conscious readiness AT ALL TIMES to respond to the divine summons. The wise virgins slept with the foolish ones, as indeed all shall sleep in death; thus, "to watch" enjoins the proper employment of all those golden hours that precede the inevitable onset of that night in which no man can work. THE PARABLE OF THE TALENTSThe following analogies will readily be seen in this parable: The man going into another country = Christ the Lord The other country = heaven where Christ is The servants = Christ's disciples Distribution of talents = endowment of gifts The return of the man = the second advent The accounting required = the judgment Profit reported = improvement of gifts The buried talent = sloth and an evil heart The joy of the Lord = felicity in heaven The outer darkness = punishment of wicked Faithful servants = faithful Christians The unfaithful servant = unfaithful Christians [1] Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Parables (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1953), p. 256. [2] Ibid., p. 252. [3] Alfred Plummer, Commentary on Matthew (London: Elliot Stock, 1909), p. 344. Verse 14 For it is as when a man, going into another country, calleth his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.Christ has entered into that upper and better country, but he has delivered unto each one of his disciples certain talents and abilities, along with responsibility for the due exercise of them. The proper ownership of all things is the Lord's, since both the servants and the goods they received were his. A glance at John 14:1-3 and Hebrews 9:23-28 will show that Christ has gone into "another country." Verse 15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one; to each according to his several ability; and he went on his journey.The true standard for distribution of wealth is not, as expressed by the Marxist view, "to each according to his need," but rather to each "according to his ability." The reason lies in the fact that without ability, even that which a man receives shall be wasted, neglected, or diminished, and in the law of economic progress there can never be, in the final analysis, any substitute for ability. How lavish are God's gifts. None came empty-handed from him. God places in every man's hands the necessary instruments for God's service and endows him with abundant means of service to his Creator. The diversity of gifts is meaningful. No two were alike. Each was uniquely different. It is true of every man born into the world. Every individual is the handiwork of the Eternal with gifts unlike those of any other. One may have less, one more, another least, another most; but every person made in the image of God is the possessor of a unique endowment. The distribution was fair and equitable and was made upon the basis of the varying abilities of the recipient. To have made them all equal recipients would have been a gross injustice. Five talents would have been an intolerable burden to the man with one-talent ability, and the five-talent man would not have been challenged by a gift of only one. Diversity is seen not merely in the various gifts but also in the peculiar temptation to which each was susceptible. One may rest assured that God's mercy and wisdom provided with each man's distribution of gifts that personal endowment with which he may be most likely, and with least danger, to enter into life eternal. We hold this to be true of him of one talent no less than with him of five; and we may conclude that the man of one talent would have been inclined more to sloth had he been given five than was the case with one. Verse 16 Straightway he that received the five talents went and traded with them, and made other five talents. In like manner he also that received the two gained other two. But he that received the one went away and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money. Now after a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and maketh a reckoning with them.A remarkable difference in this and the parable of the virgins is seen in the fact that, whereas they WAITED for the Lord's appearing, these servants were until his return. In the first case, the inner spiritual life of a Christian is represented, and in this their outward activity. There is, to be sure, an element of both in the life of every child of God. It is explicit in the case of the servants who received talents that God expects his servants to employ themselves in the advancement of his work, in the improvement of their several gifts, and in the exploitation of every possible opportunity. The case of the servant with the buried talent is understood when it is remembered that he was a bondservant, under full obligation to seek and improve his lord's interest. Although no command was mentioned in the parable, his obligation was inherent in his status as a slave; and there can be no doubt that he was fully aware of it. Again, in Matthew 25:19, is another strong hint of the delay of the Lord's coming. See under Matthew 25:5. The word "reckoning" is written over against every thought, word, and deed indulged by the Lord's disciples. It should be noted that this parable is primarily one regarding the Lord's servants, and not of all men; although, of course, this does not exclude the accounting that shall at last be given by non-servants as well. Verse 20 And he that received the five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: lo, I have gained other five talents. His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will set thee over many things; enter thou into the joy of thy lord.It is of vast significance that the "reckoning" with the servants was upon an individual basis and that no group appraisal of their efforts was allowed. This is at strong variance with the habits of men who love to judge themselves and assess their success or failure on the basis of group achievements. In the case of the three servants here, if their lord had followed the plan in vogue today, they might well have presented themselves in a group, saying, "Look, you left us in charge of eight talents, and we have increased them by 87 1/2 percent!" It appears that men will not be judged on the basis of general success of some group or congregation of which they may be a part, but upon the basis of their individual fidelity. The five-talent man was applauded and approved, not because he had gained five other talents, but upon the basis of his faithfulness. Significantly, the two-talent man received the identical commendation, indicating that it is not the amount of one's achievement that is vital, but the quality of it. In the faith of Christ, it is true that, When the one great Scorer comes To write against your name, He writes not if you won or lost, But how you played the game. - Anonymous J. W. McGarvey noted that: In this part of the parable, there is a transition to the language of the Lord from heaven when bestowing the eternal benediction; for the words, "Enter into the joy of thy Lord," are not those of an earthly master when rewarding his servants.[4] ENDNOTE:[4] J. W. McGarvey, Commentary (Delight, Arkansas: The Gospel Light Publishing Company, 1875), p. 218. Verse 22 And he also that received the two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: lo, I have gained other two talents. His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will set thee over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.What are the "many things" over which the Lord will set his faithful ones at the second coming? We cannot know. Paul said: Things which eye saw not, and ear heard not And which entered not into the heart of man, Whatsoever things God prepared for them that love him. - 1 Corinthians 2:9. Verse 24 And he also that had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art a hard man, reaping where thou didst not sow, and gathering where thou did not scatter; and I was afraid, and went away and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, thou hast thine own.The failure of the one-talent man is the burden of the parable. It should not be supposed, however, that failure is invariably associated with one-talent individuals. True, in the case before us, it was the least able of the group that failed; but had the causes of his failure been in any of the others, they too would have failed. His failure was not in the size of his gift but in his failure to use it. History records many tragic failures of the gifted; and failure is always sad when it comes to the high and mighty, and just as sad when it comes to the poor and lowly. God condemns failure in the realm of things spiritual. There is no excuse for failure in those eternal exercises of the soul in communion with God. The reception of but a single talent was no license for failure. No man will be excused merely on the basis that he does not have much ability, or that his gifts are less than the gifts of others. The least able of God's servants, no less than the most able, must do their best to be approved. Since this man's failure is the great point of the parable, we shall particularly note the ingredients of it and mark the antecedent attitudes that caused it. First, he failed in his attitude toward God. He had none of that attitude of Abraham who said, "Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" (Genesis 18:25). All around us are people who have a low opinion of God. That in itself is damnation. H. Leo Boles noted that: We attribute to others what we find in ourselves. Very few people excuse their own sin without blaming God or someone else for it. He (the one-talent man) gave back all that he had received; he had done no harm, but he had done no good with that which was entrusted to him. He had been in possession of his master's money for a long time; if he had been a free man, he would have owed interest on it; but he had been too slothful to use the talent to any gain for his master. His master had really lost by the indolence of his servant. [5] Chappell remarked that this unfaithful servant did not believe that his lord would give him a square deal. He thought that his close-fisted lord was going to require as much of him with his one talent as he did of those who had two or five. And there are those who think thus meanly of God. They virtually tell him frankly and to his face that his demands are greater than they are able to meet. Milton once had to fight this temptation. He wondered after he had lost his sight if God was going to expect as much of him as if he could see. "Doth God exact day labour, light denied?" he asked. But he refused to think thus meanly of God. He reached the wise conclusion that God is not going to judge us by the way we use what we do not possess, but by the use we make of the gifts that are actually our own.[6] Certainly, the low opinion the one-talent servant had of his lord was a vital factor in his failure. Another cause was his sloth. Plain indolence and laziness are at the bottom of widespread neglect of Christian duty. How many are absent, and how frequently, from the worship of God, only because a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep, robs them of the energy to serve God. Whatever the unfaithful servant said about his failure, the lord put the finger of analytical truth on the seat of the problem when he said, "Thou wicked and slothful servant!" Note that his failure did not consist of theft, rebellion, or arson. G. Campbell Morgan wrote: When he (Christ) comes, the slothful and unprofitable will be cast out, not because they did not believe, or because they had rebelled, but because they had neglected the opportunities which he had committed to them.[7] [5] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Matthew (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Publishing Company, 1936), p. 483. [6] Clovis G. Chappell, Sermons from the Parables (Nashville: Cokesbury Press, 1933), p. 215. [7] G. Campbell Morgan, An Exposition of the Whole Bible (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1959), p. 421. Verse 26 But his lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I did not scatter; thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the bankers, and at my coming, I should have received back mine own with interest.The lord did not deign to answer the servant's slanderous charge, but drew the conclusion from it that, even if it had been true, the servant's obligation was in no sense diminished. The analogous conclusion is true in the spiritual realm. If it could be true that God should prove to be hard, uncompromising, unyielding and relentless, men should redouble their efforts to please him, FOR GOD IS GOD. To be sure, such thoughts of God's nature are totally unworthy of him who is the giver of life and every blessing and who has manifested such great love to the sons of men, even giving his only begotten Son for our salvation; but, just as the morality of his master was no concern of the slothful servant, the morality of God is no proper concern of the people whom God has made and who, in the very nature of things, are incapable of making an intelligent criticism of their Creator. In fact, the soul presumptuous enough to do so manifests its rebellion against the Creator and invites the condemnation that inevitably follows such a deed. A comparison of the causes which led to this servant's exclusion, and those which led to that of the foolish virgins, is full of warning and instruction to all. Those virgins erred through a vain , this servant through an that was equally vain and sinful. They were over bold; he was not bold enough. Thus two wrong aspects under which we may be tempted to regard God's service, two rocks upon opposite sides on which faith is in danger of being shipwrecked, are laid down for us, as in a chart, that we may avoid them both. Those virgins counted it too easy a thing to serve the Lord; this servant counted it too hard.[8] ENDNOTE:[8] Richard C. Trench, op. cit., p. 288. Verse 28 Take ye away therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him that hath ten talents.This is no high-handed case of robbing the poor to enrich the rich. This action on the part of the Lord calls for no indignation. It is God's law that neglected gifts perish while improved gifts multiply, and that law is as inviolate as the law of gravity. The slothful servant invited the loss of his gift when he buried it. None may flout this law with impunity; and, in order for more men to know what the law is, Christ immediately stated it. Verse 29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away. And cast ye out the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.Dummelow noted that: It is a law of the natural as well as the spiritual world, that the disuse of a faculty finally leads to its complete loss, whereas the due use of it leads to its development and increase.[9] A much more severe fate for this unprofitable servant is recorded than the mere exclusion of the foolish virgins from the bridal supper; but in that case, their exclusion stands for the total fate of the wicked, no less than the punishment of the unprofitable servant stands for the same thing. The nature of the two parables required a different statement of the penalty in each case. On the whole problem of the eternal fate of the wicked, Jesus was about to be much more specific in the solemn account of the judgment scene which immediately followed these two parables. THE SCENEThe scene immediately presented by Christ is peculiar to Matthew and is one of the most awesome revelations brought to mankind by the Saviour. All who hope to avoid the fate of the unrighteous and aspire to enter the home of the redeemed should take deeply to heart the words of Christ who said, ENDNOTE:[9] J. R. Dummelow, One Volume Commentary (New York: Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 707. Verse 31 But when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory.As the poet John Milton expressed it: The aged earth aghast With terror of that blast Shall from the surface to the center shake, When, at the world's last session, The dreadful Judge in middle air shall spread His throne.[10] This place does not teach that Christ will sit upon the throne of his glory only upon the occasion of his second coming, nor that he will only then begin to do so. He had already revealed to his disciples that he would sit on his glorious throne "in the times of the regeneration" (Matthew 19:28), that is, in the times of the new birth, namely, now, in this present era, during which period the twelve apostles are also reigning with him on twelve thrones; ruling over the twelve tribes of spiritual Israel, which is the church. The expression, "then" shall he sit, etc., refers to a special sitting for the great assize, the judgment of the great day. He is already upon the throne of his glory; but then he will be visibly so, and every eye shall see him, and they shall look upon him whom they pierced. His angels even now are diligent in the service of them that shall be the heirs of everlasting life (Hebrews 1:14), but THEN shall they APPEAR! Now Christ, from his glory throne, intercedes for his own; but THEN he shall APPEAR in judgment (see 2 Thessalonians 1:8). ENDNOTE:[10] Frank S. Mead, The Encyclopedia of Religious Quotations (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1965), p. 260. Verse 32 And before him shall be gathered all the nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats.The cataclysmic and simultaneous judgment of all nations depicted here should not be understood as some special kind of selection regarding earth's governments. The "all nations" here is the same as that of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) and, from the parallel account in Mark, it is learned that it means "every creature," that is, "every man born into the world." Paul said, "We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that each one may receive the things done in the body, whether it be good or bad" (2 Corinthians 5:10). The designation of all mankind under two figures, the sheep and the goats, is in keeping with the dual classification stressed throughout the Scriptures, such as the "wheat" and the "chaff," the "wise" and the "foolish," etc. Verse 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.The significance of the right and the left is the same in all nations and from the most ancient times. Even in Plato's , the unjust were ordered to take the road downward and to the left. The kingdom which God has allotted to the righteous was designed before the human race was created, "which God foreordained before the worlds unto our glory" (1 Corinthians 2:7). The disaster in Eden did not thwart, nor will it even delay, the ultimate achievement of God's eternal purpose. Verse 35 For I was hungry, and ye gave me to eat; I was thirsty and ye gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in; naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me.This makes one's relationship to Christ the all-important consideration; and as he pointed out a moment later, that relationship turns altogether upon the treatment of his disciples. Just as in the case of Saul of Tarsus his persecution of the church amounted to his persecution of Christ (Acts 22:7), so, in all ages, the treatment of the Lord's followers shall be the basis of determining one's relationship to their Head, which is Christ. What is done to Christ's followers is done to him. What is done to his church is done to him. Those who think they find in these words of Jesus an excuse for making Christianity a mere matter of social charity, should look again. It is not the treatment of all the wretched and unfortunate of earth that shall make up the burden of the Christian's duty (though that must be allowed as desirable), but the treatment of "these my brethren," as Christ expressed it, that determines destiny (see Matthew 25:40). Verse 37 Then shall the righteous answer him saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry and fed thee? or athirst, and gave thee drink? And when saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? And when saw we thee sick or in prison, and came unto thee?The surprise of the righteous is itself surprising. The element of surprise applies to both the saved and the unsaved, but the principle is stated with crystal clarity. "What we do to his, we do to him!" What an awful warning this contains for those who set at naught the Lord's true followers, who persecute, harass, mistreat, deny, or neglect them! The Lord is in the least of his followers. Their needs, their rights, and their requirements are the Lord's. To deny them is to deny him. In view of this, the principal part of every church's budget should be on command for the alleviation, not of the wicked world's abounding woes, but for the legitimate needs and requirements of God's people. That it is not usually so is a shame of modern Christianity. Verse 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me.No thoughtful person can conclude that Jesus equated salvation with benevolence in the usual sense. It is not mere charity, but help of Christ's followers that is highlighted here. If this principle were more widely understood and accepted, it would revolutionize men's attitude toward the church. In the final essence, what men do to his church, they do to him. To neglect, flout, or dishonor the church is to do the same to Christ who is the head of the church. On the other hand, those who support and provide for the church and extend their concern and constant aid upon behalf of her poor and needy, do the same for Christ whose body is the church. Verse 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels.We approach the study of this passage with an overwhelming sense of melancholy and the deepest feelings of sorrow for the awful fate of the wicked. Alas, the doctrine of hell is a prominent teaching of the Son of God. The sophistry of our generation has tended to ameliorate the Master's teaching on this subject, but such a tendency is profoundly sinful and foolish. A little reflection will suggest the most logical reasons why such a thing as hell is not only just and reasonable but also actually necessary. No industrial concern ever operated without some means of waste disposal, and no well-managed kitchen ever existed without a garbage pail or its equivalent. How then, in all reason, could God Almighty be expected to operate a complex as large and diverse as the universe without some means of destroying those portions of it which, if permitted, would circumvent and countermand his benevolent purpose for the entire creation? Hell is God's cosmic disposal unit; yet it is not prepared for men but for Satan and his angels, and the only persons who will be finally lost in hell are those who elect to follow the influence of Satan and must also partake of his destiny. Christ spread wide his bleeding hands upon the cross in order to woo men and to save them, and redeem them from the power of the evil one. Men who rush past the warning signals can ultimately blame no one except themselves. Who can think of a better way to deal with Satan than by his being cast into hell which God has prepared, or may be in the process of preparing, for the evil one? (At the projected time of the scene presented in this chapter, hell will have been prepared; but, since Christ is now preparing the place for the righteous (John 14:1-6), it does not appear illogical to suppose that the place of containment for the host of Satan is likewise currently in a state of preparation also). What would YOU do, if you were God? Would you permit Satan to continue unabated for all eternity with license to rob, rape, plunder, seduce, destroy, and deceive, corrupt, wound, and slay forever? Whatever YOU might fancy you would do, God has revealed his will in his announced purpose to overwhelm Satan and the fallen angels in the "lake of fire that burneth with brimstone." In a certain fearful sense, one may thank God for hell. It is the place where the great enemy of mankind shall at last be destroyed. Since such a place actually exists, or is in state of being made ready, and since there is the dreadful certainty that men following the lead of Satan shall unwittingly partake of his overthrow, what a benign and holy purpose is seen in the blessed words of the Lord who revealed this astounding fact and warned men how they might escape such an awful fate! Those who have been deceived into thinking of hell as some kind of torture arrangement which God, through peevishness or caprice, has devised for naughty children of men, have failed to comprehend the scope and power of the mighty spiritual conflict which has opened a seam in the nature of every person ever born on earth, nor have they taken account of the vicious destructiveness of man's arch-enemy, Satan. A number of years ago, a flood carried away one of the bridges over the Brown River near Vicksburg, Mississippi. A salesman, taken unaware, was able to halt his car only on the last few feet of pavement that remained. In a state of shock, he got out of his car and stood a few moments transfixed by the boiling flood he had so narrowly escaped. Approaching headlights warned him of the danger to others, and he frantically tried to halt the drivers as several cars, one after another, ignored his desperate signals and plunged to destruction. A total of eight persons lost their lives before he could turn his car and blockade the road. Now was that salesman to be blamed for the death of those motorists who ignored his warnings and plunged into the river? No! And in exactly the same way, God cannot be blamed for the eternal punishment men shall certainly incur who ignore the divine warnings, reject the Saviour's sacrifice, and plunge headlong into eternal death. Let the Saviour's words be viewed in such a light, and men will avoid the temptation to "humanize" the gospel. There are dark and terrible realities confronting the race of Adam, and no blind and prejudiced rejection of the divine Saviour's admonitions will remove them. "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear!" As to the speculation of what hell will be like, it is safe to assert that we do not know. It has not even entered into the heart of man what wonderful things God has prepared for the redeemed (1 Corinthians 2:9); and it may safely be assumed that man's mind has not fully conceived what may be the details of eternal punishment. The very figures used in Scripture such as "lake of fire" and "outer darkness" are not such as lend themselves to building a clear mental image of what hell will be. Enough that men have been adequately warned. May none who read these ever know what it will really be! The devil and his angels ... indicates that some of the angels, in a sense, belong to Satan. Why? Because they kept not their first estate but elected to follow Satan in a course of rebellion and disobedience of God's will. 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6 shed additional light upon the status of Satan's angels. Verse 42 For I was hungry, and ye did not give me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of these least, ye did it not unto me.See under Matthew 25:39-40. It is remarkable that in this passage the unsaved refer to Christ as "Lord," giving support to the interpretation which refers this entire judgment scene to the church only; but in refutation of that idea, it should be recalled that "Every knee shall bow and tongue confess that he is Lord to the glory of God the Father" (Philippians 2:9-11). At that great moment when all nations shall have been assembled before the throne of Christ for judgment, infidelity will have finally and eternally disappeared; but the incorrigible sinners who have mocked God's word shall plead in vain before the gates of life. Consistent with this view, applying the passage to all men and not just to the church, is the solemn fact that the Scriptures mention only one judgment. The thesis that there will be seven judgments, or more or less, is just speculation. The men of Nineveh will rise in "the" judgment; the queen of the South shall rise in "the" judgment, etc. (Matthew 12:41-42), as throughout the entire New Testament. Verse 46 And these shall go away into eternal punishment: but the righteous into eternal life.This overwhelming word from man's only Redeemer is shocking. The soul draws back from the contemplation of anything so terrible as eternal punishment. Only a fool could fail to be moved by the dreadful thought that such a penalty as eternal punishment can be incurred. No wonder men have sought to soften this doctrine; and yet, the theological and philosophical grounds for this doctrine are profoundly overwhelming and convincing. Granted the immortality of soul, and the ultimate separation from the righteous God of every sinful and unworthy being, there appears no way that hell could be avoided; and certainly those two concepts (immortality and ultimate separation of the sinful from God) are universally held to be true and valid. Rejection of the doctrine of hell is a logical rejection of one or both those concepts. We are certain that the all-wise Saviour would not have misled men concerning these eternal truths. J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Matthew Chapter Twenty-FiveParable of the Ten Virgins, Matthew 25:1-131. to meet the bridegroom.—According to Jewish custom the bridegroom went to the house of his father-in-law to receive his bride, leaving at his own house a company of virgins, who were to come out with lanterns or torches to meet him on his arrival, and to escort him into the house. The ten virgins of this parable were to perform this pleasant service. 2-4. five wise... five foolish.—The difference between the wise and the foolish virgins consisted exclusively in the fact that the latter carried an extra supply of oil. Under ordinary circumstances the foolish virgins would have been safe with the amount of oil which they had; for it seems that it was the tarrying of the bridegroom (verse 5) which led to their trouble. Had he come when they expected him, they would have been ready. The wise virgins, on the other hand, knowing the delays frequently attending the movements of wedding parties, provided so much oil that they would be prepared for the latest possible hour. The oil in their lamps would burn till midnight (verse 6), and that in their vessels would burn, if need be, till daylight. 5. slumbered and slept.—More accurately rendered "nodded and slept." They did not lie down to regular slumber, but nodded in their seats. As there were servants on the watch who would announce the approach of the bridegroom (verse 6), there was no need that they should remain awake, and a little sleep now would enable them to be wider awake during the festivities of the latter part of the night. 6, 7. at midnight.—At an hour later than was expected, the bridegroom and his company came in sight, and those who were watching raised the cry that he was coming. There was now time for all to awake, trim their lamps, and go out to meet him at the appointed place. "Then all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps." 8-10. Give us of your oil.—The lamps had not gone out, as expressed by our version, but they were going out; and the lamps of all were alike; but the foolish virgins had no oil with which to replenish theirs, while the wise had oil in their vessels. It was not till now that the wisdom of the latter and the folly of the former became manifest. Just at the moment when all should have started out with blazing lamps to meet the bridegroom, the foolish virgins must hasten away to make the neglected preparation. 11, 12. I know you not.—In this answer the term know is used, according to the Jewish idiom, for favorable knowledge. (Comp. 7:23.) The answer was a refusal to recognize them, as when a man passes an old acquaintance who has given him an offense as if he knew him not. It sent away the poor virgins in bitter disappointment and shame. 13. Watch therefore.—This warning is suggested by the parable, and springs as a conclusion from the analogy between it and the kingdom of heaven. The coming of the bridegroom represents the coming of the Son of man, and the uncertainty as to what hour of the night the bridegroom would come, represents the fact that "ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man comes." All of the virgins represent those who are waiting for his coming and are supposed to be ready for it. The foolish virgins are not the unconverted, for they make no preparation; they are not apostates, for they, after waiting at their post for a time, abandon it and go their way; but they evidently represent those who enter the Church and stand at their post until the bride groom comes, and are then found without sufficient preparation to meet him. They make the preparation which they are led by their own indolence or indifference to regard as sufficient, and content themselves with that, knowing that they run some risk of being lost. All who allow themselves any questionable indulgences; all who neglect any of the ordinances of God; and all who are indifferent about soundness in the faith as it is in Christ, belong to this class. The wise virgins, on the other hand, are those who make such preparation as to "make their calling and election sure; "aiming in all things to err, if err they do, on the side of safety. The bridegroom may come before midnight, and if he does, a certain limited quantity of oil will be enough, but more will do no harm; and if he comes at a later hour, that which would have appeared superfluous will save me. The wise virgins always appear too scrupulous in the eyes of the foolish. The warning, "Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour," bids us imitate the wise and take warning from the fate of the foolish. The canceled words, "wherein the Son of man cometh," are thrown out on the safest grounds, but they really express in full the sense of the verse. Though not expressed in the original, they were understood, being supplied by the train of thought in the context. (See Matthew 24:37 Matthew 24:39 Matthew 24:42 Matthew 24:44 Matthew 24:50.) Parable of the Talents, Matthew 25:14-3014. as a man traveling.—In the clause, "For the kingdom of heaven is as a man traveling into a far country," the words "the kingdom of heaven" are supplied by the translators incorrectly. The object of comparison is much more specific, being the duty enjoined in the preceding verse. The words, "Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour," form the conclusion drawn from the parable of the ten virgins, and indicate the subject to be illustrated in that of the talents. The former parable illustrated the importance of watching, or of making suitable preparation, and the following parable illustrates the method of doing this. The rendering should be, "For as a man traveling into a far country called his servants," etc. The comparison indicated by "as" is not expressed, but is to be supplied from the context by the reader. his own servants.—The fact that the servants were "his own" and not hired servants, has significance, showing that he had a claim on their time and labor. 15-17. according to his several ability.—As each servant was intrusted with an amount suited to his ability, the distribution was relatively equal, and justified the demand of an equal per centum of profit in the returns, and this demand was met by the first two. 18. digged in the earth.—It was very common in that day, as it is yet with nations unprovided with safes and vaults, to bury gold and silver in the earth. (Comp. 13:44). The talent was about $1600 in silver. 21-23. into the joy of thy Lord.—In this part of the parable there is a transition to the language of the Lord from heaven when bestowing the everlasting benediction; for the words, "Enter thou into the joy of thy lord," are not those of an earthly master when rewarding his servants. This benediction was pronounced on the two servants alike, because, having gained the same per centum on heir respective amounts, they had roved themselves equally faithful. 24, 25. an hard man.—It was because the servant ignored his obligations as a servant that the master appeared a hard man in demanding a return of more than he had given. 26, 27. wicked and slothful servant.—In the answer, the right of the lord to the time and labor of the servant is waived, and he is condemned on his own ground. His lord's money had been in his possession for a long time, and even if he had been a free man he would have owed interest on it But he had been too slothful to labor, and he had been too neglectful of his obligations to even loan the money to the exchangers and secure the interest on it: he could not, therefore, truthfully say, "Lo, there thou hast that is thine." It was unlawful to loan money to a brother Israelite on interest, but interest could be lawfully exacted from Gentiles, and the Jews of later ages found abundant opportunities to loan at good rates all of their surplus capital. 28. unto him which hath ten.—It is easy to see why the talent should be taken away from him who had it, but not so clear that it should have been given to him who had ten. Why not divide it between him who had ten and him who had four? I see no reason for this, except that the man who had successfully managed the largest amount had exhibited the greatest capacity, and the lord's interests were safest in his hands. 29. unto every one who hath.—This statement, though introduced by "for" does not give a reason for the act just mentioned (28), but presents a general rule of God's government which applies in the case. The man of the live talents had— that is, he had profit on what was given him— and to him more was given; while the man of the one talent had not, and from him was taken what he had. 30. into outer darkness.—Here again, as in Matthew 24:51, there is a transition from the parable to the reality; for there was no such punishment of servants as casting them out into the dark. The darkness is that which lies outside of all the light and blessedness which the faithful servants are to enjoy with their Lord. The darkness symbolizes the desolation of that state; the weeping, its sorrow; and the gnashing of teeth, its anguish. No picture could be drawn more awful than this. The significance of this parable is clear and striking. The lord of the servants is the Son of man, whose coming is the subject of the discourse. (See note on 14.) The servants are his own disciples whom he has purchased with his own blood; and the talents intrusted to them are the means of usefulness given by Christ to all that are his. The conduct of the two faithful servants points out the way in which we are to "watch" (verse 13), and that of the slothful servant, the course to which our indolence or indifference or ingratitude will lead us if we do not watch. The reckoning with the servants is the final judgment, which will take place when the Son of man comes. The transfer of the one talent from the slothful servant to him who had ten, indicates, if it have any significance, that the reward of the faithful servants of Christ will be magnified on account of the failure of the unfaithful; and this is but just, for the faithful ones have to resist not only the temptations common to all, but also the discouragement and hinderance arising from the unfaithfulness of their brethren. The fact that the man who had the least capacity and the smallest amount intrusted to him was the one who proved unfaithful, is worthy of note: for although in actual experience we see many disciples with great possessions and great influence burying their talents in the ground, we also find that those who consider themselves weak and possessed of little means of usefulness, are peculiarly liable to this sin on account of this very circumstance in their condition. The word talent, which is the Greek word τάλαντον anglicized, and means a certain amount of money, has acquired in English the sense of intellectual endowments from its use in this parable. The Final Judgment, Matthew 25:31-4631. come in his glory.