CHAPTER I Outline of Chapter 1 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him to Do 1:1–17 The Genealogy of Jesus Christ 1:18–25 The Birth of Jesus Christ 1:1–17 The Genealogy of Jesus Christ Cf. Luke 3:23 38 1 1 Record of ancestry of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham. 2 Abraham became the father of^[119] Isaac, and Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob became the father of Judah and his brothers,3 and Judah became the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez became the father of Hezron, and Hezron became the father of Ram, 4 and Ram became the father of Amminadab, and Amminadab became the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon became the father of Salmon, 5 and Salmon became the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz became the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed became the father of Jesse, 6 and Jesse became the father of David the king. David became the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah, 7 and Solomon became the father of Rehoboam, and Rehoboam became the father of Abijah, and Abijah became the Father of Asa, 8 and Asa became the father of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat became the father of Joram, and Joram became the father of Uzziah, 9 and Uzziah became the father of Jotham, and Jotham became the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz became the father of Hezekiah, 10 and Hezekiah became the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh became the father of Amon, and Amon became the father of Josiah, 11 and Josiah became the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon. 12 After the deportation to Babylon: Jechoniah became the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel became the father of Zerubbabel, 13 and Zerubbabel became the father of Abiud, and Abiud became the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim became the father of Azor, 14 and Azor became the father of Zadok, and Zadok became the father of Achim, and Achim became the father of Eliud, 15 and Eliud became the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar became the father of Matthan, and Matthan became the father of Jacob, 16 and Jacob became the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 17 So all the generations from Abraham to David (were) fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to Christ fourteen generations. The Gospel according to Matthew opens with Christ's family tree. Today, by many readers such a list of names is probably considered sufficiently uninteresting to be skipped. We should bear in mind, however, that Matthew was writing primarily for Jews, as has been shown. This also accounts for the fact that he begins the line of descent with Abraham, and does not trace it back to Adam as Luke does. Now, for the Jews genealogy had never been lacking in significance. After the conquest of Canaan it was important in determining a family's place of residence; for, by divine law, the occupation of the land was according to tribes, families, and fathers houses (Num. 26:52–56; 33:54). If one settled in a territory other than his own he might be called a deserter (Judg. 12:4). Under certain circumstances transfer of property required accurate knowledge of pedigree (Ruth 3:9, 12, 13; 4:1–10). Later, in Judah, royal succession was linked with Davidic lineage (I Kings 11:36; 15:4). At the return from Babylon a person who claimed priestly prerogatives was required to prove priestly descent. Otherwise he was excluded from office (Ezra 2:62). At the beginning of the new dispensation, fulfilling one's duty in connection with the general registration or enrolment described in Luke 2:1 4necessitated knowledge of the ancestral roll. When we take all this into account we are not surprised that Scripture abounds with genealogical material. In the Old Testament it is found in such chapters as Gen. 5, 10, 11, 22, 25, 29, 30, 35, 46; Exod. 6; Num. 1, 2, 7, 10, 13, 26, 34; Josh. 7, 13; Ruth 4; I Sam. 1, 14; II Sam. 3, 5, 23; I Kings 4; I Chron. 1 9, 11, 12, 15, 23 27; II Chron. 23, 29; Ezra 2, 7, 8, 10; Neh. 3, 7, 10, 11, 12. As to the New Testament, here in (Matt. 1:1 17we find a descending genealogy, one that leads via Joseph to Jesus. In Luke 3:23 38an ascending family tree is presented. When this is read backward, it also ends with Jesus; though, as held by many, via Mary instead of Joseph. These sections in Matthew and Luke do not exhaust the New Testament references to genealogy. Did not PaulI Tim. 1:4; Titus 3:9) have to issue a warning against excessive interest in such matters, interest stemming from the error of minimizing the fact that with the coming of Christ and the fulfilment of his mission Old Testament regulations had been abolished and prophecies in large measure fulfilled? The genealogy presented in (Matt. 1:1 17is not just an appendix but is closely connected with the substance of the entire chapter; in a broader sense, with the contents of the entire book.^[120] Thus, in the heading of the genealogy (verse 1) Jesus Christ is called the son of David (cf. verse 6). This expression recurs in verse 20 where it is applied to Joseph, Jesus fatherLuke 2:48). But note the very careful way in which the relationship of Joseph to Jesus is described in verse 16. From this verse it is evident that the evangelist is purposely precluding the possibility that the reader might think of Joseph as being Christ's physical father. What he is implying, already here in this genealogy, is that although Mary was indeed Jesus mother, Joseph was his father not in the natural but only in the legal sense. And it is this very point that receives elaboration in the beautiful account that follows in verses 18 25. We are shown, therefore, that he who is the Son of man is also the Son of God. He is the true seed of David and of Abraham, the fulfilment of prophecy. He alone is Israel's and mankind's Hope. This central thought, moreover, is by no means confined to chapter 1. Rather, in his entire Gospel the author sets forth the greatness of Christ, as revealed in his exalted origin and in the marvelous manner in which he accomplished the task assigned to him by the Father. Therefore David's son is definitely also David's Lord (22:41–46)! With this thought in mind we now approach verse 1: 1. Record of ancestry of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham. That here in verse 1 we are dealing with a caption is clear. Is it to be construed as the title of the entire Gospel? Evidently it was not so interpreted in very early times when a different title was given to the book, as is known. Is it, perhaps, the heading of the entire first chapter? Probably not, since 1:18, though very closely related to 1:1–17, seems to be another heading. The best procedure, it would appear to me, would be to regard 1:1 as the caption above the entire genealogy (1:2–17). It strongly reminds one of several headings or introductory phrases in the book of Genesis, but especially of Gen. 5:1, which similarly introduces a genealogy. Accordingly, what follows in verses 2 17 is in this heading called biblos geneseos of Jesus Christ, son of David, etc. The word biblos (cf. Bible) can refer to a book, as in Josephus, papyri, etc., or a sacred book; for example, the book of life (Phil. 4:3; Rev. 3:5). It can, however, also refer to a writing that is less than what we would consider a book. In the present case it refers clearly to a record or list of names. The next word, geneseos, is the genitive of the word with which every English reader is familiar, namely, genesis; capitalized Genesis when it refers to the Bible's book of beginnings. The entire expression biblos geneseos means, therefore, record of beginning, or of origin or ancestry. It is the record of ancestry of the One who is called Jesus Christ. Our English word Jesus is really Latin from the closely resembling Greek Iesous. This, in turn, is the hellenized form of the late Hebrew Jeshua, the contracted form of Jehoshua (Josh. 1:1; Zech. 3:1). The latter means Jehovah is salvation. In the shorter form Jeshua the stress is on the verb; hence, he will certainly save. This reminds us of Matt. 1:21, You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins. Cf. also Matthew 11:27 30; John 14:6; Acts 4:12. For the emphasis on the verb see also Ecclus. 46:1. To the personal name Jesus is added the official name Christ. This is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Messiah. It indicates that the One to whom it refers was by the Holy Spirit anointed (hence, ordained, set apart, and qualified) to carry out the task of saving his people. Cf. (Isa. 61:1; Luke 4:18; Heb. 1:9. He was anointed to be our chief prophetDeut. 18:15; Isa. 55:4; Acts 3:22; 7:37); only highpriest (Ps. 110:4; Heb. 10:12, 14); and eternal king (Ps. 2:6; Zech. 9:9; Matt. 21:5; 28:18; Luke 1:33). Of course, the names Jesus and Christ, as here used, belong together. They really constitute one glorious name given to our Savior. Now in this genealogical preface Jesus Christ is called son of David, son of Abraham. That reminds one of prophecy. Interest in genealogy was fortified especially by Messianic prophecy, according to which the coming Deliverer would be the seed of the woman (Gen. 3:15), of Abraham (Gen. 22:18), of Judah (Gen. 49:10), and of David (II Sam. 7:12, 13). As to the propriety of calling Jesus the seed or son of Abraham, it appears to be clearly implied in such passages as (John 8:56; Heb. 11:13, 17 19that Abraham himself did not expect Isaac to be the Hope of mankind. Rather, the friend of GodJames 2:23) knew that Isaac's birth would pave the way for the coming of the Messiah. According to the Gospels and epistles, too, the latter was to be the son of Abraham par excellence, a truth emphasized over against hostile accusations (John 8:39 41; cf. Gal. 3:16); yes, One far greater than Abraham (John 8:58). He was to be the One through whom God would bless all those who by grace exercised Abraham's faith (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3; Gal. 3:6; cf. John 3:16). As to the prediction that the Expected One would be the seed or son of David, is it not clear even on the surface that the words, I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever (II Sam. 7:13), must refer to One greater than Solomon? Stating it differently, a reference to Solomon does not exhaust the meaning of the passage. It is not surprising, therefore, that, standing as it were on the threshold of the era of Messianic fulfilment, devout people were looking for the consolation of Israel (Luke 2:25). Here, in Matt. 1:1, the author points out that Jesus Christ is indeed what his name implies: the divinely anointed Savior, the fulfilment of prophecy, the rightful heir to the throne of David, and going back even farther the true seed of Abraham. Attempts have been made to deny, at least to a certain extent, the connection between Jesus and David. To be sure, it is granted that Joseph was of the house of David (Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:27; 2:4, 5), but that Mary was actually a daughter of David is being questioned.^[121] Nevertheless, careful study of II Sam. 7:12, 13; Luke 1:32, 69; Acts 2:30; Rom. 1:3; II Tim. 2:8; and Rev. 5:5should leave no room for doubt. The very structure of the genealogy, here in Matthew connects Jesus with David. It consists of three groups of fourteen.^[122] In the first we are shown the origin of David's house; in the second, its rise and decline; in the last, its eclipse. Yet, even an eclipse need not be total, neither does it mean extinction. Or, to change the figure, a tree is hewn down, but its stump remains in the ground. In the present instance, out of this stump a twig shoots forth, and that twig becomes a great tree (Isa. 11:1; Rom. 15:12). In David the family of Abraham attained royalty. At the deportation to Babylon this royal power was lost. In Christ it is restored, only in a far more glorious sense. According to Matthew, therefore, Jesus is the climax of the three fourteens. That these fourteens express a symbolism can hardly be denied. After much reading on this subject I suggest the following interpretation, acknowledging my indebtedness to many scholars who previously have attempted to solve the problem. Seven is the sum of three and four, each of which, in its own way, suggests fulness. Three, when used symbolically, spells that which has beginning, middle, and end, and is therefore complete. In Scripture it is at times associated with God, viewed in the fulness of his glory, the source of blessing for men. Hence, we speak of the threefold Aaronitic benediction (Num. 6:24–26); the thrice holy of Isaiah's vision (Isa. 6:1–3); the triad of blessings pronounced upon God's people at the close of II Corinthians; and the favors emanating from God Triune, by which the seer of Patmos comforts the brotherhood (Rev. 1:4, 5). Four, used symbolically, refers at times to the fulness of the earth and/or of the heavens, with their four winds (Jer. 49:36; Dan. 8:8; 11:4; Zech. 2:6; Mark 13:27; Rev. 7:1). Now, if even three or four, taken singly, can express fulness, their sum, seven, when used figuratively, conveys this meaning no less emphatically. In fact, special meaning was attached to this number not only by the Jews, or in Semitic culture generally, but also among the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Germans. All of them recognized the seven-day periods of the four phases of the moon. In Scripture seven frequently indicates the totality ordained by God. Fourteen, which is twice seven, also brings out this idea. So, it would seem, does three times fourteen= forty-two. This is equal to six sevens, and immediately introduces the seventh seven, reduplicated completeness, perfection. Since, in the genealogy as offered by Matthew, Jesus Christ is mentioned at the close of the entire list of three fourteens or six sevens, and since the evangelist does not stop there but continues the beautiful story of this Savior, we cannot be far wrong when we say that he pictures him as the One who not only completes or fulfils the old, but also definitely ushers in the new (John 3:34; I Cor. 11:25; II Cor. 3:6; 5:17; Heb. 9:15; 10:20; 12:24; Rev. 21:5). In him the new and the old meet. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the heart and center of all. Apart from him there is no salvation. He is Messiah, David's true Antitype. And in the course of redemptive history, as here symbolized in its three great stages, God's plan from eternity was being perfectly realized.^[123] In Matthew's days and also later, Christ's enemies were constantly making disparaging remarks about Jesus origin. In essence they were saying that because of his lowly birth he could not be what he claimed to be. Was he not the carpenter's son? Did they not know his father, mother, brothers, and sisters (Matt. 13:54–58; Mark 6:3; Luke 4:22)? Sonic argued, We know where this man is from; but when the Christ comes, no one will know where he is from (John 7:27). Others said, Surely, the Christ does not come out of Galilee, does he? Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes out of the seed of David and from Bethlehem, the village where David lived? (John 7:40, 41). At times his adversaries may even have implied that in his origin he was illegitimate. They said, We were not born of fornication: one Father have we, even God (John 8:41); as if to say, Not we but you were born of fornication. With respect to our parentage there is no legitimate doubt, but it is different with you. Sinister insinuation or innuendo at times changed into open, deliberate, vicious insult: Are we not correct in saying, You are a Samaritan and have a demon? (John 8:48). Such antagonistic remarks, in which not only Jesus Davidic origin but even his legitimate birth were denied, either by innuendo or openly, have continued among the Jews.^[124] Matthew, therefore, by means of this genealogy and its sequel (the narrative of the virgin birth, verses 18 25), aims to show that Jesus, according to his human nature, is indeed the legitimate seed of David, in fulfilment of prophecy. From Joseph, his legal father and thus from Joseph's ancestor, David he receives his right to David's throne. From Mary (verse 16) and via Mary, also from David he receives David's flesh and blood. Yet, neither to Joseph nor to Mary belongs the glory. Joseph deserves no credit for his own birth as a descendant of David, and is thoroughly aware of the fact that he had nothing whatever to do with the conception of Jesus. Mary, similarly, knows that what happens in her womb is the work of the Holy Spirit. She is willing to be the handmaid of the Lord (Luke 1:34, 35, 38). The glory belongs to God alone! It is by grace that man is saved, through faith; and this not of himself; it is the gift of God (Eph. 2:8). Having written the caption, Matthew now presents the following genealogy:^[125] The Three Fourteens As introduced in Matthew in I Chronicles See also First Fourteen 1. Abraham 1:1, 2 1:27 Gen. 11:26 2. Isaac 1:2 1:28, 34 Gen. 21:1–5 3. Jacob 1:2 1:34; 2:1 Gen. 25:26 4. Judah and his brothers 1:2 2:1, 2 Gen. 29:31–35; 30:1–24; 35:16–18; 49; Exod. 1:1–6 5. Perez and Zerah 1:32:4 Gen. 38:24–30; Ruth 4:18 6. Hezron 1:3 2:5 Gen. 46:12; Num. 26:21; Ruth 4:18 7. Ram (Greek: Aram) 1:3 2:9, 25 Ruth 4:19 8. Aminadab 1:4 2:10 Ruth 4:19 9. Nahshon 1:4 2:10 Ruth 4:20 10. Salmon 1:4 2:11 Ruth 4:20 11. Boaz 1:5 2:11 Ruth 4:13, 21 12. Obed 1:5 2:12 Ruth 4:21 13. Jesse 1:5 2:12 Ruth 4:22 14. David the King 1:1, 6 2:15 Ruth 4:22; I Sam. 13:11–13 Second Fourteen 1.Solomon 1:63:5 II Sam. 12:24 2. Rehoboam 1:7 3:10 I Kings 11:43 3. Abijah 1:7 3:10 I Kings 14:31 4. Asa (Greek: Asaph) 1:7 3:10 I Kings 15:8 5. Jehoshaphat 1:8 3:10 I Kings 15:24 6. Joram 1:8 3:11 I Kings 22:50 7. Uzziah 1:8 3:12 II Kings 14:21; 15:1 8. Jotham 1:9 3:12 II Kings 15:32 9. Ahaz 1:9 3:12 II Kings 16:1 10. Hezekiah 1:9 3:12 II Kings 18:1 11. Manasseh 1:10 3:13 II Kings 20:21; 21:1 12. Amon (Greek: Amos) 1:10 3:14 II Kings 21:18, 19 13. Josiah 1:10 3:14 II Kings 21:24; 22:1 14. Jechoniah and his his brothers 1:11 3:16 II Kings 24:6, 8, 12; Jer. 22:30 Third Fourteen 1. Jechoniah (for repetition of this name see on 1:12) 1:12 3:17 II Kings 25:27–30 2. Shealtiel (Greek: Salathiel) 1:12 3:17 Ezra 3:2, 8; 5:2; Neh. 12:1; Hag. 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2–4, 20 23 3. Zerubbabel 1:12 3:19 Ezra 3:2, 8; 5:2; Neh. 12:1; Hag. 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2–4, 20 23; Zech. 4:6–10 4. Abiud 1:13 5. Eliakim 1:13 6. Azor 1:13 7. Zadok 1:14 8. Achim 1:14 9. Eliud 1:14 10. Eliazar 1:15 11. Matthan 1:15 12. Jacob 1:15 13. Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born 1:16 Matt. 1:18–25; 2:13–15; Luke 2:4, 16, 33, 48 14. Jesus, who is called Christ. 1:16 2. The first list of fourteen names begins as follows: Abraham became the father of Isaac, and Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob became the father of Judah and his brothers. It has already been shown that it was natural for Matthew, who was writing primarily for Jews, to begin with Abraham. In Abraham's begetting of Isaac there are two elements: a supernatural and a natural. The first is emphasized by Paul in (Gal. 4:23; the second here by Matthew. As to the first, Isaac was born through promise. As a reward for Abraham's faith in the promise, God intervened miraculously, enabling Abraham, though he had become as good as dead, to deposit seed; and making it possible for Sarah, heretofore barren, to conceiveRom. 4:19; Heb. 11:11, 12). It is true, therefore, that the family tree, as recorded by Matthew, begins with a supernatural birth, that of Isaac, and ends with one, that of Christ. However, the two are by no means identical, for in Isaac's case there was no virgin birth, as there was in the case of Christ. With respect to the conception of Isaac there was the usual impregnation of the ovum by a human father, as is true along the entire line of this genealogy, wherever the same verb is used. The two elements in Isaac's conception a. supernatural intervention renewing Abraham's virility, and b. natural conception as a result of insemination must not be confused. Otherwise Matt. 1:2would clash with Gal. 4:23. It should be noted that Ishmael's name is not even mentioned here, though he was also a son of Abraham. And Abraham had other offspring (Gen. 25:2). Matthew holds to the Messianic line. In the few cases where collateral relatives are also mentioned (verses 2, 3, 11), there must have been a special reason, though it is not certain that in each instance we know what this reason was. Isaac became the father of Jacob; and the latter, in process of time, became the father of Judah and his brothers. Judah's name is singled out from all the children of Jacob, for it is in him that the Messianic line is continued. Why did this happen? Was not Reuben the firstborn? Were there not three brothers older than Judah? It is clear that inclusion in, or exclusion from, the line of descent is not determined by age. Neither is it determined by human merit (see verses 8 10). By what then? Only by the sovereign, electing will and grace of God (Rom. 9:16). Yet, even though it is in Judah that the Messianic line is carried forward, the words and his brothers are added. The mention of these brothers may have been occasioned by the fact that during the old dispensation Israel as a whole constituted God's people, separated from all the nations of the world, in order to be, and especially in Christ to become, a blessing to allExod. 19:3–6; I Kings 8:41–43; Isa. 53, 54, 60 . The entire nation, accordingly, had Messianic significance. 3. The line is extended as follows: Judah became the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez became the father of Hezron, and Hezron became the father of Ram. This is the Judah concerning whom it is written, You are the one your brothers will praise.