—There are three specifications in this verse which show that the coming described is the final coming of Christ: first, that he will "come in his glory;" second, that all the angels will come with him; and third, that he will then sit on the throne of his glory. The throne of judgment is called the throne of his glory, because by the decisions of that day his glory will be exhibited more brightly than ever before. All the obscure things in the past administration of his government will then be made clear. 32. all nations.—The universality of the judgment is here declared. Not only all the nations which will then be living, but all that have ever lived are included; for Jesus had already said, "The queen of the South shall rise up in the judgment with this generation and shall condemn it;" "the men of Nineveh shall rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it" (Luke 10:31-32); and "the hour is coming when all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of man and shall come forth, they that have done good to the resurrection of life, they that have done evil to the resurrection of damnation" (John 5:28-29). 32, 33. shall separate them.—The original pronoun is in the masculine gender (αυτους), and its antecedent, nations (τεθνη) is neuter, showing that not the nations, as such, but the individuals composing the nations, are to be separated. A similar construction is found in the original of Mat 28:19. 34. from the foundation.—The kingdom was not fully prepared from the foundation of the world, for Jesus says on a subsequent occasion, "I go to prepare a place for you." (John 14:2-3.) The meaning is, that it had been in course of preparation from the foundation of the world. 35, 36. for I was an hungered.—An hungered is an obsolete expression for hungry. The acts here specified are all deeds of benevolence; all belong to the category of good works. We are not hence to conclude that good works alone can secure to us everlasting life, seeing that in the midst of our good works we commit sin, and before the beginning of our good works we lived in sin. Forgiveness for these sins must be secured by complying with the conditions thereof, or we will be condemned on their account, notwithstanding all the benevolence which we can perform. The lesson taught in the passage is this: that works of Christian benevolence, as we have opportunity to perform them, constitute one of the conditions of our acceptance in the day of judgment They are, indeed, but the outgrowth of faith and love, and their absence proves that our faith is dead, and that love has not been born within us. (Comp. 42 below.) 37-40. shall the righteous answer.—It is not necessary to suppose that such a conversation as is here stated will actually take place, for the mass of the saints will already have learned the lesson here taught; but the form of a conversation is probably employed as the best method of presenting the thought. The passage shows that all deeds of benevolence done to the brethren of Jesus are accepted by him as if done to himself. We have the precious privilege of ministering to him in ministering to his. 41. prepared for the devil.—That is, primarily prepared for the devil and his angels, though not without anticipation of its use for the punishment of men. The fact that wicked men must suffer the same punishment as the devil and his angels, shows the enormity of our sins. 42-45. you gave me no meat.—The performance of good works on the one hand, and the neglect of them on the other, constitute the specified difference between the parties. We here learn, that whatever other sins may or may not have been committed, the sin of neglecting to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, and to minister to the sick and the imprisoned disciple, is enough to consign one to the fate of the devil and his angels. Such neglect proves the absence of that faith and love which are essential to Christian character. 46. everlasting... eternal.—The two terms everlasting and eternal have the same meaning, the former being of Anglo-Saxon, and the latter of Latin origin. They also represent the same Greek word (ινιος), translated here by these two words for the sake of variety of expression. Whatever this Greek word means in the last clause of this sentence it means in the first; for it is an invariable rule of exegesis, that a word when thus repeated in the same sentence must be understood in the same sense, unless the context or the nature of the subject shows that there is a play on the word. There is certainly nothing in the context to indicate the slightest difference in meaning, nor can we know by the nature of the subject that the punishment spoken of is less durable than the life. It is admitted on all hands that in the expression "everlasting life" the term has its full force, and therefore it is idle and preposterous to deny that it has the same force in the expression "everlasting punishment." The everlasting punishment of this verse is the same as the everlasting fire in verse 41. The punishment is by fire, and its duration is eternal. Argument of Section 6The argument of this section depends for its conclusiveness on the fulfillment of the predictions contained in it, all of which look to the end of time for their fulfillment. They are introduced not so much for proof as for instruction. Our author, having already proved Jesus to be a prophet by presenting predictions fulfilled in his own generation, and some in process of fulfillment even to the present day, here quotes for the benefit of his readers a series of predictions concerning the last day, tacitly referring us to the fulfillment of the former as proof that these also will be fulfilled in their time. Questions by E.M. Zerr For Matthew 251. To what were ten virgins likened? 2. They went to meet whom? 3. What did all of them take ? 4. What did only five take ? 5. How was each group designated? 6. While waiting what did they all do? 7. What was heard at midnight ? 8. Tell what they all did. 9. What difficulty did some of them have? 10. How did they try to meet it? 11. Tell what was said to them. 12. While going what happened? 13. On returning what did they cry? 14. State the answer. 15. What word states the lesson intended? 16. Why is this warning necessary? 17. What does the far away traveler represent? 18. Before leaving whom did he call? 19. What did he deliver to them? 20. How many distributions were made? 21. On what basis were they made? 22. State the various amounts. 23. What did the first two do about it? 24. When were they rewarded for it? 25. Which received the more reward? 26. What did the third servant do? 27. State what he received from his lord. 28. What was his excuse ? 29. And how did his lord reason about it? 30. What did he call this servant ? 31. What was done with his talent? 32. To whom will more be given ? 33. In what will the Son of man come? 34. Who will be with him? 35. Where will he then sit? 36. Who will be gathered before him ? 37. What will be done with the crowd? 38. This is likened to what? 39. How many classes recognized? 40. What are some of them to inherit? 41. Since when has it been prepared? 42. On what ground is their reward here based? 43. Was this done directly to Jesus? 44. Who represents him? 45. Those on the left must depart to where? 46. For whom had it been prepared? 47. How had they neglected Christ? 48. They shall go away into what? 49. But the other into what? 50. Which state will last the longer? 25:1 Then is an adverb of time and applies to the second coming of Christ predicted in the preceding chapter. The word specifies the exact part of the parable that is to be applied, namely, the sudden announcement of the approach of the bridegroom. The whole story had to be told in order to explain the particular point at which the application was to be made. 25:2. Wisdom and foolishness are opposite terms which could have numberless applications depending on the connection in which they are used. :3-4 The present application is to the ones who took their lamps only (the foolish), and the wise were those who took extra oil in the vessel besides that already absorbed and retained by the wick. The lamps were shallow bowls with a projection resembling the spout of a water pitcher. A wick of twisted flax was placed in this spout extending down into the vessel which was supposed to be supplied with olive oil. The foolish virgins neglected to see that their lamps had oil in them. 25:5 Slumbered and slept. The first word properly means to be drowsy so as to nod, the last one means to go on into more complete sleep. This happened because the bridegroom was longer than expected in making his appearance. As to the usual hour for the wedding, Smith's Bible Dictionary says, "When the fixed hour arrived, which was generally late in the evening," etc. While it was late it evidently was not often as late as midnight, which explains why all of the virgins fell asleep, the wise as well as the foolish. 25:6 This cry was a strong sound for the original is defined in the lexicon, "a crying, outcry, clamor." That was made necessary by the lateness of the hour and the sleeping state of the virgins. 25:7 Trimmed is from KOSMEO which Thayer defines, "To put in order, arrange, make ready, prepare." 25:8. Putting the lamps in order would include lighting them as well as pinching off the charred end of the wick. Not until after lighting them did the foolish virgins realize they had neglected to "fill their lamps." There would be enough of the oil still retained in the wicks to start the light, but in a short while they would begin to grow dim. Gone out is rendered "going out" in the margin which is correct. When the flame began to go down they realized what was the trouble and appealed to the wise virgins for oil from their vessels. 25:9 The capacity of the old style lamp was limited and it would have been foolish for the wise to reduce their supply at the last moment. 5:10 Ordinary judgment should have told these virgins that it was too late to go on a shopping errand, especially at that time of night. The approach of the bridegroom had been announced with an urgent clamor which indicated that the preparatory period was over and that the event of the hour was about to start. 5:11 The word Lord is erroneously capitalized which indicates that it means Christ. The person referred to was the one having charge of the wedding activities, and the term as used by the virgins was one of respect only. 5:12 I know you not denotes he did not recognize them as being entitled to be present at the wedding. The approach of the bridegroom had been announced in no uncertain terms, and these people should have been already there if they were among the invited guests. Coming after the door was closed indicated to this master of ceremonies that they were would-be intruders who were coming out of a wrong motive. 5:13. Watch therefore are the words that express the lesson intended by the parable. It is the same that was set forth by the parable of the unfaithful servant in the closing verses of the preceding chapter. 5:14 Jesus spoke another parable that teaches the duties of the Lord's servants from another angle. Note that the man delivered unto his servants his (the man's) goods. In 1 Timothy 6:7 Paul says "we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." On that basis we should realize that what is in our hands does not belong to us, but it is delivered to us as a trust which the parable shows. 5:15 Talent is from and Thayer defines it, "The scale of a balance, a balance, a pair of scales; a talent." He also explains it to mean, "a weight, varying in different places and times; a sum of money weighing a talent and varying in different states and according to the changes in the laws regulating the currency." The specific value of the talent is of no importance for the purpose of the parable. It is used merely as a means of expressing the different degrees of responsibility of the servants. Note the different amounts delivered to the servants was based on his several ability. The lord knew the abilities of his servants and assigned to them the tasks that corresponded with their ability. 6-17 Each of these men did exactly the same thing with the money entrusted to him. By trading or making the proper use of the money they doubled it. 5:18 The only comment I will make here on the third man, is that he at least did not misuse or lose it: further comments will be made at verse 25. 5:19 Reckoneth with them means he called upon them for a report. 5:20 The only report this man could or needed to make was that he had doubled his lord's money, and had the extra talents to show for it. 5:21 Good and faithful are the words that signify the lesson in the parable. Jesus combines the application with the telling of the parable by stating the reward awaiting the faithful servant. That reward will be to enter into the Joy of his Lord, which means the joy provided by the Lord to be shared together in heaven. 5:22 This servant's report was exactly the same kind as that of the first one, namely, that he had doubled his lord's money by trading. 5:23 It is significant that each of these two men received the same sentence from their lord, notwithstanding there was a great material difference in the amounts they had to return to him. But each servant was faithful to the trust bestowed upon him, which is the basis on which man will be judged at the last day. Some men have more ability than others and hence they will be required to accomplish more. But if everyone is faithful to the extent of bib power and opportunity he will receive the one and only reward in store, which is the entrance into the joy of the Lori, 5:24 Every one of the charges this servant made against his lord was false. He made them as a basis for his failure to do anything with the money that was put into his hands. But while they were false accusations, they will be turned against him as we shall see at verse 27. 5:25 This verse illustrates what may be called negative goodness in the light of some theories. There are multitudes who think they can expect to be saved by merely abstaining from active wrong doing. That if they avoid doing anything at all they certainly could not be accused of doing any wrong act. The man with one talent seems to have taken that view of the case. But there are many passages that condemn the sin of omission, such as Hebrews 2:3. This man thought that by burying the money it would be preserved for its owner. Even if that could have been accomplished with literal money, the rule will not hold good in the application. A man's talent will not remain fixed as to quality while in this world. If it is not put to good use, it will be corrupted by contact with the evil elements around it. 5:26 This servant was both wicked and slothful; wicked in making false accusations against his lord, and slothful in being indolent to do something with the money. Thou knewest, etc., does not mean that his lord admitted the accusations, but used them as a basis for the condemnation in the following verse. 5:27 Oughtest therefore. If this lord was as exacting as the servant pretended to think he was, that was one great reason he should have been eager to do something that would satisfy him and hence avoid receiving his severe rebuke and sentence. Exchanger is from which Thayer defines, "A money-changer, broker, banker, one who exchanges money for a fee, and pays interest on deposits." Such a business in Palestine was occasioned by the coming of people from various countries. Their money was not good in the local markets, which made it necessary to exchange it for current money of Palestine. Usury is the interest these exchangers would pay local citizens who were willing to lay their money on the banker's table to be used in the exchange business. In the spiritual application it means that if we make the proper use of the opportunities the word has furnished us, we will become better and improve as the years go by. The third man was not condemned for not having as much to give his lord, but for not having any interest at all. In other words, he was condemned on the principle of being unfaithful to the trust that was given over to him. 5:28 The lord wished his money to be put to some use so as to bring him proper returns. The man with the ten talents at hand when the accounting was made had proved his good business judgment and hence was entrusted with this other one. 5:29 Hath not, he hath might seem to be contradictory terms, but in the language of monetary dealings they are not. The second term is the principal and the first is the interest. Since the man had no interest to show, he was not allowed to retain the principal. In the spiritual application if a man does not make good use of his opportunity while in this life, he will not have another privilege. (Revelation 22:11.) 5:30 No earthly lord ever treated his servants as this verse indicates. It is the conclusion that Jesus makes to the lesson of the parable. For weeping and gnashing of teeth see the comments on Matthew 24:51. 5:31 Many of the passages of a descriptive character in the Bible are worded like the transactions of men. We know from all the direct teaching of the New Testament that Christ will be the sole judge of the human family (Acts 17:31) at the day of final accounts. No conversation or other participation will be allowed upon the part of human beings. Therefore all the parables and other passages that speak of such actions are used figura-tively. They truly represent what would be the result were the mentioned conversations to be permitted. But aside from such parts of the various descriptions, the direct predictions will take place. For instance, the Son of man will actually come with the angels (2 Thessalonians 1:7), and will sit upon the throne of his glory which means the throne of judgment. 5:32 All nations denotes that no human beings will escape the judgment bar of God, in which He will have seated his Son as the sole judge. The people will be divided into only two groups, for all human creatures will belong to one or the other, no third group. The reference to sheep and goats is for an illustration only. It is based on the practice of a shepherd who is getting ready to lead his flock into a fold for permanent shelter. While out over the fields some goats may have straggled in among the sheep, and the shepherd would not want them in his fold. 5:33 There is no moral value of a man's right hand over his left, but the separation had to be made and the assignment to these respective hands is so worded for its psychological effect. 5:34 While Jesus will be the judge, he will pronounce sentence in harmony with the wishes of his Father who has created and prepared all good things. Foundation is from , defined in Thayer's lexicon, "a founding," and that means the starting of something. World means the universe in general, but has special reference to the orderly arrangement of things that were intended for the occupancy of man. God intended from the start to have a place of joy and happiness into which the creature man would be admitted after qualifying himself for it. It will be the inheritance of this place (here called a kingdom) that the royal judge will invite the righteous to have. 5:35 See the comments at chapter 13:3 on the scope of the parables. In the present one Jesus had only one point to impress which will be brought out as the comments proceed. But as it is in most of them, the whole story must be told to make the point of application clear. Administering food to the hungry and drink to the thirsty would be classed among "good works" as that term is commonly used. Hospitality is likewise so considered according to Hebrews 13:2. 5:36 Clothing the naked anti visiting ("looking after") the sick are both among good works pertaining to our relation with each other. In prison does not mean in the sense of a penal institution; at least it was not being used as such in this case, because it was the disciple of Jesus who was there. It means a guard house in which the enemy was confining a captive for the purpose of persecution. If the disciple was in a regular penal structure he was placed there on a false accusation. The case of Paul in Rome (2 Timothy 1:16-18) is not exactly in point, for he was An his own hired house. Yet he was a virtual prisoner because he was chained to an officer, and while in that situation the disciple Onesiphorus "came unto him." 7-39 The righteous will think that Jesus meant all these things were done for him personally. They did not remember having any such experiences and made inquiry as to when it was to which he referred. 5:40 This verse tells us the main object of the parable. Jesus is not on earth in person and hence we cannot show him such personal favors as these good sheep are said to have done. But his disciples who are his and our brethren are here, and we always have opportunities for doing them good. (See Galatians 6:10.) 5:41 The extent of this everlasting fire will be explained at verse 46. But for the present it should be noted that it was not originally designed for man, but for the devil and his angels. These angels evidently mean the fallen angels who had sinned and were cast down from heaven (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6). 2-43 The same list of good works is named in the sentence against the folks on the left hand as was said to the others. It might be well to note that these people were not condemned because of any wicked thing they had done. See the comments on verse 25 about the negative principle in the conduct of life. 4-45 The ones on the left will have the same misunderstanding about the personal treatment that the others had, and they will be given the same explanation. They might have sometimes professed an interest in the needs of their brethren, but their expressions of sympathy were not accompanied with anything practical and hence no good was accomplished. In James 2:14-16 is a statement on this angle of the subject. 5:46 These means the ones on the left hand of the king and the righteous are the ones on the right. Punishment is from KOLASIS which Thayer defines, "correction, punishment, penalty." Such words do not indicate a condition where the victim is unconscious or has been annihilated as certain persons teach. Everlasting and eternal are both from AIONIOS which Thayer defines, "Without end, never to cease, everlasting." This definition applies to the word that is used to describe the future state of both the saved and the unsaved. Whatever can be said as to the duration of the eternal life of the saved, applies with equal force to the duration of the punishment of the unsaved. No man who professes to believe the Bible will say that eternal life will ever end, so neither can he consistently say that the punishment of the unsaved will ever end. Both classes will exist consciously in their respective circumstances without end. Matthew 26 "THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Chapter Twenty-Six This lengthy chapter describes the flurry of events leading to Jesus’ arrest and trial, with the plot to kill Jesus (Matthew 26:1-5; Matthew 26:14-16), Jesus’ anointment by Mary (Matthew 26:6-13), the last Passover supper and institution of the Lord’ s Supper (Matthew 26:17-35), Jesus’ prayers in the garden (Matthew 26:36-46), the betrayal by Judas and accompanying arrest (Matthew 26:47-56), the appearance before Caiaphas and the council (Matthew 26:57-68), and Peter’ s denial as foretold by Jesus (Matthew 26:69-75). POINTS TO PONDER * The events leading to the arrest of Jesus * The institution of the Lord’ s Supper * Judas’ betrayal and Peter’ s denial REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter? - The plot to kill Jesus - Matthew 26:1-5; Matthew 26:14-16- Jesus anointed at Bethany - Matthew 26:6-13- The last supper - Matthew 26:17-35- The garden of Gethsemane - Matthew 26:36-46- Betrayal and arrest - Matthew 26:47-56- Before Caiaphas and council - Matthew 26:57-68- Peter denies Jesus - Matthew 26:69-75 2) Who plotted to take Jesus by trickery and kill Him? (Matthew 26:3-4) - The chief priests, scribes, elders, along with Caiaphas the high priest 3) What did Jesus say would be done for Mary who anointed Him? (Matthew 26:13) - Her kind deed would be proclaimed throughout the world as a memorial to her 4) For how much did Judas agree with the chief priests to betray Jesus? (Matthew 26:14-15) - Thirty pieces of silver 5) What did Jesus institute while eating the Passover? (Matthew 26:26-28; cf. 1 Corinthians 11:17-34) - The Lord’ s Supper 6) What did Jesus predict would happen that night? (Matthew 26:31-35) - All His disciples would stumble, Peter would deny Him three times 7) What did Jesus pray for three times in the garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:39, Matthew 26:42; Matthew 26:44) - "let this cup pass from Me, nevertheless not as I will, but as You will" 8) What claim was Jesus willing to accept at His trail? (Matthew 26:63-64) - That He was the Christ, the Son of God 9) After Peter denied knowing Jesus three times, what did he do? (Matthew 26:75) - He went out and wept bitterly Matthew 26:1-75 Verse 1Mat 26:1-75THE PLOT TO KILL JESUS; THE ; THE BARGAIN OF JUDAS; THE AND SEIZURE; THE TRIAL BEFORE THE ; PETER'S THREE DENIALSAnd it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these words, he said unto his disciples ... (Matthew 26:1)The teachings of Christ to Israel at this point were concluded. The atonement for the sins of all men was the next order of his divine will. Verse 2 Ye know that after two days the passover cometh, and the Son of man is delivered up to be crucified.Christ related the crucifixion to the passover, rather than to the ordinary sabbath (see notes on Matthew 10:40). The passover always came at sundown on the 14th day of Nisan, which means that it came on a different day of the week each year. In this place Christ named the kind of execution he would receive: crucifixion. His use of the prophetic tense, "is delivered up," makes the present stand for the future tense, as in all the prophets; and in this case, Christ is truly that prophet. Of great significance is the sharp divergence between Christ's word and that of the chief priests and elders. Christ here placed his crucifixion as an event that would occur "after two days," and that it would take place during the passover festivities. Yet at the very time Christ revealed this to the disciples, the chief priests decided otherwise. They decided that he should die by subtlety (that is, secretly, by assassination or murder), and that it should not be done during the feast (Matthew 26:5), thus clearly postponing his death for at least a week. However, THEY were not the architects of our Lord's death. As the Master said, he would lay down his life of his own accord; and Christ, not the priests, would choose the hour and the manner of his doing so. Verse 3 Then were gathered together the chief priests, and the elders of the people, unto the court of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas.The court of the high priest was his palace; and the high priest mentioned here, Caiaphas, or Joseph Caiaphas, a son-in-law of Annas, had been named to that position by Valerius Gratus prior to 26 A.D., and was deposed by Vitellius in 37 A.D. The synoptics omit the first trial before Annas. The New Testament references to two high priests at the same time should not be confusing. Annas was appointed high priest in 7 A.D. by Quirinius, governor of Syria.[1] He was a fierce, passionate zealot; and, after putting a man to death in 14 A.D., he was deposed and replaced by his son Eleazar (Ishmael), and the power to exact the death penalty was henceforth denied to the Jews except with the consent of the governor. Five of Annas' sons held the office of high priest in succession: Eleazar, Jonathan, Theophilus, Matthias, and Ananus (Annas). Also, Joseph Caiaphas, his son-in-law, held the same office. However, Annas lived to a great age and was honored throughout his long life as the rightful high priest.[2] [1] H. R. Reynolds, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 17, John II, p. 384. [2] H. C. Hervey in ibid., Vol. 18, Acts I, p. 123. Verse 4 And they took counsel together that they might take Jesus by subtlety and kill him.The plan proposed by the priests in this verse was simply that of murder. They intended to capture Christ and quietly destroy him. They could not have succeeded in this, because Christ said, "No one taketh it away from me, but I lay it down of myself" (John 10:18). Not having the right to invoke the death penalty without the assent of the governor, they decided to murder Jesus. It would have been good for their reputations if that could have been accomplished. In such an event, Christ would merely have disappeared; and, all innocence and charm, they would have disclaimed any knowledge of it; but Christ simply would not allow them to get away with such a deed. His case, at the instigation of his will, would have a hearing, in fact, six hearings, before both Jews and Gentiles; and he would compel them to go on record, and the record would last for all ages to come. Moreover, the true reason for their hatred would be duly set forth in the imperishable record for the information of thousands of generations of men. The truly providential manner in which the murderous plan of the priests was thwarted and the whole case aired in the highest tribunals of the land is clearly discernible in the amazing events that began rapidly to unfold. Verse 5 But they said, Not during the feast, lest a tumult arise among the people.But they said ... How futile was what THEY said. The true order of the deeds to be done was already determined, and there was nothing they could have done to the contrary. See notes under Matthew 26:2. Naturally, with people present for the passover from all over the ancient empire, they shrank from murdering a popular and noble person like Jesus was known to be, lest their deed should lose some of the popular support which they enjoyed from the multitudes. Thus, caution dictated that they wait until the feast was over. That, however, was not to be. According to ancient prophecy, one of the Messiah's intimates would betray him, and that unhappy event appeared precisely on schedule. The incident that precipitated Judas' shameful deed took place that very evening at a feast in the house of Simon the leper. Verse 6 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, there came unto him a woman having an alabaster cruse of exceeding precious ointment, and she poured it upon his head, as he sat at meat.Simon the leper refers to a Simon who had been cured of leprosy, not to one who was at that time stricken with that disease. Since Christ alone was able to cure that malady, this means that Christ had healed Simon, and probably out of gratitude, Simon held this dinner in his home for Jesus. The woman mentioned was Mary, the sister of Lazarus and Martha who were also present at that dinner. Lazarus was a guest, Martha as usual was helping with the serving, and Mary, also as usual, was blessed with a deeper insight into the spiritual realities of the occasion. A. T. Robertson's clear word on this incident removes any chance of confusing it with a similar event recorded in Luke 7:36 ff which occurred in the home of Simon the Pharisee. Robertson wrote: This anointing has nothing in common with that given by Luke, except the fact of a woman anointing the Saviour's feet, and the name Simon, which was common. The former was in Galilee; this is at Bethany near Jerusalem. There the host despised the woman who anointed; here, her brother is one of the guests, and her sister an active attendant. There the woman was a sinner, a notoriously bad woman; here it is the devout Mary who "sat at the Lord's feet and heard his words," months before. There the host thought it strange that Jesus allowed her to touch him; here the disciples complained of the waste. There the Saviour gave assurance of forgiveness, here of perpetual and world-wide honor. Especially notice that here the woman who anoints is anticipating his speedy death and burial, of which at the former time he had never distinctly spoken. In view of all these differences, it is absurd to represent the two anointings as the same, and outrageous on such slender grounds to cast reproach on Mary of Bethany.[3] John adds the information that Jesus' feet were also anointed, gives the monetary value of the ointment as 300 pence, and names the precious ointment as nard or spikenard. John also gave the name of the principal objector among the disciples as Judas, and mentions Mary's wiping his feet with her hair. His mention of the odor that filled the house (along with other special details) indicates that John also was among those present. ENDNOTE:[3] A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1922), p. 187, footnote.. Verse 8 But when the disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?Judas kept the bag and, as John revealed, he was not at all concerned for the poor, but wanted the money din the bag that he might steal it. This was not the first nor the last time that unworthy motives and designs were cloaked in pious words. Many a worthy project has been opposed, and others equally advocated, from motives as impure and selfish as those of Judas Iscariot. Matthew and Mark both indicate that Judas found ready support among the Twelve for his objection. Verse 9 For this ointment might have been sold for so much, and given to the poor.One cannot resist the temptation to compare this with the pleas of politicians who are always declaiming about the poor. Like Judas Iscariot, at least some of the political schemers who, verbally, are so concerned about the poor have a much more personal interest in such funds than their words would indicate. Verse 10 But Jesus perceiving it said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.Christ's words indicate that Mary herself had been reproached by Judas and the others regarding the "waste"! They would have restrained her if they could have done so, recovered a part of the ointment, and placed the price of it in the bag. Jesus intervened in Mary's behalf and uttered a strong approval of this "good work" upon his person. Of special note is the definition of a "good work." Some apparently believe that "good work" in the church is a matter of leading public prayers or passing the collection plate; but the fact that sacrificial giving is also a good work should not be overlooked. Those who truly want to perform a "good work" for Christ will not find the application hard to make. Verse 11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.This statement of Christ is true both in and out of its context. All the social schemes of all the ages have not changed the situation, nor will they ever do so. Men and nations may declare war on poverty; and, although Jesus' statement is a far cry from any derogation of any effort to relieve the afflictions of the poor and unfortunate, nevertheless, human nature being what it is, the fact of the ever-present poor remains century after century, and generation after generation. The reasons are in men themselves who indulge their pride, their appetites, their passions, and foibles without regard to consequences until poverty comes like an armed man upon them. In this place, Christ placed his own requirements above even the legitimate needs of the poor; and that too is a profoundly proper evaluation of the true values inherent in the situation. Elijah commanded the woman to make him a "little cake FIRST" (1 Kings 17:13). Verse 12 For in that she poured this ointment upon my body, she did it to prepare me for burial.It may appear difficult to know what is meant by this verse. Some believe that Mary, purely out of love and affection for Jesus, made this costly gesture without being aware of the construction Jesus placed upon it in this verse. The view is that Christ accepted it, first on the loving basis upon which Mary offered it, and that he then extended the meaning of it to encompass his approaching death and burial. However, in view of the fact that Mary of Bethany is known to have been particularly attentive to the words of Christ for months and that she often sat at his feet to hear him, the more natural assumption is that she, at least, of all those present in the house of Simon the leper, had fully understood and appreciated his words regarding the approaching passion. She believed him. Therefore, it must be allowed that she did this remarkable thing with a full understanding of its significance. Christ said, "She did it to prepare me for burial." Verse 13 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, that also which this woman hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.Who but God (in Christ) could have had such thoughts and made such promises as contained in these words? Condemned though he stood by the rulers of his people, betrayed by a friend, and facing shame upon the cross, the Saviour, far from being intimidated by such realities, was thinking of the sweeping triumph of the gospel "in the whole world"! His prophecy of the world-wide honor that should accrue to the name of Mary in perpetuity showed how completely his mind was focused upon the impending victory he would achieve upon the cross. The Lord during those dark hours saw not the shame, the agony, or horror of death, but the universal victory of the true and the everlasting glory of them who would love and appreciate it. "Who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and hath sat down at the right hand of the throne of God" (Hebrews 12:2). Neither Mark nor Matthew mentioned Mary's name, notwithstanding Jesus' promise. Plummer said: The reason may be that when they wrote, she was still alive, and would not desire to have her name published. When Luke and John (John 12:2-8) wrote, she may have been deceased.[4] This is another fruitful example that what is given to Christ is saved; all else is lost. Of the lifetime earnings and estate of Mary of Bethany, if the sum total of it had been invested in any conceivable way and multiplied a thousandfold, it would have been powerless to achieve for her name even a fraction of the endowment provided by the 300 pence worth of spikenard lavished upon the body of our Lord. ENDNOTE:[4] Alfred Plummer, Commentary on Matthew (London, Elliot Stock, 1909), p. 355. Verse 14 Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests.THE BY JUDAS Matthew's arrangement of the events in this chapter certainly suggests that the events concerning the "waste" of the spikenard are definitely connected to the defection of Judas. Otherwise, the journey of Judas to the priests would have been mentioned in Matthew 26:1-5. Plummer wrote, "Evidently we are to suppose that the proposal (of Judas) was a consequence of that incident."[5] Robertson concurs, saying, "Judas, stung by the rebuke of Jesus at the feast, bargains with the rulers to betray Jesus."