& The scepter shall not depart from Judah &until Shiloh come (Genesis 49:8 10); the Judah who, in honoring his pledge to become surety for his youngest brother, delivered that moving address in which he offered to become a slave in Egypt as a substitute for Benjamin. But it is not of such references to Judah that Matthew is thinking but rather of the immoral act that made him the father of Perez and Zerah by his own daughter-in-law Tamar. Having mistaken her for a common harlot, for she was veiled when the act occurred, he had made her pregnant. Subsequently, when he was informed that Tamar through harlotry had conceived, he had ordered her burned to death. This command was rescinded when Tamar had furnished proof that her father-in-law himself was the chief culprit (Gen. 38). Through such a channel of iniquity Judah &Perez &by Tamar the Savior, according to his human nature, was willing to pass on his way from the glories of heaven to the incarnation and to crucifixion in his people's stead. If this be recognized, even the study of genealogy can become a blessing to mind and heart. We do not know why Zerah, the brother of Perez, is also mentioned. Was it because the brothers were twins, and because, contrary to human expectation, Zerah was born last, so that the right of the firstborn was accorded to Perez by an unexpected disposition of divine providence (Gen. 38:29, 30)? The answer to this too ready solution is that Jacob and Esau were also twins, and with respect to them too God had ordained that the humanly unexpected would happen The elder shall serve the younger (Gen. 25:23); yet, in the genealogy Esau's name is never even mentioned! The line continues: (Perez) Hezron, Ram. Except for their mention in genealogical tables we know nothing about this Hezron and Ram. Does this mean that the names are fictitious? Such a conclusion would be entirely unwarranted. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit Matthew has carefully studied the registers. Directly or indirectly the information he gathered can be traced to sources such as listed on pp. 111–113. Note, moreover, that the list: Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David (Matt. 1:3–5) is also found in Ruth 4:18 22, in exactly that same order. The evangelist, accordingly, had excellent sources on which to base his genealogy; namely, Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Ruth, the books of Kings and Chronicles, etc., and perhaps separate genealogical tables^[126] both written and oral. His account is entirely reliable. Hezron and Ram! To us these are merely names. We do not even know whether they were men of untarnished or of spotted reputation. To God, however, they were important for the historical accomplishment of his plan to bring the Messiah into the world for man's redemption. So, too, in the church there are many who never make the headlines. Yet, though unknown here below, they are well-known above (II Cor. 6:9). One day it will become evident that the last will be first, and the first last (Matt. 20:16). 4. As the list continues we once again enter somewhat more familiar territory: Ram became the father of Amminadab, and Amminadab became the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon became the father of Salmon. As the parallels in Exodus and Numbers indicate, we have now reached the time of the Exodus from Egypt and of the desert journey. Amminadab was the father of Elisheba, who married Aaron (Exod. 6:23). During the desert journey Amminadab's son Nahshon (Num. 1:7; I Chron. 2:10) was the leader of Judah's tribe, which was encamped toward the sunrise (Num. 2:3). When the tabernacle had been completed and set up, it was he who, as the representative of his tribe, offered the first oblation (Num. 7:12–17). In marching, the standard of his tribe took the lead (Num. 10:14). Nahshon's son Salmon married Rahab, who figures prominently in the story of the two men sent by Joshua to survey the land of Canaan. For this item of genealogical information we turn now to verse 5, 6a. Salmon became the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz became the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed became the father of Jesse, and Jesse became the father of David the king. With the new names that are mentioned here every student of the Bible is familiar. Who, brought up in Christian circles, has not been thrilled by the stories about Rahab and the spies (Josh. 2and 6; Heb. 11:31; James 2:25); Boaz, Ruth, and their child Obed (book of Ruth); Jesse and his sons (I Sam. 16); and, last but not least, David the king (I Kings 1:1 2:11)? Nevertheless, Matthew's aim is not primarily to bring these thrilling stories back to mind but to give an enumeration of ancestors, so that, in harmony with prophecy, Jesus Christ may be recognized as David's son and David's Lord. Everything else cannot have more than ancillary significance, though it does have that. This also means that the list must not be used for the purpose of establishing chronological conclusions; for example, to compute the length of the period that elapsed between Rahab and David. If verse 5 is nevertheless used to serve that end, on the assumption that no Messianic link has been omitted, it would follow that Rahab, who lived at the time of Israel's entrance into CanaanJosh. 2and 6 , was the great-great-grandmother of David; for the sequence presented here is Rahab (wife of Salmon), Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David. This result would be very difficult to harmonize with (I Kings 6:1, where, even when the necessary subtractions are made, a considerably longer period is implied for the span Rahab to David. Matthew evidently did not deem it necessary to mention a representative of each passing generation. Neither did other Bible writersEzra 7:3with I Chron. 6:7–9). In Matthew this is clear also from a study of the second fourteen (verses 6b 11) and the third (verses 12 16), as will be indicated. The evangelist is interested in Christology, not in chronology. He is satisfied to show that the three catalogues of Messianic antecedents, logically arranged according to the great turning points in the Davidic dynasty, attain their fulfilment in Christ. In order to achieve this goal neither he nor the inspired author of the book of Ruth deemed it necessary to mention every link in the chain of ancestry. The origin of the house of David has now been recorded. The next fourteen names, Solomon to Jechoniah, are reminiscent of the glory and the decline of the dynasty. They show us that not even Solomon in all his glory was able to bestow salvation. It is Christ who saves, he alone. 6b. David became the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah. Among commentators it is customary to point to the all-inclusiveness of the genealogy. It is said, for example, that, contrary to Jewish usage, this list with its three fourteens contains the names of women as well as men. Also, it includes foreigners Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth^[127] and names of those who, either in a broad or in a more restricted sense, were Jews. Special emphasis is also generally placed on the fact that not only the good are included; for example, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob; but also the evil: Joram, Ahaz, Amon; etc. Wicked almost beyond belief were some of these ancestors! As I see it, these opinions are true to fact, and warrant the following conclusions: 1. Jewish boasting about Abrahamic descent amounts to unjustifiable glorying in the flesh. It is foolish and wicked. Israel had no reason to be proud of itself. Salvation is not from below, from man; it is from above, from God (II Cor. 11:17; Phil. 3:1–8). 2. Jesus is indeed the long awaited One, sent by God for man's redemption; for it is he who fulfils the prophecy concerning Messiah's lowly origin (Isa. 11:1; 53:2; cf. Matt. 2:23; John 1:46; 7:52). 3. This Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world (John 3:16; 4:42), not only of the Jews. There is indeed a wideness in God's mercy. Those who were destined to be saved through faith were to be drawn from every nation. Verse 6 adds emphasis to all this. As to point 1 (above), the readers are here reminded of the fact that being able to point to the illustrious King David, whether as ancestor or as former king of their nation, offers no ground for boasting; for he was the man who, by another man's wife, i.e., by a wife he had stolen by having that other man put to death, had become father of the next king. The first offspring of the adulterous union had died. Later, Solomon was born of this same union. Read about the scandalous manner in which David had plotted and had brought about Uriah's death, so that he might marry that man's wife, Bathsheba, with whom he had already committed adultery (II Sam. 11). The very reminder of this episode in the life of David also reinforces point 2. With respect to his father (in the legal sense only) also, of course, with respect to his mother (see verse 16, 18 25 and Luke's genealogy, 3:23–38) Jesus descended from such a great sinner as David. Finally, it also stresses point 3. Even for David there was mercy; hence, there is mercy for all who flee for refuge to David's Antitype. Accordingly, when we study the entire genealogy (verses 1 17) we are impressed with the fact that even the good men stood in need of God's grace; for they, too, were sinners. To be sure, many commendable things are reported with reference to Abraham (Gen. 13:8, 9; 14:13–16; 15:6; 18:22–23; 22:1–19), but so are certain shameful actions (Gen. 12:10–20; 16:1–6; 20). The same holds with respect to Isaac: good (Gen. 24:63, 67; 26:18–25); bad (25:28; 26:1–11). With Jacob the case is no different: good (28:18–22; 32:1, 2, 22 32; 35:1–7; 49:18); bad (Gen. 25:27–34; 27:18–24; 37:3). Judah, too, is an example both to imitate (43:8, 9; 44:18–34) and to shun (Gen. 38). David is a man after God's own heartI Sam. 13:14; 17; 18:5; 24:1–7; 25:32–35, 39 42; 26; II Sam. 7:18–29; 9; 12:13; 18:5, 33; 23:5; Ps. 51and many other Psalms ; nevertheless, a great sinner (II Sam. 11, already discussed, see also I Sam. 24:21, 22; II Sam. 5:13; 8:2; 12:31; 21:8, 9; 24). To mention only one more, Hezekiah did what was right in the eyes of Jehovah, according to all that David his father had doneII Kings 18:3, and see that entire chapter; also II Kings 19:14–19; 20:2, 3; II Chron. 29:2, and that whole chapter; also chapters 30 and 31 ; but he, too, was not without flaw (II Kings 20:12–15; II Chron. 32:25). None was able to save himself. All, even the best in the list, stood in need of redemption by the blood of the promised Reedemer. They also confirmed this by means of their humble and strikingly touching confessions (Gen. 49:18; II Sam. 23:5; II Kings 19:14–19; Ps. 51; cf. Dan. 9:17–19; Luke 18:13; Rom. 7:24, 25). Continued: 7 11. Solomon became the father of Rehoboam, and Rehoboam became the father of Abijah and Abijab became the father of Asa, and Asa became the father of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat became the father of Joram, and Joram became the father of Uzziah, and Uzziah became the father of Jotham, and Jotham became the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz became the father of Hezekiah, and Hezekiah became the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh became the father of Amon, and Amon became the father of Josiah, and Josiah became the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon. We read that Solomon loved the LordI Kings 3:3a , but a little later it is reported of him that he loved many foreign women, who led him astray from the pure worship of Jehovah to idolatry (I Kings 11:1–14). The man whose beginning had been so promising, later did what was evil in the sight of the Lord. Spiritually he did not measure up to his father, whose heart again and again was filled with genuine, poignant sorrow for his sin. As to Solomon, one has to search diligently for evidences of true repentance. Nevertheless, we are not without hope that before his death a return to the Lord actually took place. We are strengthened in this opinion by passages such as the following: II Sam. 12:24, 25; I Kings 3:5–15; 8:22–53; Neh. 13:26; Eccl. 2:1–11; 12:13, 14; cf. John 10:28; Rom. 8:29, 30; and Phil. 1:6. All in all, however, tradition remembered Solomon for the great prosperity which marked his reign, and for his wisdom, rather than for his piety. When later kings were measured according to a spiritual standard, that yardstick of judgment was always the life of DavidII Kings 16:2; 18:3; II Chron. 17:3; 28:1; 29:2; etc. , never that of Solomon.^[128] We see, therefore, that very soon after the rise to power of David's dynasty it also began to show signs of decline. This decline, moreover, was not only spiritual but also political and material. After Solomon's death the kingdom was divided. Hence, all the other names mentioned here by Matthew designate kings who ruled over only two of the former twelve tribes. Many good things are reported with reference to Asa, Jehoshaphat, Uzziah, Jotham, Hezekiah, and Josiah. The opposite is true with respect to the others, though it is only fair to state that Manasseh repented in his last days. Finally, with Jechoniah (or Jehoiachin) whatever was left of Judah's glory departed (see on verse 11). It is immediately evident that between Joram and Uzziah^[129] three names are omitted. They are those of Ahaziah (II Kings 8:25; II Chron. 22:1), Joash (II Kings 11:21; 12:1in the Hebrew text; II Chron. 24:1), and Amaziah (II Kings 14:1; II Chron. 25:1). The reason for such omissions has already been stated (see on verses 5, 6a). Matthew is not giving us a chronological report but a testimony that Jesus is indeed the Christ. It has been shown that Matthew had abundant source material to draw from. Moreover, as is clearly evident from his entire book, he was thoroughly acquainted with the Old Testament Scriptures. Therefore, for him the names in the list were more than mere items. They were persons with whom, through Scripture and tradition, he had become well acquainted. And even today anyone who wishes to understand this genealogy in the light of its purpose, should linger over it a while, instead of regarding it of no account. He will soon discover that the more one studies it, the more also he will become convinced that it points, indeed, to the necessity of the coming Redeemer. The way was being paved for his coming. There was, first of all, the historical preparation: God's guidance in the events that were taking place; so that, for example, Solomon's kingdom was divided, two tribes remaining with Rehoboam, ten defecting to Jeroboam. How deplorable, this disruption! Gone was the political unity, the strongly centralized government, which David had labored so strenuously to bring into being. Gone, too, the religious consolidation one temple for all the tribes which Solomon had added. The throne had lost its luster. The glory had departed! That is one way of looking at it. While fully maintaining the true element in this appraisal we must not forget the divine point of view as stated in I Kings 11:12, 13; 12:15, 24b, and especially in 11:36. We read: I &will rend &; it was a thing brought about of Jehovah &this thing is of me &that David my servant may have a lamp [posterity, cf. I Kings 15:4] always before me in Jerusalem. It was God himself who tore asunder &in order that he might save. The nation was broken down that grace might break through. We have here another instance of that series of separations by means of which Jehovah chooses unto himself a certain minority in order that he may use it for the realization of his Messianic program. Solomon's spirit of compromise with respect to many foreign gods was beginning to exert its sinister influence upon the people. Therefore, a separation had again become necessary, just as in the case of Abraham and for the same reason. This separation was to be followed, in course of time, by the Assyrian and the Babylonian captivities. Then Judah will serve one God, and will make propaganda for its monotheistic worship among the Gentiles. For many of the latter the road to salvation will lead from polytheism by way of monotheism to Christianity. There was also the symbolical preparation. Did not the very furniture of Solomon's temple, the building that stood in Jerusalem through nearly his entire first period, point to the fact that apart from the shedding of blood there is no remission (Heb. 9:22)? But also, was it not clear to the devout and thinking Jew that animal blood, in and by itself, could never be the true ransom for the souls of men (Ps. 40:6–8)? Then there was the prophetical preparation: the ministry of all the true prophets who labored during this period and pointed forward to the promised Deliverer. Godly kings worked hand in hand with earnest, fiery prophets. Hezekiah and Isaiah were friends (II Chron. 32:20); so were Josiah and Jeremiah (II Chron. 35:25). Among the many Messianic prophecies uttered during this lengthy period were the following: Isa. 7:14; 8:8; 9:1, 2, 6; 11:1–10; 42:1–7; 49:1–9; 50:4–9; 52:13 53:12; 61:1–3; 62:11; Jer. 23:5; 31:15; Hos. 11:1; and Mic. 5:2. Finally, the psychological preparation must not be forgotten. One truth was becoming more and more abundantly clear: no one can achieve righteousness before God. Israel fails, as appears from the lives of the kings and the people. Even the law though in itself perfect, cannot save. Man fails. God alone can save. He will do so by means of the coming Mediator. Thus considered, it is clear that the Messianic character of Matthew's genealogy is evident not only from the mathematical formula 3x14, as has already been explained, but also from the entire historical context which is represented by the names the evangelist mentions. As to related lessons, note the following: Name of king(s) Character of the man and/or of his reign One of the lessons to be learned from his life as expressed in the language of the Bible other literature Rehoboam My father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions (I Kings 12:14). Like a roaring lion &is a wicked ruler over a poor people (Prov. 28:15; cf. 20:28). Kings seek their subjects good, tyrants their own (Herrick). Abijah and Amon Three years he [Abijah] reigned &and he walked in all the sins of his father (I Kings 15:2, 3). Amon &reigned two years &and he forsook Jehovah &and his servants conspired against him and killed him (II Kings 21:19–23). Surely, thou dost set them in slippery places &How are they become a desolation in a moment! (Ps. 73:18, 19). Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown (Shakespeare). Asa, Jehoshaphat, and Hezekiah, three reformers and intercessors Asa cried to Jehovah, his God (II Chron. 14:11). Jehoshaphat prayed: &Our eyes are on thee (II Chron. 20:5, 12). And Hezekiah prayed &O Jehovah, our God, save thou us (II Kings 19:15, 19). Call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me (Ps. 50:15). And Satan trembles when he sees the weakest saint upon his knees (Cowper). Joram But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, as the house of Ahab had done; for Ahab's daughter had become his wife (II Chron. 21:6). A worthy woman is her husband's crown; but she who acts disgracefully is like rottenness in his bones (Prov. 12:4). There is no worse evil than a bad woman (Euripides). Uzziah But when he was strong, his heart was lifted up.& He went into the temple of Jehovah to burn incense (II Chron. 26:16). Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams (I Sam. 15:22). See also Prov. 16:18. Oh! Why should the spirit of mortal be proud? (Knox). Jotham He built the upper gate of Jehovah's house, and on the wall of Ophel he built extensively. He also built cities &and fortresses and towers (II Chron. 27:3, 4). Walk about Zion &count her towers. Consider well her defense walls; walk through her citadels &(Ps. 48:12, 13). Ah, to build, to build! That is the noblest of all the arts (Longfellow). Ahaz In the time of his distress he this same king Ahaz transgressed yet more grievously against Jehovah (II Chron. 28:22). Do not be deceived; God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that also will he reap (Gal. 6:7). The mills of God grind slowly, yet surely (attributed in various forms to various authors). Manasseh And the Lord said, Because Manasseh &has committed these abominations &I am bringing upon Jerusalem and Judah such evil that both ears of those who hear it will tingle (II Kings 21:11, 12). And when he was in distress he humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers (II Chron. 33:12). Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth (Eccl. 12:1). For all sad words of tongue or pen, The saddest are, It might have been (Whittier). Josiah He did what was right in the eyes of Jehovah (II Kings 22:2). Those who honor me I will honor (I Sam. 2:30). Lives of great men all remind us, We can make our lives sublime &(Longfellow). Jechoniah He did what was evil in the sight of Jehovah &and the king of Babylon took him &and carried him away to Babylon (II Kings 24:9, 12, 15). &but those who despise me shall be lightly esteemed (I Sam. 2:30). The thorns which I have reaped are of the tree I planted they have torn me and I bleed! I should have known what fruit would spring from such a seed (Byron). Just as above, in verse 8, the names of three kings were omitted, so in verse 11, between Josiah and Jechoniah (or Jehoiachin), Jehoiachim is left out (see on verses 5, 6a). We read that Josiah begot Jechoniah and his brothers. The word begot is here linked with the grandfather instead of the father. For proof see (I Chron. 3:15, 16, where Josiah, his son Jehoiakim, and the latter's son Jehoiachin are mentioned in that order. It is not wrong, in harmony with the preceding verses to translate the passage, Josiah begot or became the father of Jechoniah, for in Scripture the term father has a very wide use. It does not always refer to the immediate male ancestor, but may indicate one farther removed. Thus in II Kings 18:3David is called the father of Hezekiah; and for the New Testament see Matt. 3:9; Luke 1:73; 16:24; John 8:39, 53, 56; etc. The same holds with respect to the word brothers. It will be recalled that Abraham called Lot his brotherGen. 