[6] If such assumptions are true, avarice, wounded pride, and disappointment appear as prime ingredients in Judas' motivation for betrayal. What is very remarkable is the astounding pettiness of this diabolical act. One could come nearer understanding it if Christ had been betrayed for some big reason, but the things which apparently motivated Judas were extremely small considerations. [5] Ibid., p. 354. [6] A. T. Robertson, op. cit., p. 142. Verse 15 And said, What are ye willing to give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they weighed unto him thirty pieces of silver.Give me! Ah, there was the fatal cleft in the heart of Judas. That was what the prodigal son said, "Father, gave me ..." (Luke 15:11). Such an attitude says, "I'll take the cash; let the credit go; A bird in the hand's worth two in the bush! Get yours while the getting's good! You've got to look out for number one!" Such an attitude betrayed the Son of God, and it is still doing so. Matthew indicates that Judas proposed the betrayal and that the priests named the amount they would pay. Luke's use of the word "covenanted" (Luke 22:5) indicates some haggling over the price, which was promptly paid in advance in cash on the spot, once agreement had been reached. It surely seems almost incredible that those priests who were supposed to know so much Scripture could have been so oblivious to the prophecy of Zechariah that they should have exactly fulfilled it, matching to the penny the Messiah's betrayal price as set forth by that prophet! Zechariah wrote: And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord (Zechariah 11:12-13). This is far more than a prophecy; it is a whole constellation of prophecies. Note the following: 1. There will be haggling over the price (if not, forbear). 2. The sum agreed upon will be 30 pieces of silver. 3. It will be weighed out. 4. It will be cast unto the potter. 5. "Cast" indicates it will be thrown. 6. The potter will eventually receive it. 7. The recipient will do the casting. 8. The whole transaction will occur in the temple (the house of the Lord). Even a casual student of the New Testament knows that every detail of that remarkable group of prophecies was fulfilled exactly, not by any of Jesus' friends trying to impose evidence that he was the Messiah, but by his sworn enemies. In fact, most of the wonderful prophecies of Jesus were fulfilled, not by friends, but by his enemies. Who can doubt that a Power above and beyond those evil men shaped their deeds to God's pattern, using their sinful deeds to accomplish his own divine purpose? "Without our being aware of it, our fingers are so guided that a pattern is created when the thread gets caught in the web!"[7] ENDNOTE:[7] Dag Hammarskjold, Markings (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965, p. 140. Verse 16 And from that time he sought opportunity to deliver him unto them.The words "deliver him" are translated "betray him" in some of the versions, and they do bear that translation. The opportunity Judas sought was a quiet one in which Christ could be pointed out and captured by the priests without tumult, or in the absence of the multitude (Luke 22:6). Judas, knowing the place where Jesus was accustomed to retire for prayer with his disciples, would have no difficulty in finding such an occasion. Just what day of the week this was could never be known with positive certainty unless the exact year of the crucifixion could be determined. The first day of unleavened bread was the day before the preparation for the passover, namely the 13th of Nisan; and whether the Lord ate his last meal with the disciples on Wednesday or Thursday does not really matter. We do know that, in any case, the day on which he was crucified corresponded to the day the paschal lambs were slain, Christ thus fulfilling, even in his death, the figure of the "lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Technically, his last meal occurred on the day of his crucifixion, although actually it occurred the night before, a fact derived from the Jewish method of reckoning time and marking the day as beginning at sunset and ending at sunset the following day. Thus, we also are able to understand that the 15th of Nisan (first full day of Passover that technically began at sundown on the 14th of Nisan) really started at sundown of the day Christ was crucified on the 14th. We shall leave it to the scholars to make endless arguments as to the exact day of the week. That Christ was crucified, not on the 15th Nisan but on the 14th, is plain from these considerations: 1. The 15th of Nisan would not be called merely the preparation (John 19:31). Yet that was the day Christ's body was upon the cross; and the concern of the leaders in hastening his death by the breaking of his legs (as they intended) was precisely for the purpose of preventing his body from remaining upon the cross over the Passover (15th Nisan), which began technically at sundown the day he suffered (14th Nisan). 2. If the day of the crucifixion had been the Passover (15th Nisan), the officers and men who arrested Jesus the night before (after the Passover had legally begun) would not have borne arms on such a high day. 3. If the day of the crucifixion had been the Passover proper, Joseph of Arimathea would not have prepared spices on that day (Mark 15:46; Luke 23:56). In view of the above, Christ's last meal, called the Passover, was not actually that. At least, it was not on that Passover day. It preceded the Passover. There is no evidence that a lamb was prepared and eaten by the Lord and his disciples. The true Lamb was present with them, and he would be slain on the morrow of this same 14th Nisan, fulfilling the type to the letter. No one should be disturbed by the designation of this last meal as the Passover by the synoptics, for without doubt the term was used in an accommodative sense because it so resembled and so nearly coincided with the actual Passover. John's gospel makes it impossible to believe that it was actually the ordinary Passover. Furthermore, Christ did not refer to it as the Passover until the disciples had suggested it; and even then he referred to "keeping" rather than "eating" it. Verse 18 And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Teacher saith, My time is at hand; I keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.Dummelow noted that: The Last Supper is here called the Passover, because in many respects it resembled it. It is not, however, certain that there was a lamb. Jesus himself was the Lamb; and, as he intended to supersede the type by the reality, it was not absolutely necessary for the type to be present.[8] Christ did not say, "I will eat the passover," but that "I keep the passover." Moreover, he did not say, "The Passover is at hand," but that "My time is at hand." Again from Dummelow: The disciples would doubtless be surprised at the proposal of Jesus to keep the passover a day before the legal time. The disciples were therefore instructed to give the reason, "My time is at hand." The meaning was, "My death will happen before the legal time arrives."[9] [8] J. R. Dummelow, One Volume Commentary (New York: Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 709. [9] Ibid. Verse 19 And the disciples did as Jesus appointed them; and they made ready the passover.This refers to the preparation the disciples made for the Passover. They no doubt thought that Christ would actually eat the passover with them the following night, not on that very evening; for it would have been impossible for them to procure the lamb, properly slain and blessed in the temple, until the day following. They made it ready then, as far as the preparation could have been made; but events were to move more swiftly than they supposed. Verse 20 Now when even was come, he was sitting at meat with the twelve disciples.This cannot mean, "He was eating the Passover." That is not what the passage says. Those who assume that this was the Passover should explain why Jesus ate it sitting down, or rather "reclining at the table," as the Greek has it. The Law specifically required that it be eaten standing up (Exodus 12:11); and the fact that the Jews no longer honored that commandment did not change God's law. We may be certain that Christ never concurred in "making the word of God of none effect" by accepting human tradition in the place of it (see notes, Matthew 15:6 ff). Why should Matthew have mentioned that Jesus was "reclining" at the table, unless this had pertinence and significance? Must we conclude that Christ had thereby consented with the Jews of his generation to eat the Passover lying down, instead of standing up as God's law required; or is it intended that we should see that this is not the Passover at all? Verse 21 And as they were eating, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.Why was this warning spoken? Did our Saviour, by this means and at so late an hour, try to stay the mad progress of Judas on his way to destruction? Was it to impel the heart-searching that immediately followed on the part of them all ? Was it to call attention to another notable prophecy about to be fulfilled? Psalms 41:9 prophesied, "Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, Who did eat of my bread, Hath lifted up his heel against me." Judas was pinpointed by that prophecy. He was Jesus' friend, even an apostle; he was trusted, even carrying the bag; he ate of his bread. Characteristically, Christ expanded and extended the prophecy in more detail, noting in the following conversation that it would be one "who dipped his hand" in the dish with Jesus (Matthew 26:23). Of the Twelve, only one man carried the bag and sat next to Jesus at the table. The argument that Judas was predestined to the tragic role he played and that he was, therefore, not to blame for his conduct, is false. It was by choice, and by transgression, that Judas fell. God's foreknowledge of it did not require him to commit such a sin. God's knowledge of man's sin (past tense) does not make guilt any less; and, in the same way, God's knowledge of man's sin (future tense) does not mitigate or extenuate it. Judas was not a devil from the beginning; at first he was a noble apostle, receiving from Christ the same commission as the others to heal the sick and cast out demons (see note on Matthew 10:8). Verse 22 And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began to say unto him every one, Is it I, Lord?In this heartbreaking scene, the earthly fortunes of our Lord were at their lowest ebb. One of his chosen was a traitor with the blood-money already in his bag. The gathering storm would soon break, the darkness deepened, and every man present felt the awful possibility of forsaking and betraying him. How shamefully weak is every man! Verse 23 And he answered and said, He that dipped his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.Thus, Jesus plainly identified Judas as the traitor. The other gospels contain interesting details of that event not contained in Matthew. Verse 24 The Son of man goeth, even as it is written of him; but woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had not been born.This was possibly a last-minute effort on the part of Christ to arouse in Judas some desire of repentance. Christ had already indicated to Judas that his treachery was known; and if Judas, convicted of sin, had only confessed it and asked Jesus' forgiveness, he could have been spared participation in the actual delivery of Christ to his foes. The Son of man goeth ... "probably means `goeth his way to death.' The word sometimes has the sense of `going back' or `going home,' and that idea may well be included here."[10] Thus Plummer viewed the passage. Regarding the sin of Judas, the same author wrote: These counsels did not necessitate the sin of Judas; they would have been fulfilled if he had remained faithful. Of his own free will, he helped to carry them out in a particular manner, and for this he is responsible and stands justly condemned.[11] [10] Alfred Plummer, op. cit., p. 359. [11] Ibid. Verse 25 And Judas who betrayed him answered and said, Is it I, Rabbi? He saith unto him, Thou hast said.The expression "thou hast said" was a well-understood affirmative in the idiom of the Jews. The die was then cast. Judas' treason was known to all, and he would move at once to effect Jesus' delivery to the chief priests. To make certain that the identification was complete, Christ announced that to whomsoever he should give the sop, the same it was who should betray him. He then gave the sop to Judas (see John 13:23-30). Judas was admonished, "That thou doest, do quickly" (John 13:27-28). "Straightway" after receiving the sop, Judas departed from the company. Why did Christ admonish Judas to do his foul deed "quickly"? One plausible reason is that Christ, about to institute the Lord's Supper, did not desire Judas' attendance upon that solemn night. "After the sop, Satan had entered into Judas; and it was inappropriate that he should participate in the Last Supper, especially that portion of it in which the Lord's Supper was initiated. However, at least some of the apostles did not so understand Jesus' words. John relates that "some thought Jesus meant, Buy what things we have need of for the feast" (John 13:29). This is more proof that this Last Supper was not the Passover. Some things yet needed to be procured for the "feast" or Passover, legally scheduled for the following evening, and it is virtually certain that one of the things lacking was the lamb itself. Two expressions in the context are charged with rich symbolical meaning. These are "the sop" and "it was night" (see John 13:27-30). The presentation of "the sop" to Judas is ironic in that he was betraying Christ for a mere pittance, a financial sop, a single mouthful, a trifle, giving up something of infinite value for something of the most trivial worth. "It was night" also carries the deepest implications. How dark was that night when the Saviour's friend betrayed him, the disciples forsook him and fled, and the powers of darkness seized possession of the body of the Christ of God. It was a time of darkness appropriate to the deeds of darkness then afoot. Verse 26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. THE OF THE LORD'S SUPPERThis and through Matthew 26:30 is Matthew's account of the establishment of the Lord's Supper, an event recorded by all three synoptics and by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. The four witnesses to this scene (Paul's, of course, by direct revelation) are remarkable for variation in the words of Jesus, as separately reported; but this should be understood as the natural result of independent testimonies and is much more convincing than verbatim accounts would have been, for in such a case there would invariably have existed a presumption of some common source. Of course, the accounts perfectly agree and are fully compatible and supplementary, each to the others, making up a graphic and exciting composite of this momentous occurrence. An age-old controversy, and one that rent Christendom asunder, raged over the meaning of "This is my body." Is the expression a metaphor, or is some mystical meaning implied? The Roman doctrine of transubstantiation is grounded here. Yet, when one has read the long and tedious dissertations on this subject, a fresh reading of the whole context will clear the mind and bring sharply into focus the obvious truth. Christ often used metaphor in his teaching, saying, "I am the door," "I am the way," "I am the bread of life," etc. The compulsion to receive "This is my body" as a metaphor comes from the fact that it was not Jesus' literal flesh that they ate. The expression "This is my body" which they were to take and eat, actually focuses attention upon the lamb of the Passover, the type, of which Jesus was the glorious fulfillment. Not in eating an actual lamb, but in living the Word of Christ shall men attain unto salvation (see notes on Matthew 15:20). Verse 27 And he took a cup and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it.Drink ye all means that all of them were to drink of it, not that all of the cup was to be drunk. That "all" are to partake is a mandate for the whole church in all ages, refuting the notion that some, the priests for example, may drink of the cup and that the laity may not. Communion "under one kind" is impossible. The same Lord who said of the bread, "Take and eat," said also of the cup, "Drink ye all"! Verse 28 For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.Christ made the Lord's Supper the solemn sign and seal of the covenant for the forgiveness of the sins of his disciples in all ages. Christians who forsake the Lord's Supper are described in the New Testament as having "trodden under foot the Son of God" and as having "counted the blood of the covenant wherewith (they) were sanctified an unholy thing" and as having "done despite" (insulted) unto the Spirit of grace (Hebrews 10:29). Of vast significance are the words "unto remission of sins," translated "for the remission of sins" in the KJV. Note that Christ's blood was not shed because men were already forgiven but in order that they might be forgiven. Christ did not die because men were already saved but in order that they might, as a result of his death, receive salvation. The application is binding on the identical expression, "remission of sins" in Acts 2:38 : "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ UNTO THE OF SINS." Whatever the expression means in one place it must also mean in the other. Thus, the familiar heresy that baptism is not related to forgiveness of sins is refuted, incidentally but devastatingly, by Christ's use of the key phrase in this verse. This expositor has never seen an exposition, version, commentary or translation in which the identical words (unto remission of sins) in Acts 2:38 and Matthew 26:28 were not identically translated. Both passages in the Greek text, and as far as is known in all translations, are identical in form and meaning. Therefore, if Christ's pouring out of his blood was a prerequisite in the procurement of human forgiveness, then also baptism is a prerequisite action in the procurement of that same forgiveness on behalf of his disciples. He must have shed his blood; we MUST be baptized. Nor does this equate one action with the other. Christ's atonement was the ACT; man's baptism is but human compliance with one of the conditions upon which men are privileged to participate in it, but that human compliance is necessary too; hence, baptism is "unto remission of sins." Verse 29 But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.Christ in this verse referred to the cup which he had just blessed as "the fruit of the vine"! That, of course, is what it was BEFORE he blessed it; and this is divine testimony to the fact that that is exactly what it was AFTER he blessed it: "the fruit of the vine." The superstition of the Dark Ages relative to transubstantiation founders upon this text. Does anyone actually believe that there are men on earth today who can do what Christ did not do, and who can bless the "fruit of the vine" in such a manner that it becomes the "actual blood" of Christ? Could their blessing in any way accomplish what the Lord's failed to accomplish? When I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. Scholars have held this to mean that Christ will again partake of the Supper with his disciples only in the days of the "everlasting kingdom" (2 Peter 1:11), or that he will do so in a figure at the "marriage supper of the Lamb." It seems that both views overlook the fact that, in a sense, Christ always partakes of the Lord's Supper with his disciples, since "Where two or three are gathered together" in his name, Christ is spiritually present with them (Matthew 18:20). Acceptance of the words in their obvious and literal sense is not merely possible but quite illuminating. Three conditions prerequisite to his partaking of the fruit of the vine with his disciples were spelled out: (1) it would be "new" wine; (2) it would be with his disciples; and (3) it would be "in" the kingdom. Perhaps this accounts for the fact that Christ refused the wine mingled with gall when he was crucified. In that case, (1) the wine was not new, (2) it was not with his disciples, and (3) the kingdom had not at that time been set up. Verse 30 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.Matthew's account might lead one to suppose that immediately after the institution of the Lord's Supper, the Lord and his disciples departed from the room where the sacred scene occurred; but from John's account it is learned that several very important discourses were made by Jesus on that same occasion, extending the meeting for a considerable time. John 14:1-31; John 15:1-27; John 16:1-33; John 17:1-26 records the following as having taken place at that time: (1) the farewell discourse, (2) concerning the Comforter, (3) I am the true vine, (4) Christ's intercessory prayer, and other significant teachings. At least a part of these extended words of Christ might have been, and certainly could have been, spoken on the way to Gethsemane. The singing of a hymn is significant. Singing, and not instrumental music, was always associated with Christ and the apostles. The presumption with which people have loaded the worship of Christ with their own devices is reprehensible. The New Testament affords no example of such innovations, but repeated references to singing are recorded (Colossians 3:16; Ephesians 5:19, etc.). Verse 31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended in me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.PETER'S DENIAL WAS The prophecy cited in Matthew 26:31 is Zechariah 13:7, and Christ's quotation of it sheds new light upon its meaning. It is God who will smite the shepherd. The Lord will lay upon him the iniquity of us all (Isaiah 53:7). Thus, the crucifixion is God's doing. Christ will be the architect of his own death, as revealed in the conversation with Moses and Elijah on the mount of transfiguration. Satan and evil men will be used, not as designers, but as instruments of the divine purpose. The most comprehensive statement of this fact is in Isaiah 53:1-12, where, in addition to the foregoing, it is said that "It pleased the Lord to bruise him"; "He hath put him to grief"; and "Thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin." The Lord's revelation in this verse that all the disciples would be offended in him is a commentary on the general weakness and defenselessness of men apart from Christ. In the approaching hours when the Son of man would be among the slain, his disciples could not be strong. The Lord would be no longer with them. They would be cast upon their own resources, without his sustaining love and presence, and would quickly fall. So would any person; so would all people. The inference in this passage, then, is not the relative weakness of his disciples as compared with others, but the awful weakness of all people apart from their only Saviour and Redeemer. Verse 32 But after I am raised up, I will go before you into Galilee.Who but God incarnate could have done a thing like this? Christ here calmly made an appointment to rendezvous with his disciples after his death and resurrection! He even named a specific hill or mountain where the meeting would occur (Matthew 28:16). Where, in all history, has there ever been an event to match this? Christ made an appointment to meet his disciples after his death, and then kept it! Verse 33 But Peter answered and said unto him, If all shall be offended in thee, I will never be offended.One's sympathy lies with Peter here, although he was wrong. His error was threefold, in that he: (1) contradicted Jesus' words, (2) rated himself superior to others, and (3) relied upon his own strength alone. Furthermore, he did not realize that the strength and righteousness he had were not his own, but were only the reflected strength and righteousness of Christ. Many "righteous" people today make the same mistake. Peter's estimate of his own power, based on the character and endowment received from the Lord, was a profound miscalculation in that it failed to recognize Christ and not Peter as the fountain of it. Any "righteous person" who has been kept back from gross sin should thank not himself but the Lord for his victory. Peter's blindness to this truth made it necessary for Christ to teach him through bitter experience that all of man's righteousnesses are as filthy rags. Verse 34 Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, that this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.The cock crow refers to the time of the morning in which that event occurs, a time marked not by a single blast from Chanticleer's bugle, but by many crowings of those feathered harbingers of the day. Mark mentioned the cock's crowing twice before the denial, but that is not a difficulty. Matthew often mentioned one where Mark mentioned two; and besides, the cock crow (in a place like Jerusalem was at that time) always began with one or two, then swelled into a mighty chorus of hundreds or even thousands of roosters uniting to produce that phenomenon called simply the cock crow. Efforts of quibblers to limit such an event to initiation by only one or two cocks and to engage a debate on whether it was one or two are ridiculous. Anyone who has ever heard a cock crow (and I don't mean one bird) in a populous place with an abundance of chickens knows exactly what was meant! Verse 35 Peter said unto him, Even if I must die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples.Not merely Peter, but all the disciples affirmed their intention to die with Christ and rejected any thought that they would forsake him; and yet it was Peter who took the lead, involving the others in his contradiction of Christ's words, and therefore he is the more to blame. Thus, attention focuses upon him in the narrative. That Peter meant it all in good faith does not extenuate his presumption in contradicting his Lord. Verse 36 Then cometh Jesus with them to a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto his disciples, Sit ye here, while I go yonder and pray.IN THE GARDEN OF What irony! Whereas the disciples were so sure they would not fail, even the Christ approached the cross with "strong cryings and tears" (Hebrews 5:7). It was the humanity of Christ that was in ascendancy from that hour and until death came upon him. As a man (and he was perfect man), he shrank from the ordeal of Calvary; and the common view that Christ wept only for the sins or sorrows of others is not correct. As the stark ugs and utter horror of the cross loomed before him, his sorrow could be measured only in maximum dimensions. Verse 37 And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and sore troubled.Christ often prayed alone; but in the crisis of that agonizing hour, he desired the companionship of his apostles. The need of Jesus for human support and companionship in that dark and critical hour was genuine and indicated the fullness of the Lord's human nature, no less entire and complete than his heavenly nature. Although admonished to watch with Jesus, the apostles were not invited to pray for him. There is no record of any man's ever having been invited to pray for Christ, for he is not the subject of our prayers but their master. People must pray TO him, not FOR him. Peter, James, and John, the three chosen for the more intimate view of Christ's agony, had previously enjoyed a closer proximity than the others at the raising of Jairus' daughter, and upon the mount of transfiguration. Verse 38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: abide ye here and watch with me. And he went forward a little and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, My Father, if it be possible, let this cup, pass away from me: Nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.This prayer is remarkable for many reasons. The use of "MY Father is significant because, whereas Christ taught his disciples to pray "Our Father," he himself used the first person possessive singular, "My"! God is the Father of Christ uniquely. Christ who said, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father," did not lose any of his divinity even while suffering the humiliation of agony and death. Even in that extremity there was seen at every instant some overwhelming evidence of his divinity. The one purpose of Christ's coming into the world was to make an atonement, through death, for man's sin; but as the agony approached, his human nature found the ordeal abhorrent and repulsive. This very human prayer gives an insight into the sufferings of Christ and should enhance human appreciation of his unselfish deed. Even in that chilling scene in Gethsemane, Christ prayed, "Not as I will, but as thou wilt." This clearly shows that the humanity of Christ, for the moment, was not fully in tune with the will of the Father, through the weakness of all flesh; but it was quickly brought into complete harmony by means of the prayers in Gethsemane. If it be possible! Are not all things possible with God? Yes, and no! It was possible, of course, for God to take away the cross; but to have done so would have taken salvation away from humanity. The dreadful, soul-shaking truth is that not even God could redeem man without the sacrifice of himself (in the person of Christ) to pay the penalty of man's redemption. God had "passed over" the sins of countless generations, knowing what he at last would do; but then the time had come for God to "show his righteousness" (Romans 3:25-26) in having so done. Satan marshaled every possible force to thwart God's purpose. Having found it impossible to murder the Lord, which he had repeatedly attempted, there remained only two means of possible victory for the evil one. These were: (1) he might cause Christ to sin, and (2) he might induce Christ to refuse the cross. In this latter means lies the explanation of the utter repulsiveness of the death which confronted Christ on Calvary. Satan exhausted diabolical cunning in that awful event, foretold from the beginning (Genesis 3:15), in which he would bruise the heel of the seed of woman. No refinement of sadistic lust or barbarous cruelty was overlooked. Christ was to die the worst death any being ever suffered on earth. Would the Saviour, rather than endure it, renounce his mission? To have done so would have been, in a sense, honorable as far as Christ was concerned; but the race of men would have been lost. Only his great eternal love for man brought him through the depth of humiliation and temptation that swept over him in that chilling scene in Gethsemane. Verse 40 And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?The Lord was not yet through the crisis, and his finding the apostles asleep only added to his sorrow. It should be particularly observed that Christ did not repeat this triple prayer over and over in rote fashion; but on the other hand, after each heart-breaking petition, he paused, sought companionship, and waited for God's answer. What is meant by the "hour"? Such a brief prayer would have required only a moment. Thus it must be concluded that for a much longer period, "one hour," our Lord was in a deep agony of spirit. Verse 41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.Always solicitious for the welfare of his disciples, Christ attributed their failure to watch with him to weakness of the flesh but repeated the admonition. Nor is it proper to limit the words regarding the weakness of the flesh to its application to the apostles. In a sense, even his flesh was weak. He had been in an agony of temptation and had felt the awful conflict in his soul. How much more then would be the pressure of darkness upon the apostles, his spiritual children, so sure of themselves, so naively unaware of the overwhelming fires of discouragement and sorrow through which they were so soon to pass, and yet, at the moment, wasting their opportunity by sleeping instead of preparing for the coming ordeal. It has already been noted that Christ did not seek prayers from the twelve on his behalf. Rather, one sees the God-man, sorely tried and tempted, and yet beyond the aid of any mortal, for he is above man. Verse 42 And again a second time he went away, and prayed, saying, My Father, if this cannot pass away, except I drink it, thy will be done.The words of Plummer are very perceptive regarding this prayer. He said: Why did he repeat his prayer in Gethsemane? We may reverently suppose that he himself knew that the first utterance of the prayer had not been complete in its success. His human will was not yet in absolute unison with the will of his Father; and, in this way, we may trace progress between the first prayer and the second. In both cases, the prayer is made conditional; but in the first the condition is positive; in the second it is negative. "If it be possible" has become "If it be not possible"; and there is no longer any petition that the cup be removed. We may believe that in the third prayer, even if the same words were used, the "if" has become equivalent to "since": "since this cup cannot pass from me, thy will be done."[12] ENDNOTE:[12] Ibid., p. 370. Verse 43 And he came again and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy.Note again the time-lapse between the second and third utterances of the prayer. Although he used the same words, Christ did not pray rote prayers. That the disciples actually tried to stay awake may be assumed, since they had so boldly proclaimed their loyalty only a little earlier. As extenuation, the hour was long past midnight. Very strong emotions had attended the Last Supper, the identification of the traitor, and the contemplation of Christ's death. Also, the crowded events of that entire week had left them physically and emotionally exhausted. "For their eyes were heavy" shows the strain under which they had arrived at that dark hour. Verse 44 And he left them again, and went away, and prayed a third time, saying again the same words.This passage is the basis for the assumption, allowed even by Plummer and others, that repeated prayers are acceptable. To this it may be replied that "repeated" prayers are indeed acceptable, provided only that they are PRAYERS. Furthermore, there is absolutely no precedent for rote prayers, mumbled or shouted over and over, without intermission. Christ did nothing like that; and one needs a strong imagination to find any permission in the Lord's thrice-repeated prayer for any such thing as that exhibited in the Rosary. True, Christ repeated the prayer three times, over a span of at least an hour; but, as noted above, there is a definite progression in the prayers, and they were, in each case, separated by intervals of time sufficient for Christ to return to the sleeping disciples. Add to this the significant change in the second prayer from the first, and a probable further change in the third from the second, and this solemn triple prayer plainly refutes the type of glib, rote prayer it is alleged to allow. Luke's account adds a number of significant details in the scene depicted here. The apostles' sleep is attributed to sorrow (Luke 22:46), and he mentioned the great drops of blood falling to the ground. That detail was of special interest to Luke the physician. "Commentators give instances of this blood-sweat under abnormal pathological circumstances."[13] Men under torture have been observed to sweat blood, a phenomenon always followed immediately by death. If such was the type of blood-sweat endured by Jesus, it would explain the necessity of angels coming to strengthen him (Luke 22:43). The blood-sweat, a portent of immediate and impending death, is thought by some scholars to be "the cup" which Jesus prayed to be removed, thus referring it primarily to the agony of that hour and not to the crucifixion. Supporting that view is the fact that no angel on the morrow was required to minister to him on the cross, whereas such supernatural power was required in Gethsemane. L. S. White, pioneer preacher of the gospel and profound expositor of the Scriptures, held this view, affirming that Christ, sweating the blood-sweat, and knowing that he was about to die in Gethsemane rather than upon the cross, prayed for the cup to pass. In this view, God answered the Saviour's prayer for the cup to pass, not by removing the cup, but by sending an angel to strengthen him. One may only wonder at the agony which produced such a phenomenon. Perhaps it was not meant for mortals to know the full story of that hour. But none of the angels ever knew How deep were the waters crossed, Or how dark was the night our Lord passed through Ere he found the sheep that was lost! ENDNOTE:[13] H. D. M. Spence in the Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 16, Luke II, p. 2O3. Verse 45 Then cometh he to the disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest; behold the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.The expression "sleep on now ..." is difficult, for, almost in the same moment, he said, "Arise, let us be going" (Matthew 26:46). Dummelow viewed it as reproachful irony, "`You have slept through my agony; sleep also through my betrayal and capture.'"[14] Broadus viewed the passage as a permissive imperative. He has no further need of their keeping awake; his struggles in the solitude close by are past. So far as concerns the object for which he desired them to watch and pray, they may now yield to sleep.[15] To be sure, they did not long enjoy the permission. Immediately, perhaps even as he spoke, came the sudden onset of his arrest and capture. [14] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 713. [15] John A. Broadus, Commentary on the New Testament (Philadelphia: The American Baptist Publishing Society, 1886), p. 539. Verse 46 Arise, let us be going; behold, he is at hand that betrayeth me.Christ did not propose to flee or to hide, but went out to meet the foe. Just how he knew the moment was at hand is no problem. He knew all things, even what was in men's hearts; also, the lanterns and torches of the arresting party were plainly visible. Verse 47 And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.THE AND SEIZURE OF JESUSPrompted by Judas' treachery, a fundamental strategy-change occurred in the camp of Jesus' enemies. They at first thought to murder Jesus privately (see Matthew 26:1-5), but now they decided to move against him boldly with a public arrest and trial. The great company of the arresting party showed that at that time, for better or for worse, the religious hierarchy was irrevocably committed to the more open tactic. That of course was in harmony with God's will and was a fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy to that effect (Matthew 26:2). As a result of this change, men of all ages would be able to declare, as Paul did before Festus, "This hath not been done in a corner!" (Acts 26:26). Just what human considerations moved this change are not completely known, but one likely possibility is that the treason of one of the Twelve led the chief priests to suppose that Christ no longer had his former hold upon the people. They also may have thought that, through Judas, and from information they might logically have expected Judas to provide, they would be able to establish a legitimate charge against Christ and murder him under the frames of legality. Strong evidence that such was actually their purpose came to light when suborned witnesses perjured themselves before the Sanhedrin. It has already been noted that that great multitude bearing arms that night eliminates any supposition that Passover Day had begun at sunset that same night. The temple guard, under the command of the high priest, would not have borne arms on such a high day. Verse 48 Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he; take him.Who but Satan could have thought of such a sign as that? To betray with a kiss has come to signify the ultimate in infamy. It was as base as it was gratuitous, the need of any sign at all being contra-indicated. It was not that difficult to tell Christ from his disciples (nor is it now!). The employment of so perfidious a device was grounded in the misassumption that Christ would attempt to conceal his identity. The repulsive betrayal kiss, therefore, was a gratuitous personal insult, conceived in hell, instigated by Satan, and bestowed in blindness. It was effectively designed to augment the shame of the cross to which it would lead. The impudent audacity of Judas has been a marvel ever since. How could he dare to pollute the face of Christ with such a kiss? Face to face with the Saviour, he did not relent nor feel the sting of conscience, as Peter did when Jesus looked upon him. Caffin said of the kiss: The Greek word seems to imply that he did it with an affectation of earnestness, with much warmth of manner; perhaps he thought, in his madness and folly, that he might be able to conceal his sin, thus deceiving Christ and his fellow-apostles into thinking that he was coming simply to rejoin them, and that he had no connection with the arresting band that followed.[16] ENDNOTE:[16] B. C. Carlin in The Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 15, Matt. II, p. 546. Verse 49 And straightway he came to Jesus and said, Hail, Rabbi; and kissed him.The marginal note in the English Revised Version (1885) translates the Greek as "kissed him much." Judas' conduct here gives a case study of excessive wickedness which answers some of the problems confronting society in any age. The current social thesis that savage and desperate criminals are more sinned against than sinning, that society itself is in fact to be blamed for whatever wicked men do - that philosophy is struck a mortal blow by the case of Judas. Wherein did Jesus fail with Judas? How could Judas' environment have been improved? How was society to blame in his case? Clarence Darrow, the noted criminal lawyer, did not believe that any man is responsible for his crimes. He said: No one attributes free will or motive to the material world. Is the conduct of man or the other animals any more subject to whim or choice than the action of the planets? It will be admitted that no one is responsible for his birth or early environment.[17] He espoused the thesis that people are no more responsible than animals. We know that all these causes influence man the same as other animals. ... We know that man's every act is induced by motives that led or urged him here or there; that the sequence of cause and effect runs through the whole universe, and is nowhere more compelling than in man.[18] To Clarence Darrow, all criminals were "victims of civilization"! The freedom of the will, individual responsibility, and personal accountability are being more and more rejected by a materialistic and secular society; but the word of God reveals the higher view that men are responsible for their deeds. True, one cannot control heredity or early environment, etc.; but one can control the way he reacts to them. This is not a merely: animal response. From the same slum there rise an Al Capone and an Al Smith; but every man decides the kind of "Al" he will be. From the same apostleship there rose Peter, and there fell Judas. [17] Clarence Darrow, Autobiography (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1932), p. 76. [18] Ibid., p. 340. Verse 50 And Jesus said unto him, Friend, do that for which thou art come. Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and took him.The term "friend" in this passage does not convey the exact meaning. The Greek word is actually "companion." In the New Testament, this term is again and again addressed to the enemies of the Lord, and that of a particular kind. For example, in Matthew 20:13 and Matthew 22:12 this term is applied to those who, nominally righteous, were yet at variance with the divine will. "Companion" Judas certainly was; friend he was not.[19" translation="">Matthew 26:50).">[19] The command, "Friend do that, etc." indicates that Judas had now passed the point of no return. Having laid the conditions for it, Judas was at that time under the divine compulsion to act out the sordid drama he had already contrived in his heart. As Jesus said, "Everyone that committeth sin is the bondservant of sin" (John 8:34). Balaam could not turn back when the journey became threatening and dangerous (Numbers 22:34). He even attempted to do so, but over against him in the way stood an angel of Jehovah with a drawn sword, saying, "Go with the men!" Christ's words to Judas in this passage had the same implications for the traitor. There was then left for Judas no place of repentance, no point of return. "Do that for which thou art come!" The entire scene of the arrest is instructive. The "great multitude" was according to prophecy. "How are mine enemies increased! Many are they that rise up against me" (Psalms 3:1). In the arresting multitudes were combined many factions: Jews, soldiers, Romans, the rabble, Pharisees, and all parties, united in a common front against the Lord. It even included the false apostle. And why all that show of force? It reminds one of the United States Navy bearing down on Guantanamo to turn the water off! As Matthew Henry put it: When a butcher goes into the field to take out a lamb for the slaughter, does he raise the militia, and come armed? No, he needs not; yet is there all this force used to seize the Lamb of God.[20] Matthew did not relate the dialogue between Christ and his captors, nor the event of their falling to the earth in his presence. Doubtless that remarkable event was for the purpose of demonstrating that Christ could have avoided capture, even by a force a hundred times as large as theirs, if he had elected to do so. [19" translation="">Matthew 26:50).">[19] The Emphatic Diaglott (Brooklyn, New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society), p. 11 (on Matthew 26:50). [20] Matthew Henry, Commentary (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company), Vol. 5, p. 400. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 26:2 The passover was a feast of the Jews that was instituted in Egypt on the night of the slaying of the firstborn of the Egyptians (Exodus 12). It became one of the annual feasts of the nation at which time all the males were required to go to the city of Jerusalem where it was celebrated in commemoration of the Egyptian event. After two days would come the regular date which was Friday, the 14th day of the 1st month. Jesus and his apostles ate the feast two days before the regular time. As proof of this, the italicized words above indicates it, and John 18:28 records a statement that shows the Jews had not yet eaten of the pass-over, although it was the day after Jesus and his apostles had eaten theirs. There was a reason for his observing it at this time for he knew that he was to die the next day and hence would not get to partake of it if he waited for the established time. This should not confuse us any in view of the emergency, and also the authority of Jesus. Chapter 12:8 states that the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath, and he certainly is Lord of other days also. 26:3 Then assembled means a gathering of the members of the Sanhedrin, the highest court of the Jews in the time of Christ. The word is usually rendered "council" in the New Testament, but it is sometimes referred to as an assembly as it is in this verse. The word is from the Greek, which Thayer defines, "Any assembly (especially of magistrates, judges, ambassadors), whether convened to deliberate or to pass judgment; in the Scriptures 1. any session of persons deliberating or adjudicating [judging]. 2. specifically, the Sanhedrin, the great council at Jerusalem." He follows his definition with the following information. "Consisting of seventy-one members, viz., scribes and elders, prominent members of the high priestly families (hence called . . .), and the high-priest, the president of the body. The fullest periphrasis [wordy description] for Sanhedrin is found in Matthew 26:3; Mark 14:43; Mark 14:53. The more important causes were brought before this tribunal, inasmuch as the Roman rulers of Judea had left to it the power of trying such cases, and also of pronouncing sentence of death, with the limitation that a capital sentence pronounced by the Sanhedrin was not valid unless it were confirmed by the Roman procurator [an agent]. The Jews trace the origin of the Sanhedrin to Numbers 11:16." All of this information from Thayer-is important, and the reader should make a note of it for ready reference, for the subject will be mentioned several times in the New Testament study. 26:4 We have learned in the preceding paragraph that the Sanhedrin could not lawfully put anyone to death. That is the reason the Jews had this consultation to devise some plot to kill Jesus by a trick of subtilty. 26:5 The Jews were not concerned about disturbing the holy feast, but wished to avoid any conflict with the people. In other words, they were acting on policy more than on principle and wished to retain their popularity. 26:6 The writer now goes back a few days to relate some incidents that happened while Jesus was in Bethany. In chapter 21:17 is the account of his going out to that village nearby where he lodged over night. In John's account (John 12:1-2) we are told that when he was there a supper was made in his honor, which our present verse says was in the house of Simon the leper . The law of Moses required a leper to dwell apart from society (Leviticus 13:46), hence we should conclude that Simon had been miraculously cured by the Lord, and he was designated "the leper" to distinguish him from several other men with the same name. 26:7 According to John 12:3 this woman was Mary a sister of Lazarus. Funk and Wagnalls Standard Bible Dictionary says the following of this box. "Alabaster (origin of the word unknown): Mineral carbonate of lime. A white stone much used in antiquity to ornament buildings and for vases and small bottles for holding precious ointment." Mark 14:3 says the woman broke the box and poured the ointment on his head. No reason is given for breaking the box, but at least it shows she intended to use all the ointment. 26:8 According to John 12:4-6 it was Judas who made the complaint. And the same passage explains his motive to have been a selfish one. John calls him a thief and Jesus calls him a devil in John 6:70, all of which accounts for his conduct. 26:9 It was true that such a product was costly (about fifty dollars' worth) to be used in what might have been considered an unprofitable way. But it was not really his thoughts of economy that caused Judas to make his remark. He was a covetous man and it hurt him to see that much value bestowed upon another. 6:10 Good work is used in the sense of a good act or deed, not so much as a manual effort which we know it was not. What constituted this a good deed will be explained in the comments on verse 12. 6:11 Jesus did not criticize the idea of giving something to the poor. He instructed the rich young man (chapter 19:21) to give his possessions to the poor. Neither did he question the motive of Judas in making his complaint. He left that subject for-some other to do as John did in the passage cited at verse 8. But he made a statement that pertained to the subject of using present opportunities that are soon to pass. He was to leave the world in a short time and that would stop all chances of doing him a bodily favor, while they would never cease to have. the opportunity of helping the poor. 6:12 For my burial. It was an old custom to anoint the dead and use spices at the time of burial. (See 2 Chronicles 16:14; John 19:40; Luke 23:56). Mark 14:8 quotes Jesus as saying, "She is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying." Since it was customary to bestow such treatment on the human body it would be regarded as a good deed to perform it. Mary evidently believed that she would not have as good an opportunity for this service if she waited until after the death of Jesus. However, whether this tells the motive for her coming aforehand or not, the mere desire to do honor to the body of her Lord was regarded favorably. This subject furnishes us with some suggestions concerning an inquiry often heard as to whether the use of flowers and other items on funeral occasions is right. Of course all good things are liable to abuse, and the extravagant spending of money for flowers is wrong. But we have convincing proof that it is proper to give respectful attention to the body because it is made in the image of the Creator. Any unnecessary mutilation of the body, therefore, would be wrong, which would condemn the desecrating act of cremation. 6:13 This means that the deed of the woman would become a part of the Gospel record and hence would be mentioned wherever the sacred book went. 6:14 The covetous heart of Judas was evidently stirred by the "waste" of something that would have brought in a goodly sum of money, and since it was bestowed upon Jesus, the thought occurred to him that he could recover some of it by betraying him to the Jews for money. 6:15 He asked the priests to make him an offer for which he would carry out the wicked deed. They covenanted (contracted) to give him thirty pieces of silver. According to the Oxford Cyclopedic Concordance it would be about twenty dollars today. 6:16 Immediately after the bargain was made, Judas watched for an opportunity to fulfill it by pointing Jesus out in the way stated in verse 48. 6:17 Matthew resumes his history at the place where he left it at verse 5. Feast of unleavened bread. The 14th day of the first month was the time of the passover (Exodus 12:6), and it was to be eaten with unleavened bread (verse 8). And the seven days following were also days in which they were to eat unleavened bread (Leviticus 23:5-6). For more details about these days of unleavened bread, see the comments at Exodus 12:15 and Leviticus 23:6-7 in volume 1 of the Old Testament Commentary. Jesus and his apostles ate their pass-over two days before the regular time (verse 2), and hence all the other items as to dates were set back correspondingly. The entire eight days beginning with the 14th came to be referred to as the feast of unleavened bread, so that the day of the passover (14th) would be called the first day of unleavened bread as we see it here; hence these italicized words apply to Christ and his apostles only in this place and the like statements in the other Gospels accounts. This being a special date for them, the disciples wished some instructions where to arrange for the passover, knowing Jesus would not eat it in any public place with the Jews. 6:18 Jesus directed them to go to a certain man in the city and deliver the request of their Master to him. Notice Jesus called it my time; that is, his time of crucifixion was at hand and he needed to eat the pass-over that evening. Also, since it was a special date, he wanted to eat it in a private house and hence made the request for the use of this man's house to be occupied by him and his apostles. 6:19 Made ready the passover. Jesus and his disciples were under the law of Moses and of course they made this preparation according to the directions recorded. Exodus 12:5-9 has its fist application in Egypt which was before the law was given from Sinai, but the same regulations were followed afterward. That means the disciples prepared the animal as directed, and also procured a supply of unleavened bread. 6:20 One of the great advantages of having more than one account of the life of Christ is the fact that the same details are not given in all of them. The things that happened on this last night of Christ before his death are not given in strict chronological order. For the convenience of the reader I shall write a list of references, and if he will read them in exactly the order as given he will have a connected record of what took place on that night. Luke 22:14-18; Luke 21-23; John 13:23-30; Luke 22:19-20. It is important that the passages be read just as the references show, not taking in a single verse not indicated nor leaving out one. I shall now comment on the verses of this chapter in their order. Even is from OPSIOS and has a somewhat indefinite meaning as to any exact hour, but all lexicons agree that it means toward the end of the day. 6:21 Jesus had divine knowledge and hence was aware of the intentions of Judas. 6:22 They were exceeding sorrowful. This was a sincere sorrow on the part of all except the guilty one, for he could not have any sorrow (at this time) for something that he was wanting to do. 6:23 The apostles had asked Jesus who was going to betray him but he did not answer them all. According to John 13:22-26 John was leaning on Jesus' bosom and hence was near him. Peter beckoned to him to ask Jesus who it was, and when Jesus told him, Judas did not hear the answer. The answer was accompanied with the act of dipping a piece of bread in the dish containing the flesh and its broth. Jesus reached into the dish at the same time that Judas did, which was the sign to the other apostles that answered their question of who was to be the betrayer. 6:24 Son of man goeth. The last word is from HUPAGO which Thayer defines at this place, "To withdraw one's self, to go away, depart." Jesus knew that it was destined for him to leave the world through the treachery of one of his professed friends (Psalms 41:9). However, this decree against him was not to relieve the perpetrator of the deed from the guilt of wrong doing. We have learned that Judas was called a thief and a devil before he had ever performed this evil deed (John 6:70; John 12:6), hence it did not change his character in the least for God to use him as the agent in the necessary act. Woe to that man. Why pronounce a woe upon Judas if he was selected as this agent, is a natural inquiry. It was because of his motive in doing it, which was to obtain some money to gratify his covetous heart. Another thing, even this deed would not need to have caused him to be lost. The Jews on the day of Pentecost were accused of murdering Jesus, yet they were given the opportunity of obeying the Gospel for the remission of their sins. If Judas who was guilty only of betraying Christ, had repented from a godly sorrow and obeyed the Gospel he could have been saved also. But Jesus knew he would not do this, hence he made the prediction of this verse. 6:25 Judas could not have asked the question for information, for he had already contracted with the chief priests to betray his Lord. All of the others had asked the same question and if he kept silent it would be so conspicuous that his guilt would be manifest to all in the group. 6:26 Blessed is from EULOGEO and Thayer defines it in this passage, "To praise, celebrate with praises." We should understand, therefore, that it does not mean to bestow some miraculous quality upon the bread. The conclusion is strengthened by the giving of thanks for the cup, and we know that the cup is as important as the bread. If the bread required some miraculous quality to be given to it to produce the desired effect on the communicants, then surely the cup would have also required something more than the simple act of thanksgiving. Brake is from KLAO which is defined by Thayer, "To break," and he then adds the comment, "used in the New Testament of the breaking of bread." He also cites Matthew 14:19; Matthew 15:36, and other places where we know it refers to the act of dividing a loaf so that more than one person could properly partake of it. Thus we see the word has no religious significance, but states what is a physical necessity in order that the communicants could eat of it which is the only religious phase about the handling of the bread. This is my body. The Ro-manists insist that this statement must be taken literally and not to be understood in the sense of the bread as only a representation of his body. That reasoning would make nonsense of the other passages where the language is just as direct. For instance, in 1 Corinthians 10:4 where Paul is speaking of the Israelites in the wilderness and of their drinking of a rock, he says "that rock was Christ." The record of that event is in Exodus 17:6 where Moses literally smote a literal rock and thus provided drinking water for the congregation. We know that rock was only a piece of material, so that the statement of Paul means it was a type or representation of Christ who furnishes water of spiritual life. On the same principle, the bread represents the body of Christ because his body had to be given to provide spiritual food for mankind. 6:27 It might be asked why the cup was not "blessed" if it is as important as the bread; it was. The definition of "blessed" is, "to praise, celebrate with praises," as may be seen in comments on the preceding verse. In thanking God for the cup one would thereby be praising it. Matthew uses the two terms, blessed and thanks, as being the same in principle. Drink ye all of it means for all of them to drink of it. The priests of Rome insist on doing the drinking tor the others, which is a contradiction of the instructions that Jesus gave to his disciples. 6:28 Blood of the New Testament. Under the Old Testament the blood that was shed was that of beasts, but the blood of the New was that of the Lamb of God. Shed for many. None but the Jews received the benefit of the blood shed in the animal sacrifices, while the blood of Christ offers benefits to the whole world (Romans 3:25; 1 John 2:2), which includes Jews and Gentiles without distinction. 6:29 The passages cited at verse 20 show that when Jesus spoke the words of this verse they were kill in the passover feast, and hence he said them before verses 26-28 of the present chapter. Therefore, when the fruit of the vine was served in the institution of the Lord's supper he did not partake. That would be appropriate, for that supper was to celebrate the death of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:26), and a man would not be expected to memorialize his own death. Until I drink it new in my Father's kingdom. Yes, Jesus does partake of the cup, but it is in a spiritual sense only. When disciples are eating and drinking of the Lord's supper he is present in spirit even as he promised that he would be (Matthew 18:20). 6:30 According to Thayer and Robinson this hymn was one of the Psalms of David. The mount of Olives was the site of Gethsemane which will be explained at verse 36. 6:31 While on their way to the mount of Olives Jesus said many things to his apostles. Chapters 14, 15, 16 and 17 of John were spoken as they were going, but Matthew records only what is in verses 31-35. Shall be offended or be caused to stumble. It means that something was going to happen that would cause them to falter in their devotion to Christ. This lack of devotion was to be manifested by the fact of their deserting him and fleeing. Jesus said it was written and we may read the prediction in Zechariah 13:7. 6:32 After I am risen explains what Jesus meant in the preceding verse by being smitten. The stroke was to be so severe that it would cause his death, but he predicted that he was to rise from the dead. 6:33 Peter was a man of an impulsive temperament and inclined to make rash statements and to perform rash acts, such as that recorded in John 18:10. The emphatic statement recorded here, therefore, is not surprising or should not be. 6:34 Jesus made a specific prediction of what Peter would do; not only specific as to the act but also as to the time of the night in which it would occur. 6:35 Even the pointed predictions of Jesus did not calm the rash spirit of Peter, but he repeated his declaration with an added item, that he would die before he would betray Jesus. His enthusiastic vows seemed to affect the other disciples for they all repeated his declaration. 6:36 The journey from the upper room and the passover to the garden of Gethsemane was ended. When they reached the border of the garden Jesus instructed the group to be seated while he went on farther to pray. I shall quote from Smith's Bible Dictionary on the item of Gethsemane. "A small 'garden,' Matthew 26:36; Mark 14:32, situated across the brook Kedron, John 18:1, probably at the foot of Mount Olivet, Luke 22:39, to the northwest and about one-half or three-quarters of a mile English from the walls of Jerusalem, and 100 yards east of the bridge over the Kedron. There was a 'garden' or rather an orchard, attached to it, to which the olive, fig and pomegranate doubtless invited resort by their hospitable shade." 6:37 Leaving the most of the group at the place where they first paused, Jesus took with him Peter and the sons of Zebedee (James and John), and went on into the garden with them. The humanity in his nature now began to manifest itself which caused him to be sorrowful and heavy hearted. 6:38 Jesus expressed his feelings to the three disciples and told them to tarry there while he stepped aside to pray. Sorrowful, even unto death. This is a highly colored figure of speech, meaning that he felt sad enough to die. 6:39 Having asked the three disciples to tarry and watch, Jesus wished to be alone with his Father and hence went a little farther away from them before beginning his prayer. He prayed that this cup might pass from him if it was the will of his Father. A common error in the comments heard today is to apply this cup to the suffering and death on the cross. Jesus rebuked Peter for thinking he could rescue him from that cup (John 18:11), saying that the cup of death was necessary to fulfill the scripture. He certainly would not ask the Father, then, to save him from it. No, the cup to which he referred was this cup, meaning the present agony through which he was going. That cup of agony is forcefully described in Luke 22:40-44. Jesus only asked that he be spared the terrible nervous agitation which he was at that time enduring. But it was not God's will to spare his Son even that much, so he was compelled to go through with it, until his agony brought out the great drops of sweat that was likened to thickened blood. 6:40 After his first prayer Jesus came back to the three disciples and found them asleep. We might wonder why he did not rebuke them more severely, but Luke 22:45 says they were "sleeping for sorrow." Even that should have been overcome by the spirit of watchfulness, but at least we are pleased that it was not from. indifference. 6:41 Watch and pray denotes the two sides of the scheme of salvation, the human and the divine. Watching is a duty of man in order that he may not be overtaken or surprised by temptation. (See Galatians 6:1.) While doing what is humanly possible, it is proper to look for help from God if man goes to Him in prayer. Spirit and flesh are the two parts of a human being; the first is the inner man and the other is the outer. The first is inclined to the better way of life and the other is more inclined to evil. A good picture of these two is presented in Romans 7:15-25. 6:42 Notice Jesus says this cup which denotes something present with him then. See the comments on the subject at verse 39. 6:43 The eyes of the disciples were heavy with the fatigue of sorrow. 6:44 Jesus prayed three times and each time his prayer was on the same subject. His persistence was on the principle that faith should be enduring and not inclined to give up easily. See the teaching on this subject in Luke 18:1-8. It should be noted that each of the prayers was made on condition that they were as God willed. 6:45 Jesus perceived the depressed condition of his disciples and decided to let them sleep undisturbed for a little while since the critical hour was about on hands. Is betrayed is in the present tense as to grammatical form but really means "is to be betrayed." Yet it is put in this form to indicate the event was very near. 6:46 We do not know how much time passed between this and the preceding verse. It could not have been long, yet there was enough time for the disciples to get a short but undisturbed nap. Jesus saw Judas and the crowd with him approaching, and roused the disciples from their sleep. 6:47 Jesus was concluding his speech to the disciples when Judas arrived in his immediate presence. To avoid confusion as to why he was not with the group of disciples that Jesus left at the border of the garden, the reader should see the passages, cited at verse 20. He should particularly note from John 13:30 that Judas left them while the passover was still taking place, hence he was never near them again until the present verse. Staves is from a Greek word that means "clubs," and the possession of such weapons indicated an attitude of cruelty and disrespect. Even an ordinary policeman usually refrains from using his club (billy) unless there is resistance, but Jesus had never even indicated that he would "resist arrest" as a guilty lawbreaker might do. No wonder he asked them (Luke 22:52) if they thought they had to deal with him as they would a thief. 6:48 Hold him fast. Judas had no doubt of the ability of Jesus to escape from the hand of the mob and really expected him to do so. Then if the priests complained of their loss and demanded the recovery of the money on a pretense of fraud, he could remind them of his warning and thus reject their complaint. Had things turned out as he expected, Judas would have procured the money which his covetous heart craved, and at the same time Jesus would not have been any worse off. Verse 49. Hail means a salutation that comes from a Greek word denoting a friendly greeting that includes good wishes. It is as if Judas had said, "Master, I give you my good wishes for your happiness," and then pretended to verify his wishes by a kiss. 6:50 Friend is from ETAIROS which Thayer defines, "a comrade, mate, partner." Wherefore is from some Greek terms that virtually mean "for what purpose." The verse denotes as if Jesus said, "Judas, we have been comrades for over three years, then why is it that you come to me in this manner?" Just then the mob took charge of Jesus. 6:51 Joh 18:10 tells us it was Peter who made this attack on the servant. 6:52 Some people use this verse to condemn capital punishment, but instead of condemning it the opposite is true. To °take the sword under the circumstances where Peter did is the act of a private, unofficial man. Had he gone to the limit in his act it would have caused the death of the servant and that would have made him a murderer since he did not represent the law. And if that had occurred, Jesus said that he should himself have perished with the sword, that being one of the means of lawfully executing a murderer under the criminal law of the land. 6:53 Had it been right to defend Jesus with force, he could have prayed his Father who would have sent him twelve legions (about 72,000) of angels. 6:54 But if that had been done it would have prevented the scripture prophecies of his death from being fulfilled. Jesus knew all through his life that he was to die as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, to replace the animal sacrifices of the Mosaic system and make one offering for all time (Hebrews 10:1-5). 6:55 Jesus rebuked the mob for coming out against him armed as if he were a thief. He reminded them of former opportunities of taking him and they did not do so nor even try to. All this showed their evil motive in the present movement. 6:56 Matthew is making the statements in this and the following verses. He is telling us that the deeds of this crowd were done in fulfillment of the predictions in the scriptures. The rebuke that Jesus gave Peter, also his submission to the attacks of the mob, seemed to dishearten all the disciples so that they forsook him and fled. By that act they fulfilled the predictions in Isaiah 53:3 and Zechariah 13:7. 6:57 Led him away to Caiaphas. John 18:13 says they led him to Annas first who was the father-in-law of the high priest. Just what official position (if any) this Annas had at this time is a disputed point. But he was a former high priest and perhaps as a preliminary hearing Jesus was taken before him through respect for his former position, and in view of his relation to Caiaphas. 6:58 Peter's curiosity prompted him to follow Jesus as they led him away to the officers. But he also began to show the cowardice which he afterward displayed in the court by following Jesus afar off. He wanted to be near enough to see what was going on but not so near as to be suspected of being connected with him in any way that might be embarrassing or endanger his own life and liberty. 6:59 The persons referred to here were leading men of the Jews who composed the council (Sanhedrin). The description of this court and the extent of its powers may be seen at verse 3. Before they could obtain any action from the Roman court, the Sanhedrin must first try and condemn the prisoner. Sought false witness is very significant. They knew that nothing could be said truthfully against Jesus, hence they would have to rely on witnesses who were willing to give false testimony. 6:60 But found none. That is, no man was willing to testify to any act on the part of Jesus that would have made him guilty of a capital offence under the law of Moses. However, at last two witnesses came forward who said they had something to offer the court about the prisoner. 6:61 The testimony of these had nothing to do with' any capital offence. Had Jesus said what they claimed, it still would not have made him guilty of anything serious, but only a claim as to what he said he could do if he chose. But even this was false, for he never said anything like what they affirmed. Another thing, according to Mark 14:59, even these two witnesses disagreed with each other, and that would have thrown their testimony out of court had it been even on the subject of capital offences. According to Deuteronomy 17:6; Deuteronomy 19:15 there must be at least two witnesses who testify to the same thing before a man could be condemned to death. 6:62. The high priest was surprised that Jesus did not make any reply to the testimony of these witnesses. He tried to get him to say something or other but failed. 6:63 But Jesus held his peace. There is a familiar rule that "silence gives consent" which would mean that if a man refused to deny a charge made against him it was taken as an admission of guilt. Under most circumstances that would be true, but Jesus knew he was bound to be condemned to die regardless of whether he replied or not. Besides, the pretended testimony was so ridiculous and contradictory that he considered it as beneath his dignity, hence he treated their statments with silent contempt. For an officer to adjure another person means to place him under oath. The high priest did this to Jesus and placed him under oath by the living God. Having bound Jesus with such an oath he asked him whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. This introduced another subject, different from the one for which he was supposed to be brought into the council. The question pertained to his divinity and hence was a vital one, being the central fact of the entire system that Jesus was introducing into the world. Of course he would not be silent on that and his answer will be given in the next verse. 6:64 Thou hast said is an affirmative answer to the question of the high priest. Nevertheless is used in the sense of "moreover, furthermore," etc. It thus is not a restriction on or modification of what was just said, but introduced additional thoughts. Jesus did not stop with merely answering the question about his divinity, but announced some things that were to happen because of his divine Sonship with God. Ye shall see agrees with Revelation 1:7 which says that every eye shall see him when he comes to the earth again. The prediction was a blow to the pride of the high priest, not because he was told that he would see Jesus when he comes, but because it predicted that he (Jesus) was to occupy a throne of glory. The high priest was at that very hour presiding in a meeting that was prejudiced against the prisoner, and he as president had manifested his sympathy with the accusers. This verse is explained at Matthew 26:65-66. 6:66 With such a breach of justice to influence them, it is no wonder that the assembly answered the question of the high priest as they did. It was all the more to be expected when their own personal sentiments were previously set against the prisoner because of his frequent rebukes of their wicked lives. He is guilty of death means that he is guilty of a crime that calls for the death penalty. Under the law of Moses a man who was guilty of blasphemy against God was to be put to death (Leviticus 24:16). Jesus was not guilty, but the high priest had pronounced him so, hence the way was opened for the assembly, which was overwhelmingly moved by the spirit of a mob, to agree with the decision of the president and condemn the prisoner. 6:67 The Sanhedrin could pronounce a sentence of death but it could not execute it, hence they gratified their wicked hearts by this contemptible treatment of Jesus. According to Numbers 12:14 and Deuteronomy 25:9 it was regarded as a disgrace to have another spit in one's face. Thayer says to buffet means "to strike with the fist, give one a blow with the fist," which would be intended to cause pain. To smite with the open hand was not so much to cause pain as it was to treat with contempt. 6:68 Prophesy is from PRO-PHETEUO which Thayer defines at this place, "To utter forth, declare, a thing which can only be known by divine revelation." In a crowded condition no one person would be distinctly visible so that the belittling act of slapping with the hand could be done without its being seen as to who really did it. (See Mark 5:27-31.) This act was an unmanly challenging of Christ's knowledge. 6:69 Sat without in the palace We should remember that the present session of the Sanhedrin was held in the headquarters of the high priest (verse 57). Palace is a somewhat indefinite word in the Bible, but a common view of it is a building surrounded with an uncovered court. Sometimes the word is used to designate the building only, and at others it means the courtyard around it; the session of the Sanhedrin was held in the building. Peter sat without in the palace means he was out in the courtyard of the palace. The text does not tell us why the damsel asked Peter the question, but the same thing was asked him by another damsel, and still one of the crowd asked this question. All of them received the same negative answer, hence it is reasonable to conclude it was a part of the Lord's plan to bring about the threefold denial that was predicted in verse 34. This question about Peter's being with, Jesus and the cowardly denial is significant, and shows that the fact of association with another makes him a partaker of whatever he is doing. (See Romans 1:32.) Of course Jesus was not doing anything wrong, and if Peter had been true to his profession so strongly expressed in verses 33-35, he would gladly have admitted his friendly association with the Lord and rejoiced in sharing in his persecutions. (See Acts 5:41.) 6:70 Peter not only denied being an associate of Jesus, but uttered a falsehood by saying he did not know him. The fear of sharing in the persecutions of Jesus caused him to say this and thus added another sin to the ones previously committed. 6:71 This porch was a place a little further away from the main building. The statement of the first damsel alarmed him and he was induced to move farther away. But even at this place his presence was noticed and a maid connected him with Jesus. 6:72 Peter emphasized his denial this time with an oath. 6:73 We are not told which person did the speaking this time, only that it was someone of the group standing near. The statement was made in an argumentative mood which shows they had heard his former denials (verse 70). Bewrayeth is the same as saying his speech "gave him away" or proved him to be what they were saying. Different communities and groups had their own dialects or brogues in their conversation. These people knew the dialect of Jesus and recognized that of Peter as being the same. 6:74 This time Peter thought he should make his denial still more emphatic than he had the first two instances. Curse is from -MATIZO which Thayer defines, "to call down direct evils on, to curse vehemently." Swear is from OMNURUI and the same lexicon defines it, "to swear; to affirm, promise, threaten, with an oath." The sentence means that Peter expressed the wish that some great misfortune would come to him if what he said was not true. And to give force to his declaration he made an oath in connection with it. As soon as he had concluded his statement the cock crew. Mark 14:30 says the cock would crow twice, but that Peter would make his third denial before the second crowing. Verse 72 of that chapter says the cock crew the second time after this third denial. 6:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus. Luke 22:61 says that the Lord turned and looked upon Peter. The place where Jesus was being tried was so arranged that he could be seen from the space outside where Peter was. Jesus hence cculd be seen by the apostle, and when the cock crew the third time he turned and gave him an accusing look that reminded him of what was said in verse 34. This brought him to his better thinking and filled him with genuine sorrow (Godly sorrow, 2 Corinthians 7:10); his immediate reaction was to go out from the crowd to himself and weep bitterly. Matthew 27 "THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Chapter Twenty-Seven Prevented by law from carrying out execution, the religious leaders sent Jesus to Pilate who condemned Him to be crucified (Matthew 27:1-2; Matthew 27:10-31). Meanwhile, Judas returned the betrayal money and hanged himself (Matthew 27:3-9). Crucified along with two thieves, Jesus expired after six hours (Matthew 27:32-56). His body was buried in Joseph’ s tomb, secured by Roman guards (Matthew 27:57-66). POINTS TO PONDER * The events leading to the crucifixion * The abuse Jesus suffered prior to His actual death REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter? - Jesus before Pilate and his soldiers - Matthew 27:1-2; Matthew 27:10-31- Judas hangs himself - Matthew 27:3-9- Jesus’ crucifixion and death - Matthew 27:32-56- Jesus buried and tomb secured - Matthew 27:57-66 2) What did Judas do when he realized Jesus was condemned? (Matthew 27:3-5) - Returned the betrayal money and then hanged himself 3) What did Jesus confess to Pilate? (Matthew 27:11) - He was the King of the Jews 4) Who was released instead of Jesus? (Matthew 27:15-26) - Barabbas, a notorious prisoner 5) What abuse did the Roman soldiers inflict on Jesus? (Matthew 27:26; Matthew 27:28-31) - Scourged, stripped, crowned with thorns, mocked, spat upon, struck with a reed 6) Who helped bear Jesus’ cross? Where was Jesus crucified? (Matthew 27:32-33) - Simon of Cyrene; Golgotha (Place of a Skull) 7) Who blasphemed and mocked Jesus as He hung on the cross? (Matthew 27:39) - Those who passed by, including the chief priests, elders, and scribes 8) What did the guards confess after seeing the events following Jesus’ death? (Matthew 27:54) - "Truly this was the Son of God!" 9) Where was Jesus buried? Who saw where He was buried? (Matthew 27:57-61) - In Joseph’ s tomb; Mary Magdalene and the "other" Mary (cf. Matthew 27:56) 10) Why was a Roman guard placed at the tomb of Jesus? (Matthew 27:62-66) - To prevent the disciples from stealing the body and saying He rose from the dead Matthew 27:1-66 Verse 1Mat 27:1-66JESUS UP TO PILATE; THE END OF JUDAS; JESUS BEFORE PILATE; THE MOCKERY; THE ; THE DEATH OF JESUS; JESUS WAS LAID IN THE TOMB; POSTING A GUARD AND SEALING THE TOMBNow when morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death: and they bound him, and led him away and delivered him up to Pilate the governor. (Matthew 27:1-2) This occurred on the morning of the day of preparation for the Passover, which had technically begun the night before at sunset. That was the day on which the paschal lambs would be ceremonially slain in the temple; but on THAT day of preparation, God himself would slay the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world and would lay upon him "the iniquity of us all." The "counsel" mentioned in Matthew 27:1 is probably Matthew's summary of the official trial before the Sanhedrin, held and concluded very early that same morning; but it could also refer to a caucus held shortly before confrontation with the governor in order for the priests to determine the best way to present their case to Pilate. The devious and hypocritical procedure they decided upon was unfolded in the ensuing events and only worsened the evil reputation which ever since has properly belonged to those wicked men. Pontius Pilate, the fifth procurator of Judaea, or governor as he was called, was appointed by Tiberius, 26 A.D.; and his administration was often in conflict with the Hebrews whom he doubtless despised. He insulted their traditions by bringing the Roman standards into the Holy City (the standards had images); but under threat of widespread disorder, he yielded and withdrew them. No one knew better than Pilate the hypocrisy of the Sanhedrin in professing to take Caesar's part against Christ. A number of conflicting traditions exist relative to Pilate's death. A 52-foot pyramid stands at Vienna on the Rhone which purports to mark the place of his suicide. He was also supposed to have drowned himself in Lake Lucerne, where an adjacent mountain is called Pilatus. It is known that he was summoned to Rome to face charges; but when he arrived, Tiberius had been succeeded by Caligula, and Pilate was deposed. Eusebius affirmed that soon afterward Pilate, "wearied with misfortunes, killed himself." As for his character, he was probably no better or worse than the rank and file of imperial deputies who held the sprawling empire in check; but it was his fate to be memorialized forever in the creeds of Christendom. "Suffered under Pontius Pilate" has echoed down nearly two millennia, embalming his name in perpetual infamy. There were many others who deserved the fate as much as he, and yet there can be no doubt that he deserved the odium which fell upon his name. After all, he put to death an innocent man, in full knowledge of his innocence, and did so for purely personal and expedient considerations. That he did not truly know the full identity of Christ does not mitigate his guilt. Verse 3 Then Judas, who betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders.The exact time Judas made that decision is not given; it has already been noted that the Sanhedrin made no use of Judas' testimony, and if they attempted to suborn him, which it may be assumed that they did, he certainly refused; and such a speculation, if allowed, would account for their hostility when he attempted later to return the money. Even in "repentance," Judas did the wrong thing. If he had gone to his Saviour instead of to the priests, it is possible he might have been forgiven. Verse 4 Saying, I have sinned in that I betrayed innocent blood. But they said, What is that to us? see thou to it.How callous and bitter do the religious leaders appear in this cold and heartless exhibition of total indifference to moral and spiritual values. They could not have cared less about right or wrong, truth or falsehood, justice or injustice. The testimony of the traitor at that tragic moment is of surpassing value to the Christian gospel. Even the man who betrayed Christ confessed his innocence, not under duress but voluntarily, and not before his disciples but before his enemies. Verse 5 And he cast down the pieces of silver into the sanctuary, and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the pieces of silver, and said, It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is the price of blood.The casting of the silver into the sanctuary fulfilled Zechariah's prophecy (Zechariah 11:12). See under Matthew 27:10, below. Other things forbidden to the treasury were the hire of a harlot and the price of a dog (Deuteronomy 23:18). The capacity of those men to "strain out the gnat and swallow" (see under Matthew 23:23 ff) is almost unbelievable. They were not above hiring perjured witnesses, bribery, plotting to murder the Son of God, or doing any other evil thing that might have seemed expedient; but to take back their own money from repentant Judas, THAT was unlawful! Furthermore, the restriction against blood-money being placed in the treasury does not appear to be one of God's restrictions, but one of their own! Deuteronomy 23:18, usually cited in this context, says nothing of the "price of blood." That was probably just another instance of their having made their own traditions of more importance than God's word. Verse 7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore, that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was priced, whom certain of the children of Israel did price; and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord hath appointed me.Still ignorant of what they were doing, the enemies of Jesus continued to fulfill Zechariah's prophecy (Zechariah 11:12-13); Judas cast the money "in the house of the Lord," and they made it "unto the potter." Acts 1:19 gives the Aramaic name for the field, popularly known as Akeldama. "Jeremiah" was the name of a larger grouping of the Hebrew Scriptures which contained both Jeremiah and Zechariah, along with other books including all the minor prophets. Thus, Matthew is guilty of no error in the use of the term "Jeremiah." An equivalent case today would be a quotation credited to "Romans" or to the "New Testament." Some commentators believe that Matthew quoted from some of the traditional sayings of Jeremiah, since it is not said that Jeremiah wrote the saying but that he spoke it. The quotation, exhibiting several variations from the words in Zechariah, may then be understood either as an exact quotation from Jeremiah, now lost, or a paraphrase of Zechariah. In any case, the objection is not important. The exact fulfillment of Zechariah's prophecy by the betrayal events is fully discussed under Matthew 26:15. As for the alleged contradiction between the Acts and Matthew accounts of the manner of Judas' death and the persons purchasing the field, note the following: MATTHEW He departed and went away and hanged himself ... The chief priests took the silver ... and bought with them the potter's field to bury strangers in. ACTS Now this man obtained a field with the reward of his iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. Haley said: Neither of these statements excludes the other. Matthew does not deny that Judas, after hanging himself, fell and burst asunder; Luke does not assert that Judas did not hang himself prior to his fall. Probably the circumstances are much as follows: Judas suspended himself from a tree on the brink of the precipice overhanging the valley of Hinnom, and the limb or the rope gave way; and he fell and was mangled as described in Acts.[1] If Judas hanged himself, as plainly said, the only way he could have come down was by falling, or by tender and loving removal at the hands of others. To say that he did not fall, as plainly said, one would have to be able to affirm that some person or persons prevented it. Furthermore, if the body remained suspended until it fell of natural causes, which was likely, the bursting of the body as it fell would have been a certainty. Now, note the so-called contradiction in Acts which ascribes the obtaining of the field to JUDAS as contrasted with Matthew's recording that the "PRIESTS bought the potter's field." This too is one of those artificial "contradictions" So delightful to skeptics. Since Judas provided the money to buy the field, it is highly proper to say that he "obtained" it. That the actual purchase and arranging of the legal transfer of the property was done by the priests makes it true also that they actually "bought" it. Today, on the campuses of a thousands colleges, are buildings "bought" by various donors whose names are inscribed on the buildings; yet in every case, it was the college or university which literally "bought" the building, signing all the contracts, making the legal transfers, etc. Furthermore, if a donor dies before all the legal details are completed, he is still said to have "given" or "obtained" for the school the new student center, or dormitory, or science building. That the same purchase is under consideration in both Matthew and Acts is implicit in the name "field of blood," which is the same in both. b[1] John W. Haley, Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (Nashville: B. C. Goodpasture, 1951), p. 349. Verse 11 Now Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest. And when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.THE FOURTH TRIAL OF JESUSThose infamous hypocrites were still up to their old game of trying to get Jesus crucified for sedition and had obviously represented Christ to Pilate as a political aspirant to the non-existent throne of the Hebrews. Christ answered Pilate's fair question just as fairly; but it was plain as daylight to Pilate that Christ's "kingdom" was not such as to be of any concern to Caesar! The Sanhedrin was most unwilling to give Pilate their true reason for demanding the death penalty, namely that Christ had claimed to be the divine Messiah; so the first part of this fourth trial was used by them to allege all kinds of crimes against the Christ in the hope of getting him crucified on any charge except the true one. Christ's serene composure and restraint throughout the trial infuriated them more and more, as it became increasingly evident that they would not be able to deceive Pilate. Jesus used the same strategy here as in the long trials before the Sanhedrin, maintaining silence in the face of fraudulent and unprovable charges. Verse 13 Then saith Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? And he gave him no answer, not even to one word: insomuch that the governor marveled greatly.Of course, they were talking a bold case against Christ, but they had no proof; and Pilate perfectly understood the unreliability of all the wild charges they alleged against him. Moreover, Pilate's wonder and admiration were kindled by the sublime and commanding presence of the Master, who, even in the depths of his humiliation, must have exhibited the manner and attitude of Truth incarnate. Christ's silence in the face of all the vicious allegations of the chief priests and elders doubtless struck Pilate as a very daring and courageous evidence of confidence. Certainly the record is clear that at that point Pilate was determined to release Christ and subsequently made a number of clever and determined maneuvers to acquit him. THE FIFTH TRIAL OF CHRISTPilate's First Effort to Release ChristThe fifth trial of Christ came about from Pilate's seizure upon the priests' mention of "Galilee" as an excuse to send Christ to Herod. Matthew did not record any of the "many things" they witnessed against Christ, but Luke recorded their charge of having "stirred up the people, FROM GALILEE" (Luke 23:5). Herod, like all Roman deputies, was in Jerusalem for the Passover, and Pilate did a politically clever thing by sending Christ to Herod, the tetrarch of Galilee. Herod's curiosity was frustrated; Jesus performed no miracle; in fact, he said nothing. The Lord was mocked; and Herod, after allowing his guard to make sport of Christ, sent him back to Pilate. The Jewish leaders attended the trial before Herod and prosecuted Jesus with their usual vehemence (Luke 23:10); but in spite of their accusations, Herod found no cause of death in Christ and refused to condemn him. THE SIXTH TRIAL OF CHRISTPilate's Second Effort to Release ChristThis second effort of the procurator to release Christ was not recorded by Matthew but is outlined in Luke 23:13-15. It came in the form of a confrontation in which Pilate summoned them and bluntly announced that both he and Herod had found "no fault" in Christ. "Behold, nothing worthy of death hath been done by him (Luke 23:15 ff). That was precisely the point at which Pilate should have broken off the trial and released Christ, ordered the legions to disperse the crowds, and announced the decision of the court in harmony with the verdict of innocence; but as Christ himself so often said, "The scriptures must be fulfilled!" Pilate's hesitation at that critical moment allowed the initiative to pass once more to the Pharisees, and thus the second maneuver failed. The Third Effort of Pilate to Release JesusThis was an offer to impose the milder punishment of chastisement instead of the death penalty. "I will, therefore, chastise him, and release him" (Luke 23:16). Of course, there was nothing mild about the horrible Roman flagellation. In this brutal suggestion, the moral crevasses in the character of Pilate were plainly visible. This proposal to subject a man he had just declared to be innocent to the shocking and bloody chastisement practiced in those days showed plainly enough that Pilate actually had no moral scruples against crucifixion, and that proposal was probably the first indication to the Jewish leaders that they would be able to have their way with Pilate in regard to Christ. True, Pilate would not yield without further struggles to extricate himself from a distasteful involvement in the terrible business; but the end had already begun with this third effort to spare Christ's life. Verse 15 Now at the feast the governor was wont to release, unto the multitude one prisoner, whom they would. And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas. When therefore they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?The Fourth Effort of Pilate to Release JesusNo doubt Pilate thought they would choose Christ; but he had reckoned without consideration of the fanatical hatred of the leaders against Christ. Barabbas was a notorious seditionist and robber (Mark 15:7), the leader of a group who had made an insurrection against Rome (presumably). His crimes were murder, robbery, and sedition; and Pilate's strategy at that point was directed to forcing a choice between such a man and Christ. Under the circumstances, the choice of Barabbas would have strong overtones of disloyalty to Caesar which the Pharisees had so lately professed; but if Pilate counted on such a deterrent to the choice of Barabbas, he was mistaken. Did Barabbas know of that proposal? If so, he must have felt that he had practically no chance of being chosen over one whose reputation as a prophet, healer, and holy person was so widespread. Since the condemnation of other robbers resulted in their crucifixion, it is safe to assume that the same fate awaited Barabbas, except for Pilate's proposal to pair him with Christ for the honor of being released for Passover. Verse 18 For he knew that for envy they had delivered him up. And while he was sitting on the judgment-seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that righteous man; for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.Matthew recorded very little of the extensive conversation recorded in John 18:28-38, in which Pilate concluded by asking, "What is truth?" But the record of that conversation is in Matthew 27:18. He knew that "for envy" they had delivered him. Pilate thus knew the innocence of Christ, the hypocrisy as well as the true motives of his accusers; and he could see through the tissue of lies in their charges. There is an extensive traditional literature with reference to Claudia, Pilate's wife, who had the courage to witness to the righteousness of Christ at the very moment of his condemnation. Fan Records, Inc., Anaheim, California, with Marjorie Lord as narrator, have produced a remarkable 27-minute recording as a "reading of Claudia's letter." It is not alleged here that the letter is either inspired or authentic; but it does impress the sincere student of the Bible as a possible detail of what happened and strikes the hearts of those who listen to it with an overwhelming emotional impact. The so-called "letter" reveals Claudia as a convert to Christianity, alleges that Christ had healed her son of congenital lameness, makes her a friend of the wife of Jairus and a witness of the raising of Jairus' daughter from the dead. Records of this letter have long existed. Catherine Van Dyke of the New York Times discovered an ancient copy of it at Bruges, in a monastery, in 1929. Claudia is honored as a saint by the Greek Orthodox Church and also by the Copts. A Christian does not need to place any reliance whatever upon such traditions as this; but the one relative to Claudia contains a remarkable degree of plausibility, and none of the "facts" it alleges are in any way incompatible with the Scriptures. They would even seem to enjoy some inferential support from the strange incident recorded in Matthew 27:19. It is significant that Pilate, a pagan, should have received just such a warning as a pagan would have been most likely to heed. Thus, just as Judas was warned by the Lord, God gave Pilate his warning also. b Verse 20 Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas, and destroy Jesus. But the governor answered and said unto them, Which of the two will ye that I release unto you? And they said, Barabbas.This shows that Pilate's judgment relative to the popularity of Christ vs. Barabbas was correct. If left to themselves, the multitude would surely have chosen Christ; but the priests left nothing to chance, and did a "hard sell" on the multitude. That they were able to succeed in such a task was due to the general reverence and respect in which they were held. They had enough influence to accomplish their purpose. Thus, the fourth effort of Pilate to release Christ was drowned in the roar of the mob, "Give us Barabbas!" "Crucify Jesus!" How irresponsible and unruly is a mob! Let those who hold the view, "Vox populi, vox Dei" behold this case in which the "voice of the people" was the voice of Satan. It was the voice of the people that said to Aaron, "Make us gods to go before us." It was the voice of the people that turned out the garlands and oxen to do sacrifice to Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:11). It was the voice of the people that shouted "Hosanna to the Son of David" on Sunday, and, before the week ended, shouted, "Crucify him! crucify him!" Who o'er the herd would wish to reign? Fantastic, fickle, fierce, and vain, Vain as the leaf upon the stream, And fickle as a changeful dream, Fantastic as a woman's mood, And fierce as frenzy's fevered blood; Thou many headed monster thing, O, who would wish to be thy king?[2] What a triumph of evil in that horrible choice of Barabbas instead of Christ! It was not enough that the Prince of Life be rejected; such was the cunning of the evil one that the Lord's chosen people shouted their preference for a brutal criminal instead. There is a pattern in that perverted choice that extends endlessly through man's spiritual history. Rejection of the truth always results in the acceptance of something else. As Paul said, "They shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (2 Timothy 4:4). When men turn away from Christ, they accept Karl Marx, Mrs. Eddy, Joseph Smith, etc. ENDNOTE:[2] Sir Walter Scott, The Lady of the Lake, Canto V, stanza 30. Verse 22 Pilate saith unto them, What then shalt I do into Jesus who is called Christ? They all say, Let him be crucified.Sooner or later, every soul is confronted with the same question, "What then shall I do unto Jesus who is called Christ?" The problem will not go away. The decision cannot be avoided or transferred to another, or endlessly deferred. "What think ye of Christ? Whose son is he?" That question is the moral watershed down which the several streams of eternal life and eternal death move inexorably to the wide seas. Pilate sought to drown his conscience, the plea of his distressed wife, and the proclaimed verdict of innocence, in the cacophony of a hysterical mob; but the decision was his. Even if his mind did not fully grasp it, his lips surely admitted it. "What then shall I do ..." Verse 23 And he said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out exceedingly, saying, Let him be crucified!This was the climax of the trial. None of the hundreds of thousands who ever witnessed the Passion Play at Oberammergau can ever forget the mob scene in which over nine hundred people portray the unreasoning fury of that Jerusalem rabble, shouting for the crucifixion of Christ. It is one thing to read it in the Bible, and a glorious thing; but the real-life drama re-enacted before men's astonished eyes is choking in intensity. It is not difficult to understand how the weakling governor wilted and quailed before such a sadistic onslaught of hatred and cruelty. "In his humiliation, his judgment is taken away" (Acts 8:33). That means that the verdict of his innocence was violently thwarted. Pilate's reference, even at that late stage, to the innocence of Christ was the prod which finally extorted from the Pharisees the REAL REASON for their demanding Christ's execution. It is no credit to the religious hierarchy that they concealed it until the very last moment, for they were loathe to have even the Saviour's death appear in the records upon its true foundation. Thus, at last they spat it out, reluctantly, not because of any sense of honor due the facts, but from a sudden fear that even then Pilate, insisting on Christ's innocence, might not sign the death warrant. John recorded their final compliance with Pilate's demand to know "Why?" "The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God" (John 19:7). The Fifth Effort of Pilate to Release JesusThis answer of the Jews (John 19:7) frightened Pilate, and, moved with fear, Pilate "sought the more to release him" (John 19:11-12). It was no regard to the moral issue of saving an innocent man's life, but out of fear, that the procurator acted; and in the end that same fear would cause him to yield. We are not told exactly what Pilate's efforts were at this point, but his return to Christ with the question, "Whence art thou?" (John 19:10) shows that he was searching and casting about in all directions for a possible way out of his dilemma. The Sixth Effort of Pilate to Release JesusSomewhere during the proceedings of that dark day, Pilate tried another approach. It was possibly a little earlier (John 19:6) that Pilate suggested, in view of their determination to kill Jesus, that they take him without legal process and crucify him. This would appear as an implied offer to look the other way if the priests decided to take the law into their own hands. The Jews, however, would not settle for half a loaf. Pilate had consented to the deed in principle, and they were determined to force his hand to the signature. The detestable manner in which they did it is recorded by John, "The Jews cried out, saying, If thou release this man, thou art not Caesar's friend: every one that maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar!" (John 19:12-13). That was the shaft that did it, as far as Pilate was concerned. He would as readily have crucified a hundred innocent men if, in so doing, he had thought to strengthen his position with Caesar. Summarizing the efforts of Pilate to release Jesus, it is observed that: 1. Pilate sent him to Herod Antipas. 2. He gave a verdict of innocence. 3. He offered to substitute a lighter punishment. 4. He proposed a choice between Christ and Barabbas. 5. He insisted on Jesus' innocence: "Why, what evil hath he done?" 6. He suggested that they take him and mob him. 7. He still sought to release him. Yet after all that, when the cunning enemies of Jesus injected the question of Pilate's loyalty to Caesar, he capitulated. Verse 24 So when Pilate saw that he prevailed nothing, but rather that a tumult was arising, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man, see ye to it.Dramatic as that gesture was, it was meaningless. It was still Pilate's hand that must sign the death warrant, washing or no washing. Robertson said: Pilate, of course, could not escape the full legal and moral responsibility for his cowardly surrender to the Sanhedrin. The guilt of the Sanhedrin (both Pharisees and Sadducees unite in the demand for the blood of Jesus) is beyond dispute. It is impossible to make a mere political issue out of it and lay the blame on the Sadducees, who feared a revolution. The Pharisees began the attacks on Jesus on theological and ecclesiastical grounds. The Sadducees later joined the conspiracy against Christ. Judas was a mere tool of the Sanhedrin, who had his resentments and grievances to avenge. There is guilt enough for all the plotters in the greatest wrong of the ages.[3] Futile as Pilate's gesture was, it served the Christian gospel by reaffirming the righteousness and innocence of Christ. Thus, God caused the wrath of man to praise him (Psalms 76:10). ENDNOTE:[3] A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1922), p. 225. Verse 25 And all the people answered and said, His blood be on us and our children.This evil prayer was answered; thus people receive what they ask. All the subsequent sorrows that came upon Israel were then and there invoked by a multitude that included the highest official representatives of the nation. Of all rash things, the rashest is a rash prayer; nor was this the first time that Israel had prayed and received the answer of so rash a petition. Their ancestors had cried in the wilderness, "Would God we had died in the wilderness" (Numbers 14:2). Of course, that is exactly what that generation did; they died in the wilderness. A similar thing happened when Rachel prayed, "Give me children, or I die? (Genesis 30:1). She died in childbirth when Benjamin was born. The petition recorded here, "His blood be on us and our children," was also answered in the most dramatic and overwhelming manner when, according to Josephus, 30,000 young Hebrew men were crucified upon the walls of Jerusalem by the soldiers of Titus when the city fell during the summer of A.D. 70; but the full tragedy of that tragic prayer and its tragic aftermath shall never be known until eternity. Through the long centuries, the persecutions, blood-purges, and pogroms directed against Israel must surely be classed among the most astonishing social phenomena ever known; and it is not too much to say that all of them head up to a single fountain in this awful prayer. Verse 26 Then released he unto them Barabbas; but Jesus he scourged and delivered to be crucified.Scourging was a part of execution by the cross. It came in fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah (Isaiah 53:5), but it may be supposed that Pilate did not know that every stripe laid upon our Lord by the scourge was a fulfillment of the word of God. The connection between chastisement and crucifixion is not often stressed, but there still exist inhumane examples of chastisement as a prelude to execution in unchristian nations. Dr. George S. Benson, long-time president of Harding College, related how he witnessed an execution in China, where he served as a missionary. A young man was caught stealing and condemned to be beheaded. He pleaded that he did not want to die, but the cruel authority said, "Just wait, you will want to die in a few minutes!" Then they stripped him, lashed him to a tree, and beat the very flesh off his bones, knocking out his eyes and his teeth; and then, to the question, "Do you now want to die?" the unfortunate meekly nodded assent, and a moment later his head rolled in the dust. The Roman chastisement, though not as brutal as that described by Dr. Benson, was nevertheless something terrible, and it was not an unusual thing for men to die under the scourge, hence the limitation to "forty stripes, save one" as frequently mentioned in the New Testament. Verse 27 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the Praetorium, and gathered unto him the whole band. And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe.THE MOCKERYThis appears to have been a customary sport allowed the soldiery at the expense of any condemned man. Herod's soldiers took similar liberties (Luke 23:11); and a person referred to them as a pretender to regal honors would have been an especially attractive object of such a sadistic sport as that which then engaged Pilate's soldiers. The place of the mockery was the Praetorium, so named from the barracks of the emperor's personal guard in Rome, being presumably, therefore, the common hall where the soldiers held their drill and other exercises, adjacent to the governor's residence and perhaps a part of it. The "scarlet robe" mentioned in this place was called "purple" by Mark (Mark 15:17). Perhaps part of the garments placed upon him in derision were purple, the whole attire being topped off with a scarlet robe; for it is significant that Mark does not actually refer to the robe as purple, but to his clothing. However, there is another possibility which is even more attractive to this writer, and that is that the robe had both colors, and possibly even a third. This presumption derives from the following: Christ's flesh was symbolized by the veil of the temple which hung just in front of the Holy of Holies. Now that veil, as described in Exodus 26:31, had three colors, blue, purple, and scarlet. Those three colors appropriately symbolize the heavenly nature of Christ (in the blue), the earthly nature (in the scarlet), and the perfect blending of the divine and human in Christ (in the purple). How appropriate that during the dark drama of the crucifixion Christ should have worn the very colors of the symbolical veil. It is through the veil that is to say his flesh, that the new and living way is opened up (Hebrews 10:19-22, which see). In view of this, one cannot resist the speculation that the robe was probably three colors, blue and scarlet, with a commingling blue and scarlet to form purple in the center, after the manner of the veil of the ancient tabernacle. Certainly two of those colors are mentioned; and, had another one of the gospels mentioned it, the color might have been blue! Far from being a contradiction, the New Testament mention of two different colors opens a wide vista in which men may see Christ, throughout his passion, wearing the very colors (and surely TWO of them) of that veil which is called his flesh (Hebrews 10:20). Verse 29 And they platted a crown of thorns and put it upon his head, and a reed in his right; and they kneeled down before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews!Who but Satan himself could have sent a soldier scurrying about to prick his own hands on a thorn bush and weave such a crown for Christ? More than mortal hatred is evident in the cunning malignity of that diabolical animus which overflowed against Christ during his passion. The kneeling, and mocking salute, "Hail, King of the Jews? have lost none of their repulsiveness, though nearly two thousand years have intervened. There is more in this than the sport of soldiers accustomed to seeing men suffer. The knee bent not in sincerity, the glib salutes, proper as to form but damnable in their intention - all these things somehow ring a bell in our own hearts. Have we ever bent the knee but not in worship; have we never called him Lord, Lord, yet failed to keep his word? Why the admonition from an apostle that men should "sing with the understanding" and "pray with the understanding"? Is it not a common practice that Christ's disciples repeat the mockery of Pilate's soldiers, not of his physical person, to be sure, but of his spiritual body? As to the kind of thorns used, we may safely leave that to the people who have "discovered" a hundred kinds of trees on which Christ was crucified, ranging from the dogwood with the nail-scarred petals to the quaking aspen tree, "quaking for the deed that was done"! Christ will appear in glory, crowned "with many diadems" (Revelation 19:12), crowns of everlasting life, everlasting glory, all authority in heaven and on earth; but for mortals redeemed from sin, there will always be something especially poignant and emotionally quickening in this instance of his wearing that tragic emblem of man's shame, the thorn crown. Verse 30 And they spat upon him, and took the reed and smote him upon the head.What an avalanche of shame and brutal treatment descended upon our Lord in those dark hours of his humiliation! Prophecies were being fulfilled every passing minute. "We did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted" (Isaiah 53:4). Yes, it was God who did this, in the sense that he allowed it. God and Christ were the architects of this awful event in which his soul was poured out as an offering for sin. Evil men had a part in it, but the cross must not be viewed as something in which Satan partly blocked and frustrated the will of God. Far from it! The cross was the occasion when Christ did indeed bruise the head of Satan forever; or at least he did there begin to do so, a beginning which will be brought to fruition when Satan is finally overthrown in eternal punishment. If the sorrows and humiliation and agony heaped upon Christ on the cross must be viewed as merely the bruising of "his heel" (Genesis 3:15), how totally beyond human comprehension will be Satan's final overthrow? Verse 31 And when they had mocked him, they took off from him the robe, and put on him his garments, and led him away to crucify him.Alfred Plummer noted that in Mark's account of this event, the "they" who mocked him were not the same as the "they" who led him away, a conclusion based on a change of the tense.[4] A special detail of soldiers, commanded by a centurion, took over the bloody and terrible business of crucifying Christ and the two robbers condemned along with him. Perhaps the "purple" or "scarlet" robe, having fulfilled its purpose, was returned to its owner; and Christ, clad in his own garments, went to the cross. Those garments included the "seamless robe," different from the colored one; and it was upon that that the soldiers cast lots. ENDNOTE:[4] Alfred Plummer, Commentary on Matthew (London: Elliot Stock, 1909), p. 393. Verse 32 And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to go with them, that he might bear his cross.Executions inside the city were forbidden (Numbers 15:35; 1 Kings 21:13; Acts 7:58; Hebrews 13:12). The necessity for having someone bear Jesus' cross probably derived from his fainting from physical weakness induced by the scourging and long previous night of brutal abuse. Luke's detail that Simon was coming out of Cyrene, "out of the country," indicates that it was still only the preparation for the sabbath and that the first day of the Passover had not begun. Although from Africa, Simon's name indicates that he was a Jew. He became a Christian. THE VIA Matthew's gospel gives little of the details connected with the journey to the cross; the pressing of the cross upon Simon and the proffered wine and gall were not the only events which marked that epic procession. Summarizing the details from all the gospels to form a composite gives the following: 1. At first Christ carried the cross himself (John 19:17). 2. After Christ could not bear it, Simon did (Mark 15:21). 3. "Weep for yourselves" was addressed to the company of sorrowing women who followed (Luke 23:27 ff). 4. Two robbers were also in the procession (Luke 23:32). 5. The wine and gall were given as they neared the cross, or perhaps after their arrival there (Mark 15:23). The so-called seven stations of the cross are not given in the New Testament, and much of the tradition surrounding them is unhistorical. Veronica's veil, for example, is not mentioned; and to place any credence in such stories is to "go beyond" the word of the Lord (1 Corinthians 4:6). The expression "via dolorosa," however, is a true description of the tragic journey of our Lord to Golgotha. Yet even in that situation, Christ appears to have been thinking of the overwhelming sorrow that should come upon the daughters of Jerusalem as a result of his crucifixion (Luke 23:26-31). His own sufferings were likened to "the green tree," theirs to "the dry." Verse 33 And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, The place of a skull, they gave him wine to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted it, he would not drink.Dummelow and others view the traditional site of the crucifixion, now marked by the church of the Holy Sepulchre, as possibly the true one, thinking it to have been beyond the ancient walls but now within the walls of the city. The name Golgotha, the place of a skull, however, favors another location: the rocky eminence northwest of the city, an extension of the Temple hill. It is rounded, with large holes, making it resemble a skull when viewed from certain positions. Also, John A. Broadus emphatically disputes the traditional Holy Sepulchre site on the basis that it most certainly does lie within the wall of the ancient city. Of course, it cannot now be determined absolutely WHERE our Lord suffered, except that it was beyond the gates of the ancient Jerusalem, and relatively near the city. The wine (and gall) was a potion designed to deaden the sensibilities of condemned men and to alleviate some of the suffering. Much questioning has arisen over the Lord's tasting, and then refusing to drink. Did he not know, without tasting, what was in the cup? It appears that in the depths of his humiliation, Christ did not choose to know everything, although he could have done so, especially with regard to those things that could so easily be determined by human investigation. Why did he reject it? Surely not because he wanted to suffer as much as possible, else he would not have tasted it at all. More probably, the tasting revealed that the concoction contained wine, and it has already been noted why he refused wine (see on Matthew 26:29). Though not related, that drink could have been proffered from the hands of a certain group in Jerusalem who customarily showed mercy by such acts on behalf of condemned men. Another possibility, regarding the wine and gall, is that Christ tasted it in fulfillment of the prophecy: "They gave me also gall for my food; and in my thirst, they gave me vinegar to drink" (Psalms 69:21). Christ's tasting the drink thus constituted a most accurate fulfillment of the prophecy; and one may well believe it was for that reason he tasted it, although he already knew what was in it. Surely he who knew men's very thoughts (Luke 6:8; Luke 11:17) also knew what was in the cup, or at least could have known if he had so desired. This view has the advantage of consistency with the Saviour's unfailing respect for the fulfillment of the Scriptures. Verse 35 And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments among them, casting lots.These words point to a remarkable fulfillment of Psa 22:18 which reads, "They part my garments among them, and upon my vesture do they cast lots." Again, it was the enemies of the Lord who fulfilled the prophecy. See more on the prophecies under Matthew 27:46. Verse 36 And they sat and watched him there.Throughout the ages these words, so richly suggestive, have made a profound impression on men's minds. And sitting down, they watched him there, The soldiers did; There, while they played with dice, He made his sacrifice, And died upon the Cross to Rid God's world of sin. He was a gambler too, my Christ, He took his life and threw It for a world redeemed. And ere his agony was done, Before the westering sun went down, Crowning that day with its crimson crown, He knew that he had won![5] The indifference and oblivious insensibility of his executioners to the magnitude of the deed in which they were incidental participants staggers the imagination. This is a fair example of the attitude of all men who live and die as if Christ had not died for their sins. ENDNOTE:[5] G. A. Studdart-Kennedy, The Questing Spirit, poem (New York: Coward-McCann, Inc., 1947), p. 374. Verse 37 And they set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.In the extensive literature regarding the monumental things of this chapter, one often finds references to the inscription over Jesus' head, as recorded variously in the four gospels, to the effect that they are "different," "various," or even "contradictory"! Thus, Plummer said, "No two gospels agree as to the wording of the title on the cross ..." [6] But let any impartial reader read for himself: Matthew: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS Mark: THE KING OF THE JEWS Luke: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS John: JESUS OF THE KING OF THE JEWS THIS IS JESUS OF THE KING OF THE JEWSNow, let four independent witnesses quote the first line of the Declaration of Independence, and see the result! Each of the gospels quoted exactly from the inscription, although none of them gave all of it. This remarkable case proves, not discrepancy, but independence of the narrators. It was the custom of those days that the accusation under which men were condemned should, in every case, be posted above their heads; and under the circumstances, the inscription posted by Pilate amounted to a sadistic jest. The Jews, having been so solicitous for Pilate's loyalty to Caesar, were treated to an exhibition of the governor's LOYALTY that went far beyond what any of the Jews could have appreciated, Crucifying the "King of the Jews"! - that was going much too far. Ever and always it is the same story, over and over, of the wrath of man praising God (Psalms 76:10). Jesus was indeed the true King of Israel, but Pilate's title to that effect posted on the cross outraged them (John 19:19-22). CHRIST UPON THE CROSSMost gospel harmonies place the facts of the inscription in the section of Christ's time on the cross, but it is the view here that the superscription was affixed by Pilate before the crucifixion and at the time the cross was prepared. The gospels, however, mention it only after it became visible to all and the priests tried to get it altered or removed. A truly chronological sequence of all the events connected with the crucifixion is difficult, and certainly Matthew's topical arrangement is not always chronological; but the commonly accepted order of events is followed here, since the exact chronological sequence is of slight consequence in many of the events recorded. During the hours ending at noon, the following events took place: 1. The first three of the seven utterances of Christ were spoken: (1) "Father forgive them"; (2) "Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise"; and (3) "Woman, behold thy son, behold thy mother" (John 19:26-27; Luke 23:34; Luke 23:43). 2. The chief priests tried to get Pilate to change the inscription. 3. The soldiers gambled for the Lord's garments. 4. The derision and scoffing by the Sanhedrin, the multitude, the soldiers, and the robbers. Of these events, Matthew emphasized the derision and scoffing, possibly because his gospel was written from the Jewish viewpoint with strong attention focused upon the fulfillment of prophecy which, in the case of the scoffing, pinpointed the very words used. Due to the importance of the "seven words" and their widespread use in the homiletics of all religious groups, a more detailed consideration of them is given at the end of this chapter. The futile efforts of the priests to get Pilate to change the superscription, as detailed by John 19:20-22, means that Pilate had struck home with that device, which had exactly the effect he probably intended. The Jews were certainly embarrassed by it, especially since the crucifixion took place where countless numbers of the Passover throngs could see it, as they were going to or coming from the city. The dignity of those who bore the complaint to Pilate indicates the discomfiture the superscription caused the Jews. Thus, so early in the history of their crime, they wanted to change the script of the dark drama they had so rashly written; but, beginning with Pilate, there would be no fellow-conspirators to help them change it. "What I have written I have written!" was the definite and final ruling of the governor. To be sure, there comes a time when such is true for all. It was true of Israel. What they had done was done and could not be undone. Over against every evil deed there finally appears the finality of "What I have written I have written." The chief priests were suddenly left out in the cold with their deeds. They could no longer bend a weak and vacillating governor to their evil will. The great crime so tragically accomplished before the eyes of all generations was at that point forever beyond their slightest control. That very day, history hardened around the deed of infamy, leaving it petrified and frozen in all its ugly details and to be studied and analyzed by millions of men for thousands of years afterwards. ENDNOTE:[6] Alfred Plummer, op. cit., p. 396. Verse 38Then are there crucified with him two robbers, one on the right hand and one on the left.Broadus supposed that these two robbers were comrades of Barabbas who would have been here between them had not Jesus taken his place. Our Lord had said the night before, "This that is written must yet be fulfilled on me, and he was reckoned among the transgressors" (Luke 23:37; Isaiah 53:12). This was substantially fulfilled by punishing him as if for transgression, but all the more strikingly by associating him with actual transgressors.[7] Another remarkable prophecy relative to these events is Isaiah 53:9, "They made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death" (RSV). In the prophecy the term "wicked" is plural, there being two robbers, while the expression "rich man" is singular, there being only one Joseph of Arimathea to provide the grave. On the designation of those crucified with Jesus as "thieves" rather than robbers, a distinction noted between the King James and the Revised Version, it is clear that the correct term is "robber." The prevalence of the term "thief" which imputes some smaller measure of guilt, however, has done little harm, especially since Barabbas, as the leader of the group, would have been held more guilty anyway. ENDNOTE:[7] John A. Broadus, Commentary on the New Testament (Philadelphia: The American Baptist Publishing Society, 1886), Vol. I, p. 571. Verse 39And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself: if thou art the Son of God, come down from the cross. An accurate description of this railing was given in Psalms 22:1-31. For a more detailed analysis of that Psalm and its prophecy of the crucifixion see at the end of this chapter under the fourth word, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Christ would soon do the thing they suggested, "raise up the temple (of his body) in three days. John 2:21 records the words of Christ who referred to his body as the true temple. It was a garbled distortion of those words that featured in the suborned testimony during the trial. Verse 41In like manner also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, He saved others; himself he cannot save. He is the King of Israel; let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe on him. History scarcely affords another such astonishing example of brutal and unfeeling inhumanity on the part of the judges toward the condemned. The shameful behavior of the rulers of Israel in this instance has no parallel or precedent. Their blasphemous quotations from the sacred Scriptures, being then and there fulfilled before their very eyes, only emphasize the moral blackout of their nobler natures. The taunting promise that they would believe on him if he then came down from the cross was, of course, a lie. They would have done no such thing. As a matter of fact, Christ did a more marvelous thing three days later by coming forth from the tomb, though they had it sealed and guarded, and yet they did not believe on him even after that. It was the glory of Christ that although he saved others, himself he could not save. Verse 43He trusteth on God; let him deliver him now, if he desireth him: for he said, I am the Son of God. And the robbers also that were crucified with him cast upon him the same reproach. This entire passage in Matthew is oriented to Psalms 22:1-31 (see more on this under Matthew 27:46). It was only natural that the robbers should have joined in the railing; but later, one of them rose to immortality by recognizing Jesus as Lord and asking his remembrance. THE SECOND THREE HOURSThe first three hours on the cross had belonged to Jesus' enemies, but the last three, in a very wonderful sense, belonged to Christ. It was in this period that there began a most astounding series of wonders, called the Six Calvary Miracles. The sun's light failed, darkness descended upon the earth, and the remaining four words of the "Seven Utterances" were spoken by Jesus. The centurion in charge of the execution confessed him; there was an earthquake; the graves of the righteous were opened; the veil of the temple was rent in twain; and Christ died! Matthew's account of the six miracles is by far the fullest, although he gave very slight notice of the undisturbed grave clothes. These six supporting wonders that clustered around the greater wonder of Christ's resurrection are not usually stressed by commentators, and yet they richly deserve the minutest and most reverential observance. They constitute, in fact, a strong supporting fabric woven around the greater miracle of the resurrection which they were designed to confirm. They are somewhat of a supernatural matrix in which there lies embedded the true jewel of the supernatural Christ. This writer views those secondary wonders as so important that a special section is devoted to them under the heading "Phenomena Attending the Crucifixion and Resurrection" (see under Matthew 27:51). Verse 45 Now from the sixth hour, there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour.From noon until three o'clock in the afternoon; there was darkness everywhere. It was not mere eclipse, lasting far too long for that; it was not a dust storm, mist or fog; Luke added the words that the "sun's light failed." The gospels, therefore, clearly intended this wonder to be viewed as altogether supernatural (see more on this under Matthew 27:51). Verse 46 And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? and some of them that stood there, when they heard it, said, This man calleth Elijah. And straightway one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.The inconsistency in supposing that Elijah's Lord would call upon him for aid only indicates the utter failure of the Pharisees to see in Christ the true Son of God. They were aware, of course, of Jesus' claim to be the Son of God (see Matthew 27:40; Matthew 27:43), but they rejected it out of hand. Incidentally, their quotation of Jesus' claim, as witnessed in Matthew 27:40 and Matthew 27:43, shows conclusively that Christ made that claim in its highest, that is, its supernatural sense. The "Son of God," as Jesus claimed to be, was thought by the Pharisees to be capable of coming down from the cross, and in that they were right. He was capable of it, but it was not his will to do so. Note too that even at that late hour the Pharisees still did not know that John the Baptist was "that Elijah which was to come." On Christ's receiving the vinegar, see under Matthew 27:34. In this instance it must be viewed as an act of mercy, prompted by his saying, "I thirst." Verse 49 And the rest said, Let be; let us see whether Elijah cometh to save him.All this talk of Elijah sprang from Pharisaical prejudice and the propaganda they had waged, alleging that Jesus could not be the Christ "because Elijah had not yet come." Theirs was a misinterpretation of the prophecy that "Elijah must first come." Christ had already identified John the Baptist as that Elijah which was to come - the Elijah foretold by the prophecies. Doubtless the Pharisees were still harping on their old argument to the effect that Christ could not be the Messiah (see under Matthew 17:10-13). Verse 50 And Jesus cried again with a loud voice, and yielded up his spirit.Matthew stressed the fact that Jesus submitted to death by personal surrender, as an act of his own volition, and well ahead of the time it could have been naturally expected. The words, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit," are given by Luke; Matthew gave scant attention to the "seven utterances." The time of the Master's death was three o'clock in the afternoon on the day of preparation for the Passover, making it occur on the afternoon, before sunset, when the actual Passover legally began. Matthew 27:51-53 relate to the Six Wonders of Calvary which received considerable attention in Matthew's gospel and which are of such surpassing interest that a special study of them is here included. THE THE AND There are actually seven Calvary miracles, the greatest and most wonderful, of course, being the resurrection of Christ. Attending that prime wonder of all ages were six others, truly wonderful in themselves, and designed to support and confirm the greater miracle they attended. These were: The Three Hours of Darkness The Ripping of the Curtain (Veil) The Earthquake The Opening of the Graves The Undisturbed Grave Clothes The Resurrection of the Saints THE THREE HOURS OF "And it was now about the sixth hour, and a darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, the sun's light failing" (Luke 23:44-45). Both in Luke's words and in those of Matthew (Matthew 27:45), the Greek word for "earth" is used, indicating a far greater extent of the darkness than could have been the case with any local phenomenon. This could not have been an eclipse, because: (1) it came at Passover, always held at the time of the full moon when an eclipse is impossible, and (2) it was too long in duration, lasting three hours, as contrasted with the very longest of eclipses which last less than an hour, and usually only a very few minutes. Nicholson observed that "It was not such a darkness as sometimes precedes an earthquake, like that of Naples in 79, when Vesuvius became a volcano."[8] The reason for this darkness was "the sun's light failing" (Luke 23:45). The sun itself is but a vast nuclear fire, a sustained and continuing reaction, in which the sun's mass is being reduced at a rate of "four million tons per second.[9] That, of course, is over fourteen billion tons an hour! God halted the reaction for three hours during the crucifixion. Appropriately, while the Sun of Righteousness was suffering humiliation and death, the literal sun refused to shine. The Christian does not need the corroboration of independent witnesses, but in the case of this darkness it is available. Tertullian said: In the same hour too, the light of day was withdrawn, when the sun at the very time was in his meridian blaze. Those who were not aware that this had been predicted about Christ, no doubt thought it an eclipse. You yourselves have the account of the world portent still in your archives![10] In that quotation, Tertullian appealed to Proculus, a Roman senator; and it is certain Tertullian would not have made such an appeal to Roman records if it had not been true. Pontius Pilate sent the following report to Tiberius, emperor of Rome: And when he had been crucified, there was darkness over the whole earth, the sun having been completely hidden, and the heaven appearing dark, so that the stars appeared, but had at the same time their brightness darkened, as I suppose your reverence is not ignorant of, because in all the world they lighted lamps from the sixth hour until evening. And the moon, being like blood, did not shine the whole night, and yet she happened to be at the full.[11] From these two quotations, to which many others might be added, it is plain that one of the strong arguments used by early Christians in urging the truth of the gospel was their appeal, again and again, to persons in highest authority, to whom they invariably imputed the universal knowledge that such a wonder had indeed occurred. This manifestation of God's power should cause the soul to tremble. Only the true God and Creator of the universe could step forth and lay his hand upon the established routine of the natural creation and bring to pass such a darkness as that which enveloped the world during three full hours of the crucifixion. Why did God do it? It was a singular witness to the power and godhead of him who was crucified. It was a signal that even the most brutal and depraved could understand. The sneers and jibes of the mockers froze on their evil faces at the onset of that supernatural gloom; and as the somber hours dragged on, the awful fact must have occurred to many that, for all any of them knew, the sun would never shine again! That awe-inspiring darkness was God's seal upon the truth of the Lord Jesus Christ's identity and mission upon earth. It was a sign of God's personal presence in the crucifixion. "Thick darkness was under his feet" (Psalms 18:9). Light is also used as a symbol of God's presence (James 1:17); but THIS darkness was also such a symbol, because God was the only possible source of it. The darkness symbolized the magnitude and effect of Jesus' sufferings. It clothed the Saviour's humiliation with decent privacy. No man could have gone home that night and said, "I saw the whole thing." That darkness also marked the summary end of the sabbath day. Amos 8:9; Isaiah 13:10; Jeremiah 15:9 and Micah 3:6 are Old Testament Scriptures bearing on this significant truth. That was the day the sun "went down at noon, and the earth was darkened in a clear sky," as Amos prophesied. That termination also extended to the dispensation of the prophets and the entire religious economy of the Jews. It was likewise a fitting symbol of God's wrath upon all who reject the world's only Redeemer. [8] William R. Nicholson, The Calvary Miracles (Chicago: Moody Press, 1928), p. 6. [9] Herbert Friedman, "Our Life-Giving Star, the Sun" (Washington, D.C., The National Geographic Magazine, Vol. 128, No. 5, November, 1965), p. 720. [10] Tertullian, Apology in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1957), Vol. III, p. 35. [11] Pontius Pilate, To Tiberius in Ibid., Vol. III, p. 463. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 27:2 They bound him which was unnecessary as far as security of the prisoner was concerned, for Jesus had not given any indication of even wishing to escape. But it was customary to put some kind of shackle on a man who was a prisoner, and the feeling of this mob was such that it would certainly not make any exception of Jesus. Pilate the governor was an officer appointed by the Romans to represent the empire in parts of Palestine. His presence in Jerusalem at this time, and also some other useful information will be explained by a quotation from Smith's Bible Dictionary. "He was appointed A. D. 25-6, in the twelfth year of Tiberius. His arbitrary administration nearly drove the Jews to insurrection on two or three occasions. One of the first acts was to remove the headquarters of the army from Caesarea to Jerusalem.... It was the custom for the procurator [governor or agent] to reside at Jerusalem during the great feasts, to preserve order, and accordingly, at the time of our Lord's last Passover, Pilate was occupying his official residence in Herod's palace. Caesarea was the official headquarters for the Roman government in Palestine, which accounts for the mention of Pilate's temporary presence in Jerusalem at this time. 27:3 Condemn is a legal and judicial term as used in this place. Thayer defines the original, "To give judgment against one, to judge worthy of punishment, to condemn." The word is stronger than a mere accusation and means that the case had been decided officially against Jesus and that no way could be used for him to escape death. Judas had not expected this to happen; see the comments on this subject at chapter 26:48. The pronouns are to be understood as follows: "When he [Judas] saw that he [Jesus] was condemned." Repented himself does not mean that Judas had repented in the sense of "repentance unto salvation" (2 Corinthians 7:10), for in that case his conduct afterward would have been righteous. Instead, it means he reversed the money part of the transaction by returning the pieces of silver. 27:4 Judas knew from the start that Jesus was innocent, but expected him to resort to his miraculous power to escape from the hands of the mob. He had a guilty conscience but it was overruled by the effect of his disappointment so that he did not have the moral courage to do the right thing. What is that to us means they were not concerned about the affairs of his conscience. 27:5 Casting the pieces of silver down in the temple indicated that Judas was offering the money to the sacred service as "conscience money." 27:6 The priests understood the purpose of Judas to be that the money was to be put into the treasury. They pretended to have great respect for the sacredness of the temple, notwithstanding they had treated the one who was "greater than the temple" (chapter 12:6) with the deepest disrespect. 27:7 Potter's field. After all the clay suitable for the making of pottery has been taken from a field, the land is of little use and hence very cheap commercially. A plot of such land was bought with this money and devoted to the burying of strangers or persons unknown to the community. From this circumstance comes the name "potter's field" today, a portion of cemetery grounds where poor people may bury their dead. free of charge for the ground. 27:8 The field of blood was so called because it was purchased with the money that had been paid to Judas for his betrayal of Jesus. The priests had called it the price of blood (verse 6), and thought it was not fitting to put such "tainted money" into the treasury of the temple. 27:9 Was spoken by Jeremy [Jeremiah] the prophet. This prophecy is actually in the book of Zechariah, chapter 11:13. Various explanations have been offered for this apparent contradiction, but I consider the most reasonable one to be that which is based on the outstanding prominence of Jeremiah. He was so highly respected that he was looked upon as a sort of "dean of prophets," and hence the prophecy was accredited to him in a complimentary or honorary sense. 7:10 Lord appointed me. The first person of the pronoun is used because the passage represents Christ as the speaker, and the Lord would be the Father who had appointed him to suffer this shame. 7:11 Thou sayest is equivalent to giving an affirmative answer. This conversation is referred to by Paul in 1 Timothy 6:13 in which it is called "a good confession." This indicates that the confession required of men may be made in any form of speech that amounts to such a profession of faith. 7:12 He answereth nothing. This fulfilled Isaiah 53:7, "As a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth." 3-14 Pilate was surprised at the silence of Juses in the face of accusations made by the chief priests. This was the same thing that happened in the presence of the high priest (Matthew 26:62). 7:15 Governor was wont to release means it was customary for him to do so. The feast of the pass-over was celebrated on the part of the civil powers by releasing a prisoner. There is little or no information available today as to when or how the custom started. Selection of the one to be favored was left to the. voice of the people or unofficial crowd, not to the chief priests or other officers. 7:16 They means the people who had this prisoner in confinement for the security of the public. He is said to have been a notable prisoner. Thayer says this word means "notorious, infamous" [of bad report]. This bad name is explained in Mark 15:7 which says he had committed murder and insurrection in connection with others. 7:17 All of the pronouns in this verse refer to the people, described in verse 15. Since they were the ones who must name the prisoner to be released, it was necessary for Pilate to ask them this question. Barabbas or Jesus. Pilate believed that Jesus was innocent of the accusations being made against him, but he was powerless to make any decision in the matter. However, as a suggestion which he thought would influence the crowd in their decision, he named Barabbas and Jesus. This prisoner was such a wicked character that surely they would not want him turned loose upon society. He thought they would reason that "of two evils it is better to choose the lesser." If they would do this it would result in the discharge of Jesus without any responsibility on his (Pilate's) part. It is possible they would have done as Pilate expected had it not been for the fact that will be explained at verse 20. 7:18 They in this verse means the chief priests (Mark 15:10) who had been responsible for the arrest of Jesus. Since that was the case Pilate thought the people would not be so prejudiced against him and would certainly vote in favor of his release rather than such a dangerous character as Barabbas. 7:19 There is nothing to indicate this to have been a miraculous dream. It is natural for the exciting events occurring in one's presence to make an impression on the mind, and that in turn would cause dreams to come in sleep. The innocence of Jesus was so evident that even this pagan wife of the governor was concerned about what might come to her husband if he should have any part in persecuting such a just man. 7:20 While Pilate was waiting for the decision of the crowd, the chief priests and elders were busy among them, using their persuasive powers to influence the decision. They were not permitted to have any public voice in the selection, hence they accomplished their wicked purpose by working on the people who did have such a voice. 7:21 Pilate repeated his question to the people. Acting upon the influence of the chief priests and elders, the crowd named Barabbas as the one to be released. 7:22 If such a notorious criminal as Barabbas was to be given his freedom, surely as just a man as Jesus would not be dealt with very severely, hence the somewhat challenging question was asked as to what should be done with the man who was called Christ. Their answer that he was to be crucified, was to carry out the sentence imposed by the Sanhedrin but which it did not have the authority to execute. 7:23 There is nothing in the text that indicates any knowledge on the part of Pilate as to the charge upon which Jesus had been brought into his court. It is true the crowd accused him of perverting the nation (Luke 23:2), but that was not any authoritative testimony for it was made by this mob at the moment. According to Matthew 26:64-66 the point at which the Sanhedrin voted Jesus guilty was when he claimed to be the Son of God. Pilate, however, did not know anything about that (as far as we know), hence it was logical for him to ask the crowd the question stated. They refused to answer Pilate's question although they knew the pretense the Sanhedrin used in rendering its verdict. But they also knew that such a decision would not have much weight in a secular court, hence they ignored the question of the governor and repeated their wicked demand instead. 7:24 Although Pilate was a Roman official, he was somewhat acquainted with the Jewish history because of the frequent appearances of the leading men of that nation in Roman affairs. In Deuteronomy 21 is a provision in the law to dispose formally of a case of death for which it was not known who was responsible. The elders of the city nearest the body that was found were technically held to be guilty, or at least to have guilty knowledge thereof. The Lord knew that in some cases this would be unjust toward innocent persons, so a ceremony was ordained that included the washing of the hands which settled the case and cleared them of all responsibility. Pilate thought he could use that ceremony and thus avoid all responsibility for the death of Jesus. He failed to consider, however, that the Mosaic ceremony was in force only in cases where the elders actually were innocent or did not know anything about the case, while Pilate did have knowledge of the merits of the case and even had pronounced Jesus not guilty (Luke 23:4). He therefore could not escape responsibility by this misuse of the law intended only for the protection of the innocent. 7:25 The people understood from this performance of Pilate that he was hesitating because of a conscientious regard for the possible results of turning Jesus over to crucifixion. In order to remove that obstacle and secure the desired decree, they uttered the awful statement, His blood be on us, and on our children. This rash sentence proved to be a prediction that was fulfilled forty years later. In the year 70 A. D. the city of Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans and the Jewish people suffered untold miseries in the siege. That event was a part of the Roman military strategy, but God caused it to come upon the Jews because they had slain His own Son. 7:26 It was a custom with the Romans to scourge a prisoner who was to be executed. There were various methods of administering this punishment. Luke 23:22 reveals that Pilate proposed to chastice Jesus and let him go. That would have been a compromise with the hopes of pacifying the Jews and yet not being so harsh upon Jesus. But the mob would not accept it, so Pilate followed the cruel practice and scourged Jesus, after which he turned him over to the mob to have him crucified. 7:27 Of course the people of the Jews could not personally perform this execution since they were not officers of the Roman government. That action was to be done by the soldiers, who took the victim into the common hall which the margin correctly renders "governor's house"; here they brought the entire band of soldiers. There was no need for such a military display for Jesus was not showing any disposition to resist. It was done through pomp and to humiliate the doomed man by their show of power. 7:28 They stripped him. This was after Jesus had been scourged, for that operation required that his clothing be removed first according to Smith's Bible Dictionary. This denotes that after the scourging was performed his clothing was replaced upon his wounded body. Scarlet was one of the royal colors of Rome, and the placing of this robe on the body of Jesus after it had been stripped the second time, was in mockery because he had said he was a king. 7:29 The actions of this verse also were done in mockery of the claim of Jesus that he was a king of the Jews. For a crown they used thorns, which comes from the same Greek word as that used in chapter 13:7. Thayer defines the word, "A thorn, bramble-bush, brier." It means something that was not visible at the time the sowing was done, for it was afterward that the thorns "sprang up." The plant used as a mocking as well as a painful article was the kind that could be platted or woven into a crown and then pressed down upon the head of Jesus. Kings usually hold a baton or rod in their hand which was called a scepter when so used, indicating the authority of the throne. For that purpose a reed was placed in his hand in mockery of his claim as king. Smith's Bible Dictionary gives the following information on the reed that grew in Palestine. "A stronger reed, Arundo donax, the true reed of Egypt and Palestine, which grows 8 or 10 feet high, and is thicker than a man's thumb. It has a jointed stalk like a bamboo, and is very abundant on the Nile." There is something very pathetic about this item of the mocking ceremony. The placing of a crown on the head would require only that Jesus would not resist, but to put a reed in his right hand would be possible only by his cooperation, for an object like that would have to be grasped in order for the act to be a success. All of this was in keeping with the prediction of nonresistance that was made in Isaiah 53:7 and Acts 8:32-33. It is fitting that a king would be saluted respectfully in the manner described in this verse, but these wicked men did it in mockery. 7:30 Isaiah 53:3 predicts that Jesus was to be "despised" which means to be treated with contempt or belittled. That was fulfilled when they spit upon him, which was done also when he was in the high priest's house (chapter 26:67). They next took the reed out of his hand and struck him on the head. That indicated that he was to be dispossessed of the authority he claimed to have, and then be punished by the very authority he claimed to represent as king. 7:31 After completing their shameful mockery, they replaced the robe with his own clothing and started the "last mile" of his life toward the place of crucifixion. 7:32 Simon did not "bear the cross alone," but helped Jesus with the burden. See the comments on this subject with the reference cited at chapter 16:24. 7:33 No genuine believer in Christ would wish to lessen the respect that is so universally held for "the scenes of Calvary," yet it should be understood that most of the sentimental expressions on the subject are prompted by the general facts connected with the crucifixion. Even the poetic term "Mount Calvary" is not justified except figuratively as may be seen by the information now to be offered to the reader. Golgotha, rendered "Calvary" in Luke 23:33," is from the Greek word KRANION which Thayer and Robinson define by the simple term "a skull." Smith's Bible Dictionary says the following in an article entitled Golgotha. "The Hebrew name of the spot at which our Lord was crucified. Matthew 27:33; Mark 15:22; John 19:17. By these three evangelists it is interpreted to mean the 'place of a skull.' Two explanations of the name are given: (1) that it was a spot where executions ordinarily took place, and therefore abounded in skulls; or (2) it may come from the look or form of the spot itself, bald, round and skull-like, and therefore a mound or hillock in accordance with the common phrase--for which there is no direct authority --'Mount Calvary.' Whichever of these is correct, Golgotha seems to have been a known spot." In his comments on the word "Calvary," Robert Young, author of the Analytical Concordance to the Bible, says the following: "This name occurs only in Luke 23:33, and is not a proper name, but arises from the translators having literally adopted the word Calvaria (i. e., "a bare skull") the Latin word by which the Greek word is rendered in the Vulgate [a Latin version of the Scriptures]. This Kranion is simply the Greek translation of the Chaldee Golgotha. The place of crucifixion is by each of the four evangelists called Kranion, and is in every case translated Calvaria in the Vulgate, and in every place but that in Luke the English version translates the word by 'scull.' There is no sanction for the expression 'Mount Calvary,' for it is only 18 feet high." 7:34 According to both Smith's Bible Dictionary, and Funk and Wag-nails Standard Bible Dictionary, this gall was made from the poppy plant which grew in abundance in Palestine. That, combined with the vinegar which would be somewhat alcoholic, composed a stupifying product that would act as an easement from pain. Jesus would not drink it because he was not willing to do anything to make his sufferings any less severe. Incidentally, we have an important bit of information as to what the verb "drink" means. The passage says that Jesus "tasted" of the mixture but would not "drink," which shows there is a difference between the two. Christians are commanded to "drink" of the fruit of the vine, not just taste of it. There is no need to consume a regular serving of it as one would to quench thirst, but we are expected to partake of it enough that it can be said we drink and not merely taste as is commonly done. Most churches do not provide enough of the fruit of the vine in the Lord's supper to meet the requirement of the ordinance. 7:35 The crucifixion of Jesus forms so important a part of the plan of human salvation, that I believe the reader should have some information on the manner of performing the act itself. I shall quote a description of it as may be found in Smith's Bible Dictionary. "The one to be crucified was stripped naked of all his clothes, and then followed the most awful moment of all. He was laid down upon the implement of torture. His arms were stretched along the cross-beams, and at the center of the open palms the point of a huge nail was placed, which, by the blow of a mallet, was driven home into the wood. Then through either foot separately, or possibly through both together, as they were placed one over the other, another huge nail tore its way through the quivering flesh. Whether the suf-ferer was also bound to the cross we a not know; but, to prevent the hands and feet being torn away by the weight of the body, which could 'rest upon nothing but four great wounds,' there was, about the centre of the cross, a wooden projection strong enough to support, at least in part, a human body, which soon became a weight of Agony. Then the 'accursed tree' with its living human burden was slowly heaved up and the end fixed firmly in a hole in the ground. The feet were but a little raised above the earth. The victim was in full reach of every hand that might choose to strike. A death by crucifixion seems to include all that pain and death can have of the horrible and ghastly,--dizziness, cramp, thirst, starvation, sleeplessness, traumatic [shock from a wound] fever, tetanus, publicity of shame, long continuance of torment, horror of anticipation, mortification of unattended wounds, all intensified just up to the point at which they can be endured at all, but all stopping just short of the point which would give to the sufferer the relief of unconsciousness. The unnatural position made every movement painful; the lacerated veins and crushed tendons throbbed with incessant anguish; the wounds, inflamed by exposure, gradually gangrened; the arteries, especially of the head and stomach, became swollen and oppressed with surcharged blood; and, while each variety of misery went on gradually increasing, there was added to them the intolerable pang of burning and raging thirst. Such was the death to which Christ was doomed. The crucified was watched, according to custom, by a party of four soldiers, John 19:23, with their centurion, Matthew 27:54, whose express office was to prevent the stealing of the body. This was necessary from the lingering character of the death, which sometimes did not supervene even for three days, and was at last the result of gradual benumbing and starvation. But for this guard, the persons might have been taken down and recovered as was actually done in the case of a friend of Josephus. Fracture of the legs was especially adopted by the Jews to hasten death, John 19:31. In most cases the body was suffered to rot on the cross by the action of sun and rain, or to be devoured by birds and beasts. Sepulture [burial] was generally therefore forbidden; but in consequence of Deu 21:22-23, au express national exception was made in favor of the Jews. Matthew 27:58. This accursed and awful mode of punishment was happily abolished by Constantine." Parted his garments. We learn from the aforesaid quotation that the victim to be crucified was stripped of his clothing before the crucifixion. It was a custom that the soldiers performing the execution should have this raiment as extra pay in addition to their wages as soldiers. According to John 19:23 there were four of them, corresponding to the four parts to be nailed, the two hands and two feet, and hence there would be four parts to be shared by them. Casting lots. Most of the garments were so made that they could be divided into parts without any damage to them. But John 19:23-24 says the coat was made by weaving into one piece without any seams, and therefore it could not be divided without ruining it. Accordingly, the soldiers agreed to decide the question by casting lots for the garment. This action fulfilled the prediction in Psalms 22:18. That it might be fulfilled. The bearing on this kind of phrase is explained in the comments on Matthew 4:14. 7:36 Consult the preceding verse for the reason why they watched him. 7:37 Accusation written. It was a custom of the Romans to place a tablet on the cross over the head of the victim on which was written the accusation for which he was crucified. In the present case the "crime" was that he was Jesus the king of the Jews. According to John's account (John 19:21) the chief priests objected to the wording of this inscription, which will be commented upon at that place. 7:38 The scripture does not tell us the motive of the Romans for crucifying these thieves at this particular time and in the position with Jesus as stated. But we can understand the part the Lord had in it, for it fulfilled a prediction in Isaiah 53:12 that "he was numbered with the transgressors." 7:39 Thayer says this wagging of the head was "expressive of derision." A similar movement is recorded in Job 16:4 and Psalms 109:25. Reviled is a stronger term and comes from the same Greek word as "blaspheme." Thus by the movement of their body and their word of mouth, these cruel people showed their contempt for the Lamb of God who was at that very hour making the supreme sacrifice that creatures like them might have an opportunity of being saved. 7:40 To blaspheme means to speak evil, whether in direct falsehood or otherwise. The preceding verse says they reviled him which means to blaspheme, and the present verse tells us some of the false things they said. Jesus never said he would destroy the temple (John 2:19), hence this was one of the blasphemous falsehoods they uttered against him. IF thou be the Son of God denotes they understood what was the real issue between Jesus and his enemies. It was not about his personal life nor his knowledge, but it was his identity. That is why the devil dwelt on that question in the temptations (chapter 4:3, 6), and why Jesus asked the question stated in chapter 16:13, 15 and 22:42. All the other questions and facts in the life of Christ are important only in so far as they pertain to the fundamental claim that he is God's Son. 7:41 The reproachful sayings in the preceding verse were from the crowd in general. This verse specifies the chief priests and scribes as the ones who were mocking Jesus. They had been against him all through his public work, so it is not surprising that they would join in the mob clamor at this time. 7:42 Saved others refers to the miraculous cures that Jesus did for people. Himself he cannot save means he cannot deliver himself from the cross. This was another falsehood, and it ignored the incident in the garden when Peter thought to defend him against bodily attack (chapter 26:51-54). They professed that they would believe in him if he would come down from the cross. This was a hypocritical claim for Jesus had done many works in their presence that were as great as this would have been, yet they refused to acknowledge him as the Lord. 7:43 Let him deliver him means for God to deliver his Son from the cross. This was as insincere as the statement of the preceding verse. They must have known that God would have the same reason for not interfering with the crucifixion as Jesus had for not resisting it. 7:44 This reproach from the thieves- was as much out of place as any such a thing could be. There was no honorable reason why they were in the difficulty of the hour, for they could have avoided it by the right conduct. But Jesus was so situated from the fact that his conduct was righteous. We are glad that one of them did see the situation in the proper light and so expressed himself. (Luke 23:39-43.) 7:45 The sixth and ninth hours corresponds with our noon and three In the afternoon. This darkness is pre dicted in Joe 2:30-31 and is referred to by Peter in Acts 2:19-20. It seems that nature was draped in mourning during the last hours of this human-divine sacrifice. And to add to the gloom, the Father withdrew his comforting grace so that Jesus made a strong outcry, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" In order that the Son of God might make a complete sacrifice, that he might "pour out his soul unto death" (Isaiah 53:12), he was left unattended in his painful solitude, no soothing hand to calm the nervous agitation with a caressing touch, but, deserted by all his friends and mocked by his enemies, compelled to die for the unjust. 7:46 Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani is from Hebrew words as Jesus uttered them. Then Matthew translates them into Greek, which the translators of King James render in English for us, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken met This bewailing sentence is recorded as a prophecy in Psalms 22:1. 7:47 The Hebrew word that Jesus used is similar in sound to the Greek for Elias, and that misled the bystanders to think he was calling for Elias who had been predicted to come into the world as his forerunner (Malachi 4:5). 7:48 In John 19:28-29 where this part of the event is recorded, Jesus is reported to have said he was thirsty.. Thus in our present verse we are told that a person standing near offered him a drink of vinega (sour wine), serving it with a sponge on .a reed. That was the most convenient way either of serving or receiving it under the circumstances. This was done merely to quench his dying thirst and not as an opiate since it did not have the gall mixed with it which he had refused (verse 34). 7:49 Others, with less sympathy with Jesus in his distress, were willing to let him linger on in pain to see if his friend Elias (as they supposed) would come to his rescue and take him down from the cross. 7:50 When a human being is at the point of death from exhaustion, he is generally unconscious, or if not, he is very weak and would not be expected to make a strong cry. An exception to this would be when the patient is in delirium and hence acting with abnormal energy and without intelligent expression. No part of this description can apply to Jesus at this point. He not only was conscious, but his mind had not entered that stage where it would be acting mechanically, for according to Luke 23:46 this "loud voice" was immediately followed by the all impressive words, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." Our present verse says he yielded up the ghost, which comes from the same Greek word as spirit. So this outcry was evidently the final expression of one who, though ready to die, being "crucified through weakness" (2 Corinthians 13:4), was able by the force of the will to make a triumphant shout as he was ready to leave the scenes of death and go to his Father. 7:51 This veil separated between the holy and most holy rooms in the temple. Through it the high priest went on the day of atonement to offer a service of blood for the sins of the people (Leviticus 16:29-30). Jesus died at the hour that the animal was slain for the sacrifices, and hence it was fitting that this veil be rent at the same time, signifying that the great High Priest was ready to offer himself as a ransom for all. The quaking of the earth and rending of the rocks was God's method of opening the graves, the significance of which will be explained in the next two verses. 7:52. raves were opened. The tombs are meant which were in the form of caves that either were natural or were hewn out of a rock (verse 60), and another stone placed at the entrance to close the burial place. The earthquake loosened these stones and made them roll away thus opening the graves or tombs. A saint is anyone who is devoted to the service of God. These could not have been Christians because the church had not been set up. They were persons from one or all of the following groups of servants of God; those who had lived and died under the Patriarchal or Jewish dispensations, or disciples who had been called by the preaching of John or Christ, and who had died within the three years of their personal ministry. The rising of these saints forms a link in a very important chain of thought, which will be dealt with at Romans 8:29-30. For the present, however, I will state that these saints never died again. 7:53 One thing that is often overlooked in referring to this event, and that is that it was after his resur rection. that the saints arose. That was in order to make Christ the first one to come from the dead to die no more (Acts 13:34; Acts 26:23). Also, it was necessary for it to occur this close to the resurrection of Jesus in order that he could be the first "among many brethren" (Romans 8:29). The holy city means Jerusalem because it was the capital of the Jewish nation in its religious system. 7:54 The centurion and the other watchers were filled with awe by the demonstration. It was. not at the resurrection of anyone for that had not taken place yet. But they saw and felt the shaking of the earth at the same time that Jesus died, and knew that some supernatural power was the cause of it. They were pagans and did not know God as Christians know him, but they did know that Christ claimed to be His son, and the demonstration convinced them that he was what he claimed to be. 7:55 These women were faithful to the last, but with feminine timidity they stood some distance away watching. They had come from the same district where .Jesus was brought up, Galilee, and had served him on various occasions. 7:56 Mary Magdalene was the woman whom Jesus cured of demons (Mark 16:9) Mary the mother of James and Joses was the mother of Jesus (Mark 6:3); the mother of Zebedee's children was the mother of James and John (Mark 10:35). 7:57 Luke 23:50-51 says that Joseph was a counsellor which means that he was a member of the Sanhedrin. That passage states also that he "had not consented to the counsel and deed of them," meaning the Sanhedrin. Decisions of that body were made by the voice of the members (Matthew 26:65-66), and when the case of Jesus was presented, Joseph did not vote with those who condemned him. It should be noted that Joseph was a rich man, also that he was "a good man and a just," and that he was a disciple of Jesus. All of this disproves the teaching of some that a man cannot be a true disciple of Jesus and still be a rich man. It is the trusting in riches that will condemn a man (Mark 10:24; 1 Timothy 6:17-18). But if he will "do good" with his riches he will thereby lay up for himself a good foundation against the time to come, and lay hold upon eternal life. Had Joseph not been a rich man he might not -have been able to purchase the burial place that was used to give the body of Jesus the respect that even any human body deserves, much more that of the Son of God. Another thing, by the fact of this man's being rich it fulfilled the prediction that Christ "made his grave with the rich" (Isaiah 53:9). That same prophecy includes a grave with the wicked which means the people of the world from whom Joseph purchased the place. 7:58 Joseph knew he would have to make special provisions and obtain a legal permit in order to take charge of the Lord's body. As an explanation of that subject I shall quote again a part of the statement from Smith's Bible Dictionary. "In most cases the body was suffered to rot on the cross by the action of sun and rain, or be devoured by birds and beasts. Sepulture [burial] was generally therefore forbidden." The statement that Pilate commanded the body to be delivered shows that a considerable amount of "red tape" was necessary in procuring the body of one who had been crucified. 7:59 Joseph wrapped the body in a winding sheet of clean linen. In the comments at verse 35 it is shown that a person to be crucified was stripped of all his clothing, hence the immediate need for using this linen cloth, for under the circumstances there was no opportunity for getting a burial shroud. 7:60 John 19:38-40 says that Joseph had a helper in this loving service, the man who came to Jesus by night (John 3:1-2). This gives us the information that Nicodemus became friendly with Jesus at least, and was willing not only to assist in the work of burying the Lord, but contributed a substantial amount of valuable products to be used in the burying according to the Jewish manner of such a ceremony. The tomb was hewn out of the rock and might well be compared to the burial chambers that are made in the walls of modern mausolems in the public cemeteries. The body was borne by these two men and laid in this cavity as it would be deposited on a couch. To close it a great stone was rolled up against the opening. 7:61 The other Mary was the mother of Jesus (verse 56). These women found a seat opposite where Jesus was buried and "beheld where he was laid" (Mark 15:47), which explains their concern about the stone when they were coming the day after the sabbath with spices, intending to anoint his body (Mark 16:1-3). 7:62 The day before any holy or sabbath day was called a preparation (Mark 15:42), and this would apply to every holy day, not only the regular weekly sabbath. The day of the passover was a holy day (Leviticus 23:4-5), hence the day before it would be a preparation. The passover came on Friday the 14th, thus it would naturally be a day that followed the day of preparation, and also the day following the crucifixion. On that day the leading Jews came to Pilate with their request. 7:63 The Jews reminded the governor of the claim of Jesus that he would rise from the dead after three days. Yes, Jesus did declare such a thing, and the Jews had no misunderstanding of the words. But when they had a wicked motive prompting them, they perverted them to serve their hypocrisy (chapter 26:61). 7:64 I do not believe these Jews actually feared the disciples would steal the dead body of their Lord; what could they do with it? Besides, they were discouraged and in no mood for trying any rash means of what at best could only have been propaganda that would soon have been exposed. But these Jews were foolish enough to think that a seal over the tomb would prevent Jesus from breaking it, just as there are people today foolish enough to think that by having their bodies cremated they can escape the lake of fire. Error and deceiver are from Greek words with virtually the same meaning. The last error means the last deception, and the thought was that if they let the disciples succeed in their plan, then they (the Jews) would be worse beaten at the game than they were the first time. 7:65 Pilate reminded them of the watch in existence already, which consisted of various regulations as to the number of men to be on the watch at a time and the number of hours each group was required to be on duty. In addition to this, Pilate authorized them to make the tomb as secure as possible. 7:66. Acting upon the authority of Pilate, they put a Roman seal on the tomb and appointed the watchmen to bA on duty at the grave. Matthew 28"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Chapter Twenty-EightOn the first day of the week following His crucifixion, Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week and appeared first to the two Marys, giving them instructions for the disciples to meet Him in Galilee (Matthew 28:1-10). Meanwhile the chief priests and elders bribed the soldiers to say that the disciples stole the body (Matthew 28:11-15). When the disciples met Jesus in Galilee, He charged them to go and make disciples of all the nations (Matthew 28:16-20). POINTS TO PONDER * The circumstances of Jesus’ resurrection * The details of the Great Commission REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter? - The resurrection of Jesus - Matthew 28:1-10- The soldiers are bribed - Matthew 28:11-15- The Great Commission - Matthew 28:16-20 2) Who came to the tomb at dawn on the first day of the week? (Matthew 28:1) - Mary Magdalene and the "other" Mary (cf. Matthew 27:56; Matthew 27:61) 3) What had happened by the time they got there? (Matthew 28:2) - An earthquake, and the stone from the door removed by an angel of the Lord 4) What were the two women instructed by the angel to do? (Matthew 28:7) - Tell Jesus’ disciples that He is risen from the dead and for them to go to Galilee 5) Who appeared to the two women on their way to the disciples? (Matthew 28:9-10) - Jesus Himself, who gave them the same instructions as did the angel 6) What makes the soldiers’ lie about the body of Jesus fatally flawed? (Matthew 28:13) - If the soldiers were asleep, how did they know it was the disciples? 7) When the disciples saw Jesus in Galilee, what was their reaction? (Matthew 28:16-17) - They worshiped Him (cf. Matthew 28:9), though some doubted 8) What did Jesus claim had been given to Him? (Matthew 28:18) - All authority in heaven and on earth 9) What did Jesus charge His disciples to do? What did that involve? (Matthew 28:19-20) - To go and make disciples of all nations; baptizing and teaching 10) What did Jesus promise His disciples? (Matthew 28:20) - "I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Matthew 28:1-20 Verse 1Mat 28:1-20THE OF CHRIST; THE OF CHRIST ALIVE; THE 'S ; THE FINAL ; AND THE GREAT Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. (Matthew 28:1) Matthew in this place obviously used the Roman method of counting days, making the first day of the week begin at dawn, contrary to the Jewish usage which made it begin the night before at sunset. Verse 2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it.The Emphatic Diaglott makes clear that the earthquake in this place was different from that while Christ was upon the cross and which tore the rocks apart. The earth is not mentioned, but it says, "There was a great shaking." The other passage notes that the earth "trembled." Just what the difference was is not known.[1] Poetic reference to this place was made by Whittier: Ah well, for us all some sweet hope lies Deeply buried from human eyes; And in the hereafter some angel may Roll the stone from its grave away.[2] This passage plainly reveals the power that broke the governmental seal on the tomb of Jesus. The flimsy falsehood of the Pharisees to the effect that the disciples did it while the soldiers were asleep is preposterous. G. Frederick Owen noted that: Soft, moist clay was placed about the stone and the entrance to the tomb; the official seal was pressed into this clay, thus sealing it officially. It would be a great crime to break this seal fixed by government authority, and would bring severe punishment.[3] Nor should it be supposed that the angel rolled away the stone to let the Lord out, but rather to let the witnesses in! The proof of the statement that an angel rolled the stone away is in itself. If an angel did not do it, who did? After the custom of such things, the stone was larger than could have been removed by less than several men. If any group of men had done it, one may be certain that the Pharisees would have found it out, preferred charges, and pressed them to the limit. That even a whole group of women could not have removed the stone is seen in Mark's account that "They were saying among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the tomb?" (Mark 16:3). Apparently they had no knowledge of the seal and the guard. [1] Emphatic Diaglott (Brooklyn, New York: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society). [2] John Greenleaf Whittier, "Maud Muller" (from Bartlett's Quotations). [3] G. Fredrick Owen, Archeology and the Bible (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1961), p. 73. Verse 3 His appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow.This description of the heavenly visitor corresponds with other such descriptions in the Scriptures. The glory, hos, and celestial nature of the angel were apparent in his garments. Jesus' glorification on the mount of transfiguration also exhibited the same luminosity and splendor. Verse 4 And for fear of him the watchers did quake and became as dead men.Only a single angel was required to render impotent a whole band of armed men; in view of this, it was an almost incomprehensible power that was available to Jesus who might have called for twelve legions of angels to rescue him from the cross (Matthew 26:53). How easily were the designs of the Pharisees countermanded by the Eternal. A solitary messenger from heaven appeared, and his simple presence struck the whole band into the semblance of death. Verse 5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye; for I know that ye seek Jesus, who hath been crucified.Criticism of the gospel narratives in their various accounts of the angels is well known, being founded on the fact that Matthew mentions "one angel seated," Luke mentions "two standing" (Luke 24:4), and John tells of "two seated" (John 20:12). All such fault-finding ignores the truth that none of the gospel writers gave all the incidents attending the wonder of our Lord's resurrection. On the other hand, the divine accounts are supplementary, each to the others, and focused upon different people, at different times, and totally void of that glib, verbatim parroting which unspiritual men seem to expect, and which, if it existed, would be the occasion for far more serious objections than may be fairly lodged against such wholesome and natural variations as necessarily occur in the writings of independent witnesses. Haley properly noted that: Ebrard, with other critics, has made it clear that these passages relate to different persons and times ... One angel appeared at one time, two at another time. The position assumed, also, may have varied at different times.[4] Could not an angel have sat down? It is a grave fault to overlook the tremendous significance of the wonderful events here by concentrating on so-called difficulties. The big news and revelation of this verse is to the effect that the crucifixion of Jesus was of the utmost concern and widest possible observance even in heaven, that the angels of God were intent and diligent in their following of the sublime events of Calvary, and that they knew even the hearts of those who were participants in that awesome battle for the redemption of man. The admonition of the angels for the women not to "fear" shows that, in all ages, those who truly seek him have nothing to fear. ENDNOTE:[4] John W. Haley, Alleged Discrepancies in the Bible (Nashville: B.C. Goodpasture, 1951), p. 386. Verse 6 He is not here; for he is risen, even as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay."He is not here" is a message worthy of angelic transmission and is the most important fact, outside the resurrection of Christ, and is itself an essential portion of it. The empty grave is the one incontestable proof which has confounded every futile effort to cast doubt on the resurrection, and is an impregnable rock of truth upon which every attack of skepticism has invariably been shattered. What became of the body of Christ if he did not indeed rise from the dead? Let any candid mind examine the question honestly, and it will be seen that there is no satisfactory alternative. The theft of any dead body would require motivation, but there was no possibility of any such motivation relative to the body of Christ. IF the disciples stole, would that last one of them have then proceeded to go up and down the earth preaching his resurrection, denying every worldly consideration in order to do so, and suffering at last martyrdom and death to seal a lie with their blood? Indeed, THAT would have been a greater miracle than the resurrection. Did his enemies steal it? If so, they would have produced it to confound his disciples and put an end to the doctrine they hated. "He is risen!" The risen Christ belongs to the realm of history. The Christian church exists and has existed and grown since the year of the crucifixion. So enormous a fact cannot be explained without an adequate cause, and it is impossible to find an adequate cause if the resurrection of Christ from the tomb is rejected as fiction.[5] To all insinuations against the historical Christ, it is replied that we know more about the last week of Christ's residence upon this earth than is known of the last week of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy all put together! Christ belongs to history, and is indeed the center of history, and so does his resurrection. We know his ancestry, where he was born, where he lived, the craft he learned, the names of his parents, brothers, and kinspeople, the names and motivation of his enemies, the names and successes and failures of his disciples, their weaknesses, sins, and even their fears. Monumental evidence of the historical Christ is more impressive than that of Rameses II, or Julius Caesar, or Napoleon. The Lord's Day, the Lord's ordinance of baptism, and the Lord's Supper are great and universally observed historical monuments to the historicity of Christ, more convincing than any that ever existed to honor the memory of any other. Those great memorials, to say nothing of the New Testament itself, flow down through history in an ever-widening stream of influence; and it is simply unbelievable that they were set in motion by a lie! As for the suggestion that Christ is a myth, such a presumption dies in the light of the genealogy of Jesus which is given both in Matthew and in Luke, one of them through his mother Mary (Luke) and the other through his legal father, taking his ancestry back to the very gates of paradise. Now, will someone give the genealogy of Santa Claus? or of Beowolf, or of Paul Bunyan? Advocates of the "myth" hypothesis have far more to deal with in Christ than will ever fit into any such monstrous and evil supposition as making the record of Jesus of Nazareth to be a mere myth. There is far too much to fit into such a small thimble. Moreover, the testimony of the calendar is irrefutable. The dates inscribed on buildings, the dates of newspapers, legal documents, letters and the agendas of parliaments, congresses, and legislatures, as well as the chronology of kings and presidents throughout the world and throughout history, are all intelligible only when related to the Christ and the number of years since he appeared among men. Here is a mountain fact so high that all the infidels on earth, standing on top of each other, cannot see over it. Whatever the date, it is "The Year of Our Lord," (Anno Domini.) Oh yes, there are other methods of reckoning time. There were the Olympiads, and the Chinese Calendar, and the Jewish Calendar; but, for example, in that stronghold of international Jewry which is New York City, the synagogues along Fifth Avenue make the Jewish dates inscribed thereon intelligible to modern man only by writing the equivalent (Anno Domini) underneath; and so it is for the Chinese Calendar, and the Olympiads, and every other method. He is risen! Yet we know that Christ died. We know the name of the man who signed his death warrant. We know how he died, and what were his last words, and how they mocked him, and how his side was pierced, and how Joseph of Arimathea took the body and where he laid it, and how it was wrapped, and in what spices, and that the grave was sealed and a watch posted. And we know that an angel of God announced his resurrection, that at first his disciples did not believe it, and that later, after they had seen him, they truly believed, and that they sealed their testimony with their blood. We know that he was seen after his resurrection, that he appeared no less than ten times to a wide variety of persons in different places, and that it was the overwhelming certainty that Christ was alive again that motivated the early church and impelled it in a world-girdling revolution of religious zeal and fervor. Never was a more important word spoken to men than that of the glorious angel who said, "He is not here; he is risen, even as he said"! Even as he said! Christ made at least three grand prophecies of his death and resurrection (Matthew 16:21; Matthew 17:22-23; Matthew 20:17-19), besides many other detailed references to it. See notes on those passages. The true gospel is not merely that Christ arose, but that he did so "even as he said, and according to the Scriptures" (see 1 Corinthians 15:3-4). Come see the place where the Lord lay. That admonition indicated something profoundly important and observable was to be seen in the tomb, and such is a necessary inference from an angel of God in calling attention to it. See more on the undisturbed grave-clothes under the title of "Phenomena Attending the Crucifixion," as outlined in the preceding chapter. Those undisturbed grave-clothes were themselves incontrovertible evidence that Christ had risen through them and through the tomb to life again. ENDNOTE:[5] Alfred Plummer, Commentary on Matthew (London: Elliot Stock, 1909), p. 414. Verse 7 And go quickly and tell his disciples, He is risen from the dead; and lo, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you. And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples word.The angel in this passage summoned the disciples to a prearranged meeting place with Christ in Galilee, upon a mountain (Matthew 26:32). Robertson identified the appearance there with the one mentioned by Paul (1 Corinthians 15:6) in which Christ was seen by more than five hundred brethren at one time.[6] THE TEN 1. To Mary Magdalene (John and Mark) 2. To the other Women (Matthew) 3. To the Disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke) 4. To Peter (Luke 23:24; 1 Corinthians 15:5). 5. To the Ten Apostles, when Thomas was absent (John 20:20) 6. To the Apostles, when Thomas was present (John 20:26) 7. To the seven by the lake (John 21:1-25) 8. To more than five hundred people (1 Corinthians 15:6) 9. To James and all the apostles (1 Corinthians 15:7) 10. To all the disciples with the Great Commission in different Words (Luke 24:44; Luke 24:49; Acts 1:3-8) The first five of those appearances occurred on the day of his resurrection, and the other five later, during the interval before his ascension. Of overriding importance is the appearance to "above five hundred brethren at one time," mentioned by Paul who stated that many who had seen the Christ on that occasion were still living when he wrote 1Corinthians. It has been observed that such a statement was a monstrous error on Paul's part unless it had been widely known as true. His mention of it, therefore, makes it certain that his words were provable. Certainly they were never challenged by the only generation that could have done so, namely, Paul's. ENDNOTE:[6] A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1922), p. 249. Verse 9 And behold, Jesus met them saying, All hail. And they came and took hold of his feet, and worshipped him.Christ never once rejected worship offered to himself. As God incarnate, he was fully entitled to it; and the worship of him is truly fit and proper at all times, as here and throughout the New Testament. Verse 10 Then saith Jesus unto them, Fear not: go tell my brethren that they depart into Galilee, and there shalt they see me.The triple mention of that appointment in Galilee, twice by Jesus and once by the angel, under its importance. Far removed from the turbulent hatreds of Jerusalem, Christ would give his Great Commission and establish his disciples in their world-wide task of soul-winning, amid the peaceful scenes of that sacred rendezvous upon a mount in Galilee. Verse 11 Now, while they were going, behold, some of the guard came into the city, and told unto the chief priests all the things that were come to pass. THE BIG LIEThen was the opportunity for the chief priests to have made good their boast that they would believe Christ if he came down from the cross. It was an even more wonderful thing to come up from the grave, but still they did not believe him. No one is so blind as one who will not see. The sequence of events mentioned in this verse is exactly such as should have been mentioned. Not all the guard, but some of them, left their post to report to the chief priests in view of the changed situation. Verse 12 And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave much money unto the soldiers.Having attempted to convict Christ with suborned testimony, the same men, in perfect character with their evil nature, then made use of bribery to deny the resurrection after the event. The fact that money was paid labels their report as false; no bounty would have been required to tell the truth. One can only marvel at the callous disregard of the soldiery which, for money, agreed to circulate a lie, denying the resurrection of Christ. Verse 13 Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.The falsehood was its own refutation. Certainly no man can be trusted when relating what took place while he was "asleep"! There is always a cleft in the foot of a falsehood; it can never walk uprightly but must limp, hobble, and drag itself, leaving the tell-tale evidence visible to all. Further consideration against the plausibility of such a lie is the fact that if any such thing had occurred, the men who went to sleep would have been liable to the death penalty for having permitted it. In fact, Herod Agrippa I put to death sixteen soldiers at one time for their failure to keep Peter on that occasion when an angel delivered him (Acts 12:19). Verse 14 And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and rid you of care.There was a small chance, of course, that Pilate would intrude into the thing, especially since it was a Jewish matter; and the governor had had more than enough of such things already. Verse 15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying was spread abroad among the Jews, and continueth until this day.Thus it came out why Satan wanted a watch in the first place. By that means, the evil one provided suborned testimony to deny the resurrection after the fact. The resurrection seems to have been fully anticipated by Satan. Why, in all ages before or since, has there never been another case of guarding a grave to prevent a report of resurrection from the dead? There is a uniqueness about this solitary case of grave-guarding that truly identifies it as a part of that supernatural struggle between light and darkness on Calvary. Second only to the betrayal by Judas was this conduct of the soldiers of infamy. For money, they circulated a lie concerning the most important truth the human race would ever know, even if the race of man should continue a million years. That the lie was not even contrived by them but by the priests, and that it was scandalously implausible even on its face, and actually unbelievable, made no difference. So they took the money! What an indictment! How perfidious was their shameful compliance with the mandate of the priests! There would, of course, be men in all ages who would consent to believe it. There at the grave of Jesus, the BIG lie was born; and it is the ancestor of every big lie since then. Holy men, fired with heavenly zeal, would girdle the earth with the "good news" of the gospel! They would endure hardships unspeakable and finally seal every word with the blood of martyrdom; but alongside the apostles, there always slithered that child of the serpent, the lie that the disciples stole the body. For men who WILL disbelieve, Satan provides more than enough opportunity. Verse 16 But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them.Matthew in this place recorded the official appearance of Christ to his disciples after the resurrection. There were other appearances, as already noted; but the others were more personal or incidental. This meeting, scheduled in advance, at a prearranged place, mentioned twice by Jesus and once by an angel - this meeting was the great appearance. It was attended by over five hundred disciples, as related by Paul (1 Corinthians 15:6), and even infidels have been impressed by Paul's affirmation of that stupendous fact. He mentioned it as an undeniable truth and appealed to the hundreds then living who were witnesses of it, conceding at the same time that some had "fallen asleep." If Paul could so boldly affirm Christ's appearance to so many, it had to be true. The enemies of the Lord and of his holy religion would have welcomed nothing so much as a statement that they could challenge and prove to be false. They certainly would have challenged Paul's statement if they could have done so, but they could not; and it is a mountain fact that all of the denials of Christ's resurrection came long, long after the death of that entire generation that witnessed it. It is not certainly known where that mountain in Galilee was located, nor, for that matter, why Christ should have selected any location in Galilee. Christ made an appointment to meet his disciples in Galilee, and that appointment HE KEPT. He kept it in spite of: (1) his sleeping disciples, (2) his betrayal, (3) their forsaking him, (4) his death, (5)his burial, (6) Peter's denial, (7) the big lie, and (8) the unbelief of many. The only persons who did not meet Christ on that mount in Galilee are those who did not go there to keep their appointment. In like manner, now Christ keeps his appointments with his disciples, in spite of similar lapses on their part; and what are those appointments? They are: (1) to meet him in baptism, (2) at the Lord's table, (3) in the trials of life, (4) in death, and (5) in the judgment to come. Only those who will not obey him shall miss the joy of meeting the Lord in those appointments; but in the case of the judgment, all shall keep that appointment, whether they desire to do so or not. Verse 17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted.It is a strong witness to the candor and accuracy of Matthew's account that the doubters should have been mentioned at that particular confrontation with Jesus. Only one passionately concerned with giving all the facts would have done so. The reason for their doubt was not recorded, but one probable explanation of it is in the next verse. Verse 18 And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth.This indicates that Christ was first visible from a distance, and then "came to them," leaving the probability that some recognized him at once while some doubted, and that as soon as he came to them, all believed. All present on that mountain were there for the specific purpose of meeting Christ, as he had appointed them; and it is a safe conjecture that as soon as he came near, all believed. All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. THE GREAT The surpassing magnificence of this grand conclusion to Matthew's gospel is unrivaled by anything even from the sacred pages of inspiration. This Great Commission, as the saints of all ages have consented to call it, constitutes the marching orders of his church for a day and to all eternity. It is a whole galaxy studded with many of the biggest stars in the firmament of Christian doctrine. It may well be doubted if many passages of similar length are more freighted with divine truth than are these words of the Commission. They are exactly what one should have expected, only far more, from the lips of a supernatural, divine Saviour, on point of departure to the eternal world of the spirit, and uttering one last comprehensive command to his disciples for all generations to come. One may observe the stormy band of Orion reflected in a drop of water at night, because both were created by Almighty God and there is a unity in all his creation. That strange interrelation of all created things was marked by the poet Tennyson who said, Flower in the crannied wall, I pluck you out of the crannies; I hold you here, root and all, in my hand, Little flower, - but if I could understand What you are, root and all, and all in all, I should know what God and man is.[7] It need not, then, be thought a strange thing that this Great Commission should contain embryonically so many of the distinctive doctrines of the faith that is in Christ, Among them, and there is no pretense of exhaustiveness, are noted the following: 1. All authority in heaven ... This teaches the divinity of Christ. If these words were spoken by a mere man, they are nonsense; and therefore in this statement Christ lays claim to status as a member of the Godhead. Ten times in the Greek New Testament, Christ is actually called God (see John 1:1; John 20:28; Acts 20:28; Romans 9:5; Philippians 2:6; Hebrews 1:8; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20; Revelation 1:8; also Colossians 2:9 and John 14:9). This says nothing of the countless passages in which he laid claim to attributes of deity, as for example when he said, "Before Abraham was, I am!" Christ is God come in the flesh. That is the central meaning and message of Christianity. Anything less than this regarding Christ is blasphemous. 2. And upon earth. Christ is head of the church upon earth as well as in heaven. There is no true head on earth, otherwise the church is a two-headed monster. This indicates the reign of Christ is now going on. These are the times of the regeneration when he is reigning with the Twelve in his kingdom, the Israel of God. Christ was not defeated on Calvary but was there victorious over death, hell, and the devil. He will continue to reign until all his enemies have been put under foot, notwithstanding, the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death (1 Corinthians 15:24-25). 3. Go ye therefore and make disciples ... Disciples can be made only by teaching; therefore the KJV did no violence to the meaning with the translation, "Go teach all nations." Mark's account makes it crystal clear that that is what was said. Thus, teaching, as a prerequisite of discipleship, is evident as one of the basic principles of the faith. Infants cannot be taught, and therefore, in the true view, they cannot become disciples until they are old enough to be taught. The Great Commission is clearly opposed to infant church membership. 4. Of all nations ... Here is the world-wide missionary program of the church. Here is the world-wide brotherhood of all nations and races in Christ. God made of "one" all the families of the earth (Acts 17:26), and that universal kinship and brotherhood appear in the Great Commission. No limitation or abridgment is permitted. All the nations ... not merely all "the English-speaking nations" or "all the white nations," but all the nations! 5. Baptizing them ... If nothing else appeared in all the Bible relative to the ordinance of baptism, Christ's mention of it in this circumstance would have been more than sufficient to bind it upon all people for all time to come. That Jesus Christ, the Head of our holy faith, in this grand finale of his earthly teaching, should be charged with having introduced secondary, subordinate, non-essential, and unnecessary commands is a reflection upon his divinity. Added to that is the sacred triple name of "Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" in which baptism was commanded to be administered. Where else in all the Scriptures is there another commandment that enjoys the distinction conferred by those solemn words? The commandment of baptism, subjoined by the sacred name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is in this Great Commission elevated to a priority that men have been very reluctant to allow; and yet the inclusion of baptism in this Commission dispels any view that it can be considered optional or permissive; it is commanded, not for one or for a few, but for all, "every creature" (Mark 16:15). 6. Into the name ... Three names are given, yet they are one name. God's unity and oneness are taught by this. There are three persons in the Godhead, and each has a name; but their name is one! 7. Of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Here is the doctrine of the Trinity. Although not stated in the Scriptures under that terminology, the doctrine of the Trinity is nevertheless a true one, and appears throughout both the Old and New Testaments. The pronouns for God in Genesis are plural, as in "Let us make man in our image" (Genesis 1:26). Even the passages affirming that God is "one" employ a word which means a compound rather than an abstract unity. That Hebrew word is [~'echad] and is also used in such passages as that which says a man and his wife shall be "one" flesh (Genesis 2:24), and in "the people is one" (Genesis 11:6). Thus, the "oneness" of God is like the "oneness" of a man and his wife, or of the people. In the New Testament, the doctrine of the Trinity appears in this passage, and at Christ's baptism (Matthew 3:16). Also, the benediction of 2 Corinthians 13:14 likewise establishes the Trinity. 8. Teaching them to observe all things ... The perpetual mission of the church as a teacher is implicit in these words. Here is the necessity for indoctrination and grounding all the disciples in the Saviour's teaching. Here is the divine authority for the Bible School, the cottage meeting, the mid-week service, the evangelistic campaign, and whatever else may be useful in carrying out the divine injunction to teach the taught and to teach the baptized to do all that Christ commanded. 9. Whatsoever I have commanded you ... This establishes the identity of the true doctrine; it is what Christ commanded, nothing else. The most important fact of Christianity is that it is "of Christ." The true faith was "first spoken" by him (Hebrews 2:3), and not by any other: Whatsoever was not first spoken by the Lord and confirmed by those who heard him can have no valid claim as a part of Christianity. Not even the Holy Spirit came to reveal new truth to the apostles but to "bring all things to their remembrance" (John 14:26; John 16:13). In practical fact, this limits true Christianity to what is taught in the New Testament, for that is the only book that contains the authenticated teachings of the Master. With the death of the last of the apostles who heard and confirmed to others what Jesus taught, the revelation of God's true will for mankind was concluded. Many passages in the New Testament make that crystal clear. People are commanded not to go beyond what is written (1 Corinthians 4:6); the apostles gave all "things that pertain" to life and gods (2 Peter 1:3); the true faith was "once for all" delivered to the saints (Jude 1:1:3), etc. In the light of this, how much of present-day Christianity is valueless? Auricular confession, baptizing of babies, countless innovations in the worship, the doctrine of purgatory, penances, redemption of penances, and literally scores of doctrines, devices, and presumptions of men, are all identified as forming a part of Christianity, but it is not so. Christ knew none of those things. They were not first spoken by him; on the other hand, we know the place, and the time, and the name of the man or men who initiated those things and brought them into God's worship. Therefore, all such things must be rejected by those who would walk after the oracles of God. 10. And lo, I am with you always ... This teaches the providence of God. God has not wound up his universe, or his church, and left them to run of their own accord. He "upholdeth all things by the word of his power" (Hebrews 1:3). Christ promised to be with his disciples always. A solicitous and loving providence always watches over the fortunes of God's church. 11. Even unto the end of the world. This teaches immortality. It would have been a vast comfort if Christ had promised to be with his disciples until they die; but this promise far exceeds that. He is still with Peter, James, and John, and all who ever truly served him in all generations. He is the God of the living and not of the dead; he brought life and immortality to light through the gospel (2 Timothy 1:10). 12. The end of the world. This is the doctrine of the final liquidation of the entire material creation, specifically of the earth and all that is in it. The apostle Peter elaborated on this (2 Peter 3:1-13). This earth is destined to burn, whether by nuclear fires kindled by man himself, or by some catastrophic judgment of God, is not known. Even as recently as a generation ago, men scoffed at the idea that the earth could burn; but in the light of what is now known, it is safe to say that scientific knowledge has finally caught up with revelation. The sun itself is a "nova" and is a type of star that is capable of exploding to a million times its present size and intensity (see National Geographic magazine, November, 1965, article on the sun by Herbert Friedman). When and if such a thing happens, our poor earth will be millions of miles deep in the flaming periphery of the sun itself. In the light of Christ's word in this place, and in view of Peter's words on the same subject, the end of this world is certain. "No man knoweth the day nor the hour" (Matthew 24:36). The conclusion that thoughtful men should derive from these considerations is well stated by Peter who said, "Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for these things, give diligence that ye may be found in peace" (2 Peter 3:14). ENDNOTE:[7] Alfred Lord Tennyson, poem, "Flower in the Crannied Wall," J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Matthew Chapter Twenty-EightThe Women at the Sepulcher, Matthew 28:1-8. (Mark 16:1-18; Luke 24:1-11)1. In the end of the sabbath.—The English version is here self-contradictory: for if the event mentioned occurred "in the end of the Sabbath," it could not have occurred "as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week." The word rendered "in the end" (ψ), usually means late, and is sometimes translated "in the evening." (Mark 11:19 Mark 13:35.) But it is sometimes used with the genitive in the sense of after (see Robinson's N. T. Lexicon), and such must be its meaning here: "after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn," etc. and the other Mary.—The one mentioned above, Matthew 27:61. The two Marys, having remained at the sepulcher on the evening of the burial until Joseph and Nicodemus departed, now return, as Matthew expresses it, "to see the sepulcher." Their more especial object was to complete the embalming of the body (Mark 16:1); but as Matthew had said nothing of their previous preparation of spices, he chooses now to speak in vague terms of their object in coming. 2. a great earthquake.—It was probably great in intensity, but not in extent. It was produced by the power of the angel who descended and rolled back the stone, as appears from the use of for (γαρ), in the next clause. 3, 4. for fear of him.—Both the appearance and the action of this angel were majestic in the extreme. He came down from heaven like a stream of light; he stood at the door of the sepulcher, with raiment white as snow and a countenance gleaming like lightning; with resistless hand he rolled back the great stone, at whose fall the ground trembled with an earthquake; then he calmly took a seat on the stone and turned his gleaming face upon the soldiers, as if to say, See what I have done! No wonder that "the keepers did shake and become as dead men." 5. the angel answered.—We learn from Mark and Luke that the angel first spoke to the women after they went into the sepulcher (Mark 16:5-6; Luke 24:2-5); consequently we are to understand that after the flight of the guards and just before the arrival of the women, the angel left his seat on the stone and went inside the sepulcher. All that occurred previous to the arrival of the women was learned from the report of the guards, who at first gave a true and full account of what they had witnessed. (Verse 11.) 6. Come, see the place.—Not the sepulcher, but the particular spot within it where the body was laid. They had already entered the sepulcher and seen that the body was gone. (Luke 24:3-4.) The angel had now become visible, and invites them to examine the spot marked, as we learn from John (John 20:7), by the napkin, which had been about his head, lying in one place, and the linen clothes in another. The presence of these grave-clothes confirmed the statement that he had risen, for had he been carried away they would scarcely have been left behind. The sepulcher, it must be observed, was not a narrow grave, but a chamber of considerable size, in which at this moment not less than four women and two visible angels were moving about. 7. tell his disciples.—The word disciples, in Greek, is in the masculine gender, and distinguishes the male from the female disciples. The women are charged with the double announcement that Jesus had arisen, and that he would go before the disciples into Galilee. They would naturally return to Galilee after the Passover week expired, because there were their homes. 8. and did run.—The "fear and great joy" with which they were excited gave swiftness to the feet of the women as they ran to tell the news to the male disciples, and never before had such a message burned within the heart of man or woman. Jesus Appears to the Women, Matthew 28:9-109. Jesus met them.—He had the instant before parted from Mary Magdalene, to whom he appeared first. (See note on Mark 16:9.) la seems that no one saw him come out of the sepulcher, not even the soldiers. Whether he was invisible at the moment, or was not seen because the soldiers were overwhelmed by the appearance of the angel, we can not tell. held him by the feet.—The women, according to the custom of the Jews when greatly overpowered with religious emotion, prostrated themselves before him, and in this posture took hold of his feet as he stood on the ground. 10. Then said Jesus.—The interview was but momentary. The women identify him, he repeats the message already given by the angel about the meeting in Galilee, he instantly disappears, and then the women hasten on their errand more excited than before. Report of the Watch, Matthew 28:11-1511. when they were going.—Here Matthew informs us of the exact relative time at which "some of the watch" arrived in the city and reported to the chief priests what they had seen: it was "when the women were going " to deliver their message, and it was after their meeting with Jesus. Notice that, not all, but some of the watch went to the chief priests, the remainder going doubtless to their own quarters. Some went to the chief priests because they knew that it was at their instance that the sepulcher had been guarded. 12. and had taken counsel.—This was doubtless a hurried gathering of such chief priests and elders as were near by, not including such men as Joseph and Nicodemus, who would be unfavorable to the villainy in contemplation. 13. Say ye.—The object of the chief priests, as is common with men who persist in crime, was to keep hid from the eyes of men the proof that they had put to death an innocent person. They were oblivious of the power and wrath of God, and they proceeded to still further inflame the divine wrath by putting a lie into the lips of the soldiers and hiring them to tell it. while we slept.—The new story bore its falsity on its face. It was an affirmation as to what was done, and by whom it was done, while the affirmants were asleep. Moreover, it was the affirmation of an impossibility; for it is impossible, even had they been asleep, that a company of men sufficiently numerous to perform the task, could have walked up to the sepulcher, rolled away the great stone, and borne the body away, without awaking some of the guards, who were stationed about the door of the sepulcher for the very purpose of preventing such a removal of the body. Matthew's account of the origin of this story is confirmed by the character of the story: it is utterly incredible that such a story could be told by honest men for an honorable purpose. 14. we will persuade him.—It would have been hazardous for the soldiers to tell the new story without some guarantee of protection, for it contained an admission that they had fallen asleep while on guard, and this, in the Roman army, was punishable with death. This fact, be it noticed, adds to the improbability that the story itself is true. The chief priests promised to persuade Pilate and protect the soldiers, in case of their arraignment, and this they could safely promise, both because Pilate was interested like themselves in concealing the fact of the resurrection, and because, if it came to the worst, they would not be afraid to confess to him the lie which they had put into the lips of the soldiers. 15. is commonly reported.—Up to the day that Matthew wrote his narrative, this false report was current among the unbelieving Jews. If the truth of a historical proposition can be established by the absurdity of its contradictory, the resurrection of Jesus is established by the absurdity of all efforts to account in another way for the disappearance of his dead body. His enemies of that generation, men of learning and of ingenuity whose honor was involved in the issue, were able to invent no better account of said disappearance than this absurd story put into the mouths of the soldiers; and men of subsequent ages have made no improvement on this original falsehood. One of the latest efforts of the kind, that of Monsieur Kenan, though more imaginary, is not less absurd. This philosopher (?) says: "The strong imagination of Mary Magdalene here enacted a principal part. Divine power of love! sacred moments in which the passion of a hallucinated woman gives to the world a resurrected God!" The Meeting in Galilee, Matthew 28:16-2016. where Jesus had appointed.—Here we learn that the mountain on which the oft promised meeting in Galilee was to take place (26:32; 28:7, 10), had already been designated by Jesus; and we may safely infer that the time had also been named, for otherwise the disciples would not have known when to assemble at the appointed place. 17. but some doubted.—The doubt is accounted for in part by the fact that he first appeared at a distance, as appears from the words, "he came and spoke to them" (18), and in part by the fact that others were there besides the eleven. This is undoubtedly the time at which he was seen by "above five hundred brethren at once" (1 Corinthians 15:6); for it was the only appointed meeting, and the appointment gave opportunity for all who would to be present. In so large a crowd it is not surprising that some even of the eleven did not recognize him at the first moment of his appearing. 18. All power.—More correctly rendered all authority. The assertion that all authority in heaven and on earth was given to him was a proper prelude to the command which follows, for the possession of such authority was requisite to the effective issuing of such a command. 19. teach all nations.—The term rendered teach (μαθατεω) means to make disciples. The clause should be rendered, "Go, disciple all nations." A disciple is one who accepts the teaching of Jesus; and men are made such by preaching the gospel to them. baptizing them.—Not baptizing the nations, but baptizing those discipled. Them, in the Greek, is in the masculine gender (ατος), and can not refer for its antecedent to nations (θνη), because the latter term is in the neuter gender. Its antecedent is the masculine noun disciples (μαθτας), implied in the verb (μαθατεύω), make disciples. (For another example of this construction, see note on Matthew 25:32.) in the name.— As is well remarked by Alford, "It is unfortunate again here that our English Bibles do not give us the force of this είς. It should have been into (as in Galatians 3:27, al.), both here and in 1 Corinthians 10:2, and wherever the expression is used." So depose Lange, Olshausen, and the best critics generally. It has been objected, especially by Dr. Conant (Notes on Bible Union Version), that into the name is not good English. The objection may as well have been urged against such expressions as "into Moses," "into Christ," "into his death." There is no fault to be found with any of these expressions, unless it be their obscurity, and this can not be avoided except by a circumlocution. The name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit means the combined authority of all the manifestations of God. To be baptized into this, is to be brought by baptism into actual subjection to it. He that is baptized is brought into subjection by that act to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit; and in consequence of this subjection he receives the remission of his sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38.) 20. teaching them.—Here the word teaching is a proper rendering, and it indicates the third step to be taken with those to whom the apostles would preach. Having made disciples by persuading men to accept the teaching of Jesus, and having baptized such into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, they were next to teach them all that Jesus had commanded— all the duties of the Christian life. I am with you alway.—This promise includes more than his mere presence. When we urge men to a dangerous and difficult undertaking, and say, We will be with you; we promise them our co-operation and support. Such is the meaning of Jesus: he is with his people to help them and to protect them. The promise is limited only by "the end of the world." The term rendered world (ιν) frequently means age: but whether we render it world or age in this place the meaning is the same, for the age referred to must be the Christian age, and this will end with the world itself. The promise was made primarily to the eleven, but inasmuch as they were not to live till the end of the world, it properly extends to the entire Church of which they were the recognized representatives. While the world stands, therefore, Christ, possessed of all authority in heaven and in earth, is pledged to be with his Church. This is a most appropriate conclusion for a narrative whose object it was to record some of the labors, sufferings, and triumphs by which Jesus laid the foundation of his Church, and from which the promise of his presence derives all of its heavenly consolation. Argument of Section 9This section contains at least two historical proofs of the divinity of Jesus. The first is found in the demonstrations of divine power which accompanied his death. The miraculous darkness which covered the land for three hours previous to his last breath, was an unmistakable sign from heaven. The invisible hand which at the moment of his last cry rent in twain the veil of the temple, could have been no other than the hand of God or that of an angel sent from heaven. The earthquake, bursting solid rocks and opening the chambers of the dead, was a divine response from the earth to the divine token of wrath which hung over the face of the sky. All these are unmistakable manifestations of God's displeasure, and none of them could have accompanied the death of Jesus had he been an impostor. The conclusion forced upon the mind of the centurion, and extorting from him the exclamation, "Truly this was the Son of God," is the conclusion which must be echoed back from the soul of every honest man who reads the story. The second proof in the section, and the grand final demonstration, is found in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. That he did arise is attested by conclusive evidence. The women can not have been mistaken as to the statement of the angel at the sepulcher, nor as to the appearance of Jesus to them on the way. Their testimony on these two points is true unless they lied, and they had no motive prompting them to lie. Their statement, too, is such, in its details, as they could not have invented: to suppose that they invented it is a far more violent supposition than to suppose it is true. Again, the eleven can not have been mistaken in asserting that Jesus appeared to them on the mountain in Galilee and spoke to them the words of the commission; nor can the commission itself have been an invention of men, and especially of these men. Matthew was himself one of the eleven, and an eyewitness to this part of the proof. The resurrection of Jesus being thus established as a fact, his Messiahship and his Sonship are established beyond all reasonable doubt. Conclusion to McGarvey's Commentary For Matthew We here conclude our comments on a narrative which, whether we consider its merits as a mere narrative; the momentous character of the leading proposition which it advocates; or the completeness and amplitude of the historical demonstration which it furnishes, has no superior among the writings of earth, and no rival except its own three companions. To the God of peace, who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, be glory everlasting for this inestimable gift of his grace! Questions by E.M Zerr For Matthew 281. What day has just ended? 2. It is dawning toward what? 3. What women are mentioned? 4. Who is the “ other” Mary? 5. For what did they come ? 6. What demonstration in nature occurred ? 7. Who descended from heaven? 8. What did he do? 9. Where did he take his seat? 10. Describe his countenance. 11. And his raiment. 12. Whom did he cause to shake? 13. How did they become? 14. To whom did the angel speak ? 15. He told them not to do what? 16. What did he know of them? 17. Why was Jesus not there? 18. According to whose saying was it? 19. What did he bid them come see? 20. To whom should they quickly go? 21. What news to tell them? 22. Where would Jesus be seen by them? 24. State their emotions. 25. They ran for what purpose ? 26. Who met them on the way? 27. Repeat his salutation. 28. How did they hold him? 29. What did they do towards him? 30. Repeat his assuring expression. 31. What were they to go tell? 32. State whom they would see in Galilee. 33. Who became aroused at this time? 34. Where had they been on duty? 35. To what place did they come? 36. What news did they have? 37. To whom did they deliver it? 38. What assembty was called then? 39. Tell what they took together. 40. What did they give to the soldiers ? 41. Why to them? 42. What would you call this money? 43. On whom were they to lay the blame? 44. At what time were they said to have acted ? 45. What were the soldiers doing then? 46. Who might hear of this? 47. If so who would be in danger? 48. How was it to be avoided? 49. Did they accept the money? 50. Did they keep their unlawful contract ? 51. What became common? 52. Among what people was it reported? 53. For how long was it reported ? 54. Who went away into Galilee ? 55. Why eleven of them? 56. By whose appointment was this? 57. Seeing him what did some do? 58. And what did others do? 59. Who came and spake to them? 60. What had been given to him ? 61. Whom were they to go teach? 62. Into what name to baptize? 63. Teach them what? 64. Who would be with them? 65. For how long? 28:1 The particular time at which the 24-hour period was supposed to start has been a disputed point, and that is because no absolute and universal rule was observed by all people. According to this verse the period began in the morning. Thayer defines began to dawn to mean, "To grow light, to dawn." And. Mark 16:2 refers to the same event as being "at the rising of the sun," all of which indicates that at least in some cases the 24-hour day was from sunrise to sunrise. However, we should not overlook that it was after the sabbath was past for the text says end of the sab-bath which Thayer defines, "the sab-bath having just past." The two Marys were the same as those mentioned in Matthew 27:61; Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Jesus. 28:2 There was a great earthquake. The marginal renders it "had been," which is correct, for Mark 16:4 says that when the women arrived at the tomb they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre. The angel was not afraid to break the seal that the Jews had caused to be placed upon the tomb, for he did not flee but rather remained and sat upon the stone. 28:3 Lightning is very bright and penetrating and a fitting comparison for the counterance of an angel. Snow-whiteness is an emblem of purity and well represents the kind of being who would come down from heaven. 28:4 The keepers were the members of the watch who were stationed there to see that no person would disturb the tomb. When this angel ignored the entire setup and removed the stone it was a great surprise to the watchers who were soldiers. No wonder it filled them with fear and trembling and rendered them helpless. 28:5 As far as the text shows, the angel paid no attention to the members of the watch, but he addressed encouraging words to the women. Being on a mission from heaven he was endowed with the information that would be useful in his work. By this he was aware of the purpose of the women who appeared at this time. 28:6 Not only had Jesus risen, but he had left the scenes of the tomb. As a visual evidence of the Lord's resurrection, the women were invited to come and see the place where he bad lain. 28:7 After a look at the empty tomb they were bidden to go qiuckly and tell the good news to the disciples. They were later to see Jesus in Galilee, the district where he had lived until he was ready for his public ministry. 28:8 The fear of these women was the same as profound respect, and the great joy was caused by the wonderful fact that their Lord was alive again. Their joy would not let them be selfish, but they went running to bring the word to the disciples. 28:9 Jesus had left the tomb before the women arrived, and as they were leaving he met theme and gave them a joyous greeting. The reader should see the note on the subject of "worship" at chapter 2:2 and note the various shades of meaning of the word. In our present verse the only outward demonstration indicated was their grasping the feet of the Lord. This act of respectful condescension could very properly be called one of worship and is included in the definition of the word. 8:10 This is the same message the angel gave the women at the tomb. Christ's brethren means his disciples (John 20:17-18), and they were promised to be met by him in his home country of Galilee. 8:11 Some of the watch means the men who had been on duty at the tomb. They doubtless did their duty in seeing that no man disturbed the tomb, but they were powerless to prevent what the angel did. As faithful watchmen they made a true report of what had transpired. However, this was before they had been approached on the bribery proposition and agreed to make the foolish statement mentioned above. 8:12 Gave the money unto the soldiers means the men who had been appointed to guard the grave from disturbance by the disciples. 8:13 The absence of the body of Jesus from the tomb could not be denied, hence the story of stealing it was made up to account for the empty tomb. There are at least two weak points in this story. If they were asleep they could not know what was going on; also, such a lack of faithfulness as watchers was punishable by death and they would not likely have risked it. But money will do wonders and it seems to have had its effect on these soldiers. 8:14 Thayer says to persuade means "to win one's good will." Pilate was a wavering sort of governor as had been shown in this case, and they felt sure they could influence him to let the soldiers off without punishment. Another thing, they said if this come to the governor's ears; there is no proof that he ever heard the report. 8:15 This foolish report was circulated among the Jews which is very significant. They were the ones who wanted to believe it and pretended to do so. There is no account of any knowledge of it among the people in general. 8:16 The women were told by the angel (verse 7) to give the disciples the word, and in verse 10 Jesus gave them the same message. Hence this verse reports the journey to Galilee, the very mountain spot for the meeting having been designated. Eleven disciples were in the group because Judas had taken his own life before the crucifixion of his Lord (Matthew 27:5). 8:17 All we can say of this worship is that what they did comes within the definition of the word as given at chapter 2:2. Thayer defines the original of doubt, "to doubt, to waver." It indicates a frame of mind that might be expressed by a familiar saying, "it is too good to be true." 8:18 In the Authorized Version the word "power" comes from two Greek words, with only a few exceptions, which are DUNAMIS and EXOUSIA. There is a partial blending of these words in their meaning so that they are used somewhat interchangeably, but each has its main or proper meaning. According to Thayer the first word means, "strength, ability, power; inherent power, power residing in a thing by virtue of its nature." He defines the second word, "power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases; leave or permission." For convenience the first may be defined as "personal strength or ability," the second as, "the right or privilege bestowed on one." The word in this verse is EXOUSIA, which means that God be-stewed upon Christ full right to rule over his kingdom. 8:19 Teach is from and is defined by Thayer, "to make a disciple; to teach, instruct." Its main application is to bring persons into a relationship with Christ that they never had before. All nations is equiva lent to "every creature" in Mark 16:15. The Mosiac system was given to the Jews only, while the Gospel was given to both Jew and Gentile. To do this teaching among all nations would require ability to speak in every language, and none but the apostles had that ability. It is a perversion of scripture, therefore, to apply this commission to preachers of today. In is from EIS which means "into" as used here. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are a unit in the Godhead and hence "name" is singular. Whoever is baptized into one is baptized into all three, therefore one baptism is all that is necessary and right. The scripture in no place presents this as a formula to be spoken by the administrator of baptism, and when he says these words he is merely announcing to the hearers what he is doing. 8:20 Teaching is from DIDASKO and means to instruct in general. The ones to be instructed were those that Christ had commanded. In order that no mistake would be made, the Comforter (Holy Spirit) was to be sent to "bring all things to their remembrance" (John 14:26). I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. The .authority of the apostles was to be in force to the end of the world. Christ is not with them in person any more than he is with all Christians in person. But the words of the apostles are written in the New Testament and they are as binding on us now as if they were here in person and as if Jesus also had remained on earth in person. So there can be no successors to the apostles in this world because they are still in their own proper place of authority under Christ and will be until the end.