14:14, 16), though the latter was actually his nephew (Gen. 11:27). It is entirely possible that also here in (Matt. 1:11the reference is to relatives in a wider sense; i.e., to Josiah's sons; hence, to Jehoiakim's literal brothers: JehoahazII Chron. 36:2) and Zedekiah (II Chron. 36:10, 11; cf. II Kings 24:17), who were, accordingly, Jehoiachin's uncles. These may have been briefly referred to here because they, too, reigned for a while in Jerusalem; the former three months; the latter eleven years. If Jehoiachin himself had more than one brother in the immediate, literal sense, we cannot derive this information from Scripture. With the deportation to Babylon, God's promise to the house of David went into eclipse. Dark and dismal was the lot of Jehoiachin. Not only did he not have any seed who sat upon David's throne (Jer. 22:30), but he himself, a mere lad of eighteen, was taken into foreign imprisonment that lasted no less than thirty-seven grim years! (II Kings 24:8–12; cf. 25:27). As to the nobles, priests, craftsmen, etc., who accompanied him, their forced departure, too, must have been sorrowful. Zedekiah, a third son of Josiah, was Judah's last king. Disregarding the warnings of the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and placing his trust in Egypt, he rebelled against the king of Babylon. As a result, the Chaldean army came and destroyed Jerusalem, including Solomon's beautiful temple. Zedekiah's tragic end is vividly described in (II Kings 25:4–7. The people, except the poorest, were carried away to BabylonII Kings 25:11). The chief reason for the Babylonian Exile is given in II Chron. 36:14ff.; in a word: impenitence in open and obstinate disregard of every prophetic warning. The total period of Babylonian oppression, beginning with the deportation that occurred about 605 b.c., including also the removals that took place in 597 and in 586 b.c., and ending in 536 b.c. hence, seventy years in all (Jer. 25:11, 12; 29:10; Dan. 9:2) may be characterized (in part) as follows: First, there were years of false hopefulness. The early exiles were confident that conditions would change and that they would soon return to their land. Was not Jehovah's temple in Jerusalem still standing? Jeremiah sent a letter to these deluded people, and told them not to trust their false prophets, but to build houses and plant gardens; i.e., to plan for a long stay in Babylonia (Jer. 29; cf. Ezek. 17:11–24). Secondly, there were years of hopelessness. In the year 586 Jerusalem fell, the temple was destroyed, the bulk of the nation deported. Many years passed without any sign of return and restoration, as if Jehovah had forsaken his people. Psalms 137gives vivid expression to the people's mood. From David to Jehoiachin, what a decline! How Judah must have yearned for deliverance! At last the season of revived hopefulness arrived. Gloom did not last forever. Though the night was dark and dismal, there were glimmerings of light even during the Exile. Or, to change the figure, though David's sun was eclipsed, the eclipse was not total. This appears from verse 12., which introduces the third series of fourteen, as follows: After the deportation to Babylon Jechoniah became the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel became the father of Zerubbabel. There is good reason to believe that Jechoniah must be counted twice; first, as the last in the second series of fourteen; then, as the first in the final series. At first glance the decision to count him twice may seem like a totally unwarranted method of getting rid of a Gospel discrepancy, the latter consisting in this, that otherwise the third list, which like the other two is supposed to contain fourteen names (verse 17), would have only thirteen.^[130] However, a little study of what Scripture tells us about Jechoniah soon reveals that two sharply contrasting pictures of this king's experiences are drawn. All is dark in (II Kings 24:8–12, as has been indicated. The curse of childlessness is pronounced upon JechoniahJer. 22:30). But in his imprisonment matters take a turn for the better: Jechoniah, the exile, has children, in one of whom the Messianic line is continued (I Chron. 3:17, 18). By rereading Jer. 22:30we now begin to understand that the childlessness predicted with reference to the young king meant no more than this, that none of his offspring would occupy David's earthly throne. Now this favorable change between Jechoniah before his deportation and afterward is in and by itself probably sufficient to justify the fact that he is counted twice. If more is needed, consider also II Kings 25:27–30. Cf. Jer. 52:31–34. Jechoniah is freed from prison, is treated kindly at the court of Evil-merodach, king of Babylon, at whose table he dines regularly, and is given a continual allowance. He even receives a seat above the seats of the kings that were with him in Babylon. A sharper contrast is hardly imaginable. Matthew knew all this, of course. Throughout his Gospel he is constantly proving that he is well acquainted with his sources. Is it not natural to suppose, therefore, that it was because of these two sharply contrasting pictures that Matthew counts Jechoniah twice? Does not the history of the United States of America provide us with a similar instance of counting one man twice? Do we not call Mr. Nixon the thirty-seventh president? Nevertheless, beginning with Washington, we soon discover that there were only thirty-six men who were elected to this high position. The solution is: we count Cleveland twice because of his two terms (1885 1889; 1893 1897). Defeated for re-election after his first term, he was subsequently re-elected to office. His circumstances changed. Though, to be sure, the two cases are not identical for example, Jechoniah never returned to his throne in Judah yet in both instances the sequence is: high position-defeat-high position. Jechoniah's son in the Messianic line was Shealtiel. The latter's son (I Chron. 3:17–19) was Zerubbabel (Ezra 3:2). Both Matthew and Luke (the latter in 3:27) include Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in their genealogical tables. In these two men the ancestral lines of Joseph, as reported by Matthew, and of Mary, as probably transmitted by Luke, converge, and then diverge again.^[131] Shortly before 536 b.c. Babylon fell, and the Persian empire replaced the Babylonian. The new ruler allowed the Hebrew exiles to return to their own land (Ezra 1). When Cyrus issued his decree, only a remnant returned (Ezra 2:64). The highpriest Joshua (or Jeshua) was head of the priesthood. Zerubbabel, the very person mentioned in the two New Testament genealogies, was appointed to be the leader of the civil administration; in other words, the governor, and as such the contact man between the Jews and their Persian rulers. Under the direction of these two wonderful administrators the returned built the altar of burnt-offering and laid the foundation of the temple (Ezra 3:1 6). Jealous Samaritans and their allies interrupted the work (Ezra 4). But in the second year of Darius i.e., about the year 520 the prophet Haggai urged the rebuilding of the temple itself. Zechariah joined him, and greatly encouraged the builders by means of his strikingly beautiful Messianic predictions (3:6–10; 6:9–13; 9:9; 11:12, 13; 12:10). In one of these (6:9–13) we see not only the prophetical but also the typological preparation for the coming of Christ; for Joshua the highpriest is clearly a type of the One who deserves to be crowned with many crowns. But the historical preparation also is not lacking; for, guiding the hand of the Persian rulers, with their wise policies toward conquered nations, permitting them to return to their own countries, was God's firm decree, according to which Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem of Judea (Mic. 5:2). This accounts for the necessity of the return. Zerubbabel, the descendant of Jechoniah, must make his home in the land from which his ancestors had been driven away, in order that in the line of his seed and on holy soil both Joseph and Mary may be born. 13 16a. The table of ancestry continues as follows: Zerubbabel became the father of Abiud, and Abiud became the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim became the father of Azor, and Azor became the father of Zadok, and Zadok became the father of Achim, and Achim became the father of Eliud, and Eliud became the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar became the father of Matthan, and Matthan became the father of Jacob, and Jacob became the father of Joseph. The period of Babylonian Exile was followed by the Medo-Persian Rule (536 333 b.c.), as has already been indicated. The latter, in turn, was succeeded by the Greco-Macedonian and Egyptian sovereignty (333 200) and its aftermath: Syrian and (after a bitter struggle) Maccabean hegemony (200 63). Then came the Romans. Since most of the period covered in verses 13 16 belongs to inter-testamentary history, it is not surprising that the men whose names are cited are not mentioned elsewhere in Scripture. They lived amid difficult circumstances, under foreign rulers, and among hostile neighbors. At times persecution raged fiercely, especially during the Maccabean struggle. Whether all of the ancestors here listed remained true to the faith we do not know. Even a beautiful name as, for example, Eliud= God is my praise, or Eliazar= God is my helper, does not always necessarily indicate that the one who received it grew up to be a man of sterling trust in the one true God; though frequently it probably embodied the pious wish of devout parents with respect to their newborn child. We do know, however, that Zerubbabel, mentioned in verses 12 and 13, receives high praise in Scripture (Ezra 5:1, 2; Hag. 1:12–15; 2:20–23; Zech. 4:1–10). The words On that day, says the Lord of hosts, I will take you, O Zerubbabel my servant, son of Shealtiel, says Jehovah, and make you like a signet ring, for I have chosen you, says Jehovah of hosts (Hag. 2:23) place this God-fearing governor of Judea under God's special protection, so that when tumults rage all around, his safety is assured. Do they not also indicate that this chosen servant of God is a type of the Messiah, beloved by the Father? And as to the last one on the list, Joseph, Matthew is going to show that the husband of Mary was indeed a man of sterling quality, one whose trust was in the Lord, whom he was ever ready to obey. After what has been said earlier (see pp. 116, 119), it no longer suprises us that, for the period beginning with the one whom Luke regards as the father of Shealtiel and ending with Jesus, this evangelist presents twenty-three names; Matthew, on the other hand, for the same (or approximately the same) period offers only fourteen. He is again intentionally skipping the names of some ancestors. Also, the question, Where did Matthew obtain his information? has already been answered (see pp. 111–115). It might be added that further evidence for the preservation of genealogical lists (probably both written and oral) is furnished by the fact that Luke knew that Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, was of the course of Abijah, and had a wife who was of the daughters of Aaron (Luke 1:5). He also knew that Joseph was of the house and family of David (2:4); and that the prophetess Anna was of the tribe of Asher (2:36). Similarly, Paul knew that he himself was of the tribe of Benjamin (Rom. 11:1; Phil. 3:5). Evidently, therefore, the awareness of a distinction between the tribes continues into the New Testament period, and people know to which tribe and household they severally belong. Priests, and others too, must have kept records, and these had been handed down from generation to generation.^[132] Josephus was able to give his own genealogy. He tells us that he had found it in the public records (The Life I.6). See also his work Against Apion I.30. 16b. After the words, Jacob became the father of Joseph, Matthew adds: the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. In language simple and clear the truth with reference to the virgin birth of the Savior is introduced. It is implied rather than as yet fully expressed. We are not now told that Joseph became the father of or begot Jesus. The marked contrast between the lengthy series of begot &begot &begot &and the abrupt omission of this word here in 1:16b, brings out, as strongly as anything could do, the fact that in connection with the birth of Mary's firstborn son there was no male act of begetting that could be ascribed to Joseph, or, for that matter, to any other human being anywhere. We are reminded of Gen. 5, where, after a series of and he died statements, beginning in verse 5 and repeated every third verse thereafter, six occurrences in all, we suddenly read with reference to Enoch, and he was not, for God took him (verse 24). Joseph is called the husband of Mary. The manner in which he became the husband is related in verses 18 25. For the present it is sufficient to know that Joseph, a Nazareth carpenter (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3), was, indeed, Mary's husband, but had nothing whatever to do with the conception of Jesus. In the physical sense it was of Mary, and not to Joseph that Jesus was born. Joseph was the child's father in the legal sense alone. That legal sense, too, was important. Through Joseph, a son of David, the right to David's throne was transferred to Mary's child, Jesus, thus named because it was he who would save his people from their sins (1:21). To carry out this task he was set apart and qualified by God, being God's Anointed, the Christ (Isa. 61:1; cf. Luke 4:18 21; and see comments on Matt. 1:1). 17. The record of ancestry is summarized in the words: So all the generations from Abraham to David (were) fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to Christ fourteen generations. Since the significance of this triad of fourteen generations each has already been explained, and the legitimacy of the figure fourteen, instead of thirteen, even with reference to the third group, has been substantiated, very little need be added. Only this: as always, so also here, the word all must be interpreted in the light of its context; hence, the meaning is: all the generations covered in this record of ancestry. Here, for the first time in Matthew, the word generation occurs. It is a stage in the succession of natural descent, a set of ancestors. Sum-total of contemporaries is probably the meaning in 11:16; 12:39, 41, 42, 45; 16:4; 17:17; 23:36. From this meaning the transition to a (Jewish) nation or people (24:34) is easy. So is that to time period covered by a generation; see N.T.C. on Ephesians 3:20, 21. 1:18–25 The Birth of Jesus Christ Cf. Luke 2:1 7 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ happened as follows: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they had begun to live together she found herself to be pregnant by the Holy Spirit. 19 Now Joseph, her husband, being intent upon doing what was right and not wishing to expose her to public disgrace, had in view to divorce her quietly. 20 But as he was mulling this over, what happened? An angel of the Lord appeared to him during a dream and said, Joseph, son of David, do not hesitate to take Mary, your wife, into your home, for what was conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins. 22 All this took place in order that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, 23 Behold, the virgin shall conceive and give birth to a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel, which, translated, is God with us. 24 Rising from sleep Joseph did as the angel of the Lord had directed him, and took his wife into his home, 25 but had no sexual relations with her until she had given birth to a son; and he named him Jesus. 18. What was already implied in the genealogy is here clearly taught: Now the birth of Jesus Christ happened as follows: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they had begun to live together she found herself to be pregnant by the Holy Spirit. Mary had been betrothed solemnly promised in marriage to Joseph. The marriage feast and living together was a matter for later date. Matthew makes his point of departure a moment of time shortly after the betrothal. Betrothal among the Jews must not be confused with present-day engagement. It was far more serious and binding. The bridegroom and bride pledged their troth to each other in the presence of witnesses. In a restricted sense this was essentially the marriage. So also here, as is clear from the fact that from that moment on Joseph is called Mary's husband (verse 19); Mary is called Joseph's wife (verse 20). According to the Old Testament regulation unfaithfulness in a betrothed woman was punishable with death (Deut. 22:23, 24). Yet, though the two were now legally espoused, it was considered proper that an interval of time elapse before husband and wife begin to live together in the same home. Now it was before Joseph and Mary had begun thus to live together, with all this implies both as to domestic and sexual relations, that Mary discovered her pregnancy. She was still a virgin, and not yet married in the full sense of the term. She knew immediately that the cause of her condition was the powerful life-imparting operation of the Holy Spirit. She knew it because the angel Gabriel had told her that this would happen (Luke 1:26 35). She knew that Joseph had not made her pregnant. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER II Outline of Chapter 2 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him to Do 2:1–12 The Wise Men from the East 2:13–15 The Flight to Egypt 2:16–18 The Slaughter of the Infants 2:19–23 The Return from Egypt and Settlement in Nazareth 2:1–12 The Wise Men from the East 2 1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the King, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, 2 saying, Where is the (new)born king of the Jews? For we saw his star in its rising and have come to worship him. 3 When King Herod heard this he was frightened, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 And having assembled all the chief priests and scribes of the people he was seeking to learn from them where the Christ was to be born. 5 They told him, In Bethlehem of Judea; for thus it is written through the prophet: 6 And you Bethlehem, land of Judah, Are by no means least among the princes of Judah; For out of you there shall come a ruler Who will shepherd my people Israel. 7 Then Herod secretly summoned the wise men and ascertained from them the time when the star had made its appearance. 8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, Go and make careful search for the little child, and when you have found him report to me, that I too may come and worship him. 9 So after listening to the king they went on their way, and look, the star they had seen in its rising went ahead of them until it stood still over (the place) where the little child was. 10 At the sight of the star they were overjoyed. 11 Having entered the house they saw the little child with Mary his mother, and they cast themselves to the ground and worshiped him. Next, they opened their treasure-chests and presented him with gifts: gold and frankincense and myrrh. 12 And having been warned in a dream not to return to Herod, it was by a different route that they retired to their own country. According to God's promise (II Sam. 7:12, 13) Jesus is the rightful heir to David's throne. Chapter 1 has made this clear. He is the son whose throne will be established forever (II Sam. 7:13with Luke 1:32, 33). It is fitting, therefore, that royal homage be rendered to him, and this not only by the Jews but also by the Gentiles; for he is Lord of all (Matt. 28:16–20), and the gospel call goes out to all, regardless of race or nationality. Thus we see that there is a close connection between chapters 1 and 2 of Matthew's Gospel: chapter 1 has shown that Jesus deserves royal honor, chapter 2 shows that he receives it. The latter begins as follows: 1. Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem. Two facts thus far unrecorded regarding Jesus birth are here set forth: a. that he was born in Bethlehem, and b. that this event took place in the days of Herod the king. The specification that this Bethlehem was the one in Judea serves not so much to distinguish it from the one located west of Nazareth in the tribe of Zebulon (hence, in Galilee) as to make clear that Micah's prophecy was indeed fulfilled in Jesus birth. See on verses 5 and 6. A comparison between 2:1 and 2:19 lends support to the view that Jesus was born a little while before Herod's death. Since Herod died shortly after a lunar eclipse^[154] at the close of March or beginning of April of the year 4 b.c., the date late 5 b.c. for Christ's birth may well be correct.^[155] Shortly after Jesus birth there arrived in Jerusalem certain wise men. Their unexpected appearance aroused considerable interest, which Matthew wants his readers to share; hence, he writes, Behold. ^[156] Literally the strange travelers from afar are in the Greek original called magoi (sing. magos), from which the Latin magi (sing. magus) is derived, which is also found in several English translations, often capitalized. Who, then, were these magi? Where did they come from? The expression from the east is rather indefinite. Did they come from the regions inhabited by the Medes and Persians, as some think, or from Babylonia, as others have confidently affirmed? The Greek word is really a transliteration of an Iranian original. When the word first appears in Herodotus it indicates one of the tribes of the Medes. It would seem that because of the skill which this tribe derived from the study of the stars the name magi subsequently began to be applied more generally to the entire like-minded priestly caste among the Medes and Persians. The magus was deeply interested in religion and in several related fields of human interest, including the study of the stars and their supposed influence on human events. Though many of his theories would today not unjustly be regarded as below the level of scientific knowledge and more nearly akin to superstition, and though his religion can scarcely be called even an approach to Christianity there was no place in it for redemption from sin through an atoning sacrifice, the magus was by no means merely a nonsense peddler. He generally believed in only one God, in man's duty to practice the good and shun the evil, in the necessity of prayer, and in the nobility of manual, especially agricultural, labor. But is this also the meaning of the word magi as used here in (Matt. 2? Some answer in the affirmative. They believe that the wise men who came from the east and arrived in Jerusalem were Medes or Persians. In support of this belief they point not only to the Iranian origin of the word magoi or magi but also to the fact that, as pictured in the earliest Christian art that has been preserved, the travelers from afar are wearing Persian robes. Moreover, such early writers as Clement of Alexandria, Diodorus of Tarsus, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Juvencus, Prudentius and others agree that the magi came from Persia. Is it not true also that in the various dispersions of the Jews that took place from the eighth to the sixth centuries b.c. not a few were deported to the cities of the Medes and to those of the surrounding countryII Kings 17:6; cf. I Chron. 5:26; Esther 1:1; 9:2; Acts 2:9 11)? Is it not probable, therefore, that these Jewish monotheists propagandized their Messianic expectation among their equally monotheistic neighbors, with the result that when Messiah's star appeared a few of these Median or Persian magi set out for the land of Judea to honor the newborn king of the Jews? It is an interesting theory with strong support in tradition, but it has not found universal acceptance. Origen believed that the magi came from Chaldea. Many agree with him. One reason for this is that the Chaldeans or Babylonians, too, had their wise menDan. 2:2, 10, 27, etc. . Through the influence of Daniel and his friends (Dan. 2:48; 5:11) these wise men and their associates, whether wise or not so wise, were brought into contact with the only true and living God, and, of course, also with the Messianic expectation. Though much of the learning of these counselors of Babylon's king was worthless, as the book of Daniel clearly shows, and though it is true that among the Jews there was even a saying, Whoever learns anything from a magus is worthy of death,^[157] it was, nevertheless, the study of the stars by the Babylonian astrologers perhaps we should say astronomers which, though faulty in many respects, has been credited with establishing the foundation for the planetary world-system, time computation, and the calendar.^[158] Conclusion: We know very little about the wise men mentioned in Matt. 2. We know, however, that, as their actions are here described, whatever they do makes them deserving of the name wise men. The best course for us to follow would appear to be to adhere strictly to the text, and to agree that these magi came from the east, in all probability from either the one or the other of the two favored areas.^[159] How many wise men there were is not recorded. The fact that they presented the child with three gifts (2:11) has given rise to the theory that there were three men. Whether this inference is justified is doubtful, though there may, indeed, have been exactly three men in the party. We simply do not know. There is no basis whatever, not even in Ps. 72:10and Isa. 60:3, for the notion that these men were kings. The line We three kings of Orient are belongs to the same vast collection of legendary Yuletide lore to which belongs also But little Lord Jesus no crying he makes, and many similar bits of fancy. Add also the mythical names of these wise men: Melchior, Balthasar, and Caspar; the belief that one came from India, one from Egypt and one from Greece; that they were subsequently baptized by Thomas; and that their bones were discovered by Saint Helena, were deposited in the church of Saint Sophia at Constantinople, were later transferred to Milan and were finally brought to the great cathedral of Cologne. One must be gullible, indeed, to accept all this! Before leaving this subject it should be pointed out that in the original the word magos (Lat. us) is also used in a different, though closely related, sense, namely magician, one who practices magic. The relation of these last two English words to the Greek is immediately apparent. The word magos is used in this unfavorable sense (magician) in Acts 13:6, 8, with respect to a false prophet, a Jew by the name of Bar-Jesus. The root of the Iranian word of which the Greek magos is a transliteration means great. It is cognate with the Greek megas, Latin magnus, as reflected in several English words, one of them being megaphone: a cheer-leader's voice-magnifier. One can be great in one's own estimation and in the eyes of deluded admirers. Such was Bar-Jesus. One can also be truly great, that is, great in the eyes of God. Such were the wise men whose story is told in Matt. 2, and with reference to whom we are now told that they were 2. saying, Where is the (new)born king of the Jews? If the sudden appearance of these strangers rouses the Jerusalem citizenry, their question, repeated over and over, does even more. Not for a moment do the wise men express any doubt with reference to the fact as such of the recent birth of the One whom they call the king of the Jews. For them the birth is real and the title is true. What they desire is an answer to the question, Where is he? Unless they receive this information they cannot fulfil the purpose of their long and arduous journey. So much is clear from what follows: For we saw his star in its rising and have come to worship him. Two questions can hardly be evaded: first, What was the nature of this star?; secondly, How was it that the magi connected it with the birth of the king of the Jews? As to the first, various answers are given; namely: a. it was a genuine star (in the sense in which the sun is also a star) of extraordinary brilliance; b. the planet Jupiter, often associated with the birth of kings and therefore called the king-planet; c. the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the Sign of the Fish; d. a comet acting erratically; e. a luminary hanging low in the sky; and f. the star of destiny, of hope, one's guiding star within the heart; etc. Answer f. can be dismissed immediately, for it is clear that the remarkable luminary was a physical object that could be seen and observed by the human eye (verses 2, 7, 9, 10). It was not a subjective monitor nor an optical illusion. As to answers a. - e., objections can be advanced against each of them, but the general statement should suffice that the nature of the astronomical object is not indicated in the text. Hence, we simply do not know. Even answer e. a luminary hanging low in the sky, though very definitely being in closer harmony with verse 9 than answers a. - d., is hard to bring into agreement with verse 2, especially with the phrase in its rising, which is the common Greek expression for the first appearance of a star upon the horizon.^[160] One might say, therefore, that in verse 2 whatever it was that the magi saw acts as we would normally expect a star to act, but in verse 9 (see on that verse) it behaves very differently. We are left in the dark, and should attempt no further explanation as to the identity of this astral phenomenon. Suffice it to say that the wisdom and kindness of God is evident from the fact that he spoke to these students of the stars in a language which they could understand, namely, that of a star. With respect to the second question we fare no better. Though it is safe to assume that the wise men had been taught by the Jews to expect the coming of a Deliverer, an expectation that was probably rather widely spread in those days and by no means confined to the Jews (John 4:25),^[161] their linking of his birth with the appearance of a definite star, called his star, remains unexplained. Had they received some information about the time when, on the basis of someone's interpretation of (Dan. 9:25, the One whom the Jews expected would be born; and did this make it easier for them to connect the appearance of the remarkable star with the fulfilment of the Messianic expectation? Did the star appear in that particular sector of the heavens which by them was somehow linked with happenings in Judea? had they heard about Balaam's prophecy, There shall come forth a star out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of IsraelNum. 24:17)? There are those who say that this passage, if the magi had heard about it, which is still a question, could not have influenced them in any way, since the word star is here used in a metaphorical sense as referring to a person, not to a bright celestial luminary. Is this reasoning sound? It should be borne in mind that expressions which were originally intended to be interpreted figuratively have often been taken literally. The New Testament is full of examples. See N.T.C. on the Gospel according to John, Vol. I, p. 125. The magi, too, might have linked Num. 24:17with the appearance of a literal star announcing the birth of the king of the Jews. The passage cannot be legitimately used on either side of the argument. Again, according to a rabbinical legend, in the night when Abraham was born the servants of Terah and the wise men of Nimrod arrived to celebrate the birth. When they left Terah's house that night they saw a brilliant star. On its course through the heavens it devoured four other stars. Seeing this, these men interpreted this to mean that the newborn child would become powerful, etc.^[162] Some would argue, therefore that when, many centuries later, another brilliant star appeared to a similar company of wise men, the latter saw in this radiant luminary a definite sign that another majestic person, the king of the Jews, had been born. It is obvious, however, that all of these opinions as to how and why the wise men connected the appearance of this star with the birth of the Messiah are mere conjectures. We do not have the answer. We are left in the dark. This, moreover, is exactly what makes Matthew's story so beautiful and instructive. Everything else is left out of the picture in order that the full emphasis may be placed on this one thing, namely, We have come to worship him. We are not given a detailed description of the star. We are not told how the magi connected this star with the birth. We are not told how many magi there were, how they dressed, how they died, or where they were buried. All that and much more is purposely left in the shade in order that against this dark background the light may shine forth all the more brilliantly. These wise men, whoever they were, wherever they came from, came to worship him! In the present instance, as is clear from verse 11, this can mean nothing less than that it was their intention to fall down before the Messianic King in humble adoration. Matthew is telling all those who read this story or hear it read that they too must do the same. If even the world of the Gentiles pays homage to him, should not the Jews who have received the oracles of God do so? And for the Gentiles there is this encouragement: the king of the Jews desires to be your king also. Who would dare to criticize Rembrandt for the light-versus-shade contrast (the chiaroscuro effect) of that great masterpiece which is popularly known as The Night Watch? It was Rembrandt who shows in all of his best paintings that he has caught the spirit of the inspired Gospel-writers! Continued: 3. When King Herod heard this he was frightened, and all Jerusalem with him. It is clear from the connection between verses 2 and 3 that the wise men did not immediately wend their way to Herod's palace. The king indirectly heard what was happening. It was reported to him that strangers had arrived from afar, inquiring about the whereabouts of a child recently born, whom they called the king of the Jews. When Herod heard this he was frightened, terrified. The verb used in the original is very descriptive. Literally in the active voice this verb means to shake, stir up, trouble, agitate, as when Egypt's king is said to resemble a monster that troubles the waters with its feet, thereby contaminating the rivers (Ezek. 32:2). Figuratively it has reference to the upsetting or throwing into confusion and alarm of mind and/or heart; here in (Matt. 2:3the meaning is, of course, being upset or frightened. Thus the disciples were troubled when they imagined that they were looking at a ghostMatt. 14:26); Zechariah when he saw an angel (Luke 1:12). See also John 14:1. That a man with the inner nature and disposition of Herod would become alarmed at the mere mention of a king of the Jews other than himself is not surprising. Was not he, even Herod, the one and only king of the Jews? Had he not received this title from Rome? Had it not taken him months, years even, of struggle to make this title come true? Was this, then, another attempt to dethrone him? Would this rumor about another king of the Jews stir up the freedom riots among those fanatics who hated him so thoroughly and had already caused him so much trouble? Herod is agitated and angry. He is convinced that unless radical measures be taken his worst fears will be realized. But he is not going to take this lying down. In his depraved mind a wicked plot is beginning to develop. The king was mistaken. It does not appear from Matthew's account that the Jerusalem populace had become deeply impressed by the magi's question. Nothing in the nature of a We shall overcome revolt was being planned. Nevertheless, all Jerusalem was indeed alarmed, for the people had learned by long and sad experience that there were no limits to the wrath and vengefulness of a thoroughly alarmed Herod. They dreaded to think of what new atrocities were in store for them. As the sequel shows, they had reason to be thus frightened. This may well be the proper place to answer the question, What was the character of this man who, in order to give him credit for the great talents which he undoubtedly possessed and to distinguish him from all other bearers of the same name, is often referred to as Herod the Great? Reference has already been made to the Maccabean revolt (see p. 127). In the year 198 b.c. Palestine had become subject to Syria. The ruling nation, in trouble with Rome and forced to pay a heavy penalty for its unsuccessful attempt to meddle in the affairs of the city on the Tiber, had imposed a burdensome tribute upon the Jews. When about the year 175 b.c. Antiochus Epiphanes became king, conditions worsened. While Antiochus was leading an expedition into Egypt the Jews rejoiced when a false rumor of the king's death gained currency. Returned, Antiochus massacred thousands and sold others into slavery. After another attempt to take Alexandria, Antiochus was thwarted by the Romans at the very moment when he regarded the final victory to be within his grasp. Again he decided to vent his wrath upon the Jews. His general Apollonius in 168 b.c. waited for the sabbath; then fell upon the defenseless city and devastated it, killing people right and left. Antiochus Epiphanes and his helpers determined to wipe out the Jewish religion root and branch. They took various measures to accomplish their purpose. By sacrificing swine on the altar of burnt-offering they defiled it, and they destroyed all the holy writings they could lay their hands on. In this time of sore affliction and distress the saints cried to Jehovah for help. Their prayer was heard. The revolution arrived. At Modein, not far from Jerusalem, there lived an aged priest, Mattathias. When the commissioner of Antiochus requested that he take the lead in offering a pagan sacrifice, the priest not only refused but slew both the commissioner and an apostate Jew who was about to comply with the request. This was the beginning of the revolt which occurred at that time. After the death of Mattathias his son Judas, a humble child of God and a military genius, achieved victories that constitute a classic in the science of strategy. He was always battling greatly superior forces. His courage was leonine, his swiftness incredible. As a result of his triumphs, about the year 165 b.c. the temple at Jerusalem, which by the wicked Antiochus had been consecrated to Zeus, was cleansed and rededicated to Jehovah. This rededication was the origin of the Festival of the Lights (Chanukah) celebrated by the Jews ever since. See N.T.C. on John 10:22a. The Jews regained religious freedom. After the death of Judas his brother Jonathan, just as daring as Judas himself, ruled for a while and gained remarkable victories. In his attempt to outwit the Syrians he was himself outwitted and executed. Under the next son of Mattathias, Simon, a very wise administrator, a truly glorious period was ushered in. See I Macc., chapter 14. But in the year 135 b.c. Simon was treacherously slain by his own son-in-law. The Maccabean rulers who followed had imbibed the Hellenistic spirit. They placed greater emphasis upon secular than upon spiritual affairs. Simon's son John Hyrcanus was the first of these rulers. Though he was highpriest as well as civil ruler he was a first-class warrior. To the north he conquered Samaria, and destroyed the Samaritan temple built on Mt. Gerizim. To the south he brought Edom into subjection. If Hyrcanus may be termed a ruler of questionable merit, his son Alexander Janneus (Jonathan) was far worse. His hands reeked with blood. One happening that occurred during his reign must not remain unmentioned for it had far-reaching consequences. Over the country of Edom, conquered, as was indicated, by his father, Alexander appointed a governor, Antipas, whose son, Antipater, was going to play an important role in the history of the Jews. Even more would this be true with respect to Antipater's son, the very Herod mentioned in Matthew 2and Luke 1and nowhere else in the New Testament. After the death of Alexander his widow Alexandra assumed leadership. After her death her sons Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus contended for the throne. Some of the people sided with Hyrcanus II, who was the elder; some with Aristobulus, who was the stronger of the two. There was also a third class consisting of those who longed for the abolition of the monarchy and the establishment of a form of government in which the priests should rule the country in accordance with the law of Jehovah. The three parties appealed to Rome. When Aristobulus became impatient with Rome's delay in reaching a final decision he decided to take matters into his own hands. The result was Pompey's invasion of Judea and the capture of Jerusalem in the year 63 b.c. When Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus were contending for the mastery the aforementioned Antipater, now governor of Edom, took full advantage of the troubled situation. Both Antipater and his son Herod were characterized by slyness. They would court the favor of whoever happened to be on top in Rome. As soon as the government changed hands they would immediately change their allegiance and shower their compliments and presents upon the man whom until yesterday they had opposed. And so in course of time it happened that when the Jews were unable to settle their own affairs the Edomite Antipater was by the Romans made procurator of Judea and was allowed to appoint his son Herod tetrarch of Galilee. This happened in the year 47 b.c. In 40 b.c. Palestine was invaded by the Parthians, civil war broke out, and Herod fled to Rome. By the Roman senate Herod was then nominated king of Judea. An army was given him, to enable him to carve out his own kingdom with the sword. This was no easy task. It was, however, his one great ambition. After encountering vigorous and unrelenting opposition from far and near he finally triumphed in the year 37 b.c. Since, according to Josephus, Herod, at his death (in 4 b.c.) was seventy years of age, he must have been born around 74 b.c. He may already have passed his sixty-ninth birthday when the wise men arrived in Jerusalem, but the exact date of their arrival is uncertain. After the year 37 b.c. Emperor Augustus increased Herod's territory until it included all of Palestine, even the border regions of what is now known as Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. He had indeed become the king of the Jews. Amid fierce and protracted struggles he jealously clung to his position of authority until the day of his death. By race or nationality Herod was not a Jew, though at times, for selfish political reasons, he encouraged the view, proposed by others, that he was of rich and noble Jewish ancestry. But, as stated earlier, his father, Antipater, was an Edomite. Also, his mother, Cypros, was a Nabatean; that is, she hailed from an Arab kingdom to the east and southeast of Palestine. When the Edomites (or Idumeans) had been conquered by John Hyrcanus, the Jewish religion was in a sense forced upon them. It is not surprising, therefore, that it is said at times that Herod practiced the Jewish religion. If one is willing to interpret this term Jewish religion in a sense wide enough to include profound devotion to Hellenistic culture, the statement would probably be correct. As pictured by Josephus,^[163] Herod was capable, crafty, and cruel. That he was capable admits of no doubt. The swiftness with which, even while still a very young governor of Galilee, he destroyed the bands of guerrillas that were making forays against the cities and despoiling the countryside, his efficiency in collecting tribute for Rome, the oratorical ability he revealed when he addressed the troops under his command or the Jerusalem populace, his subtle diplomacy, and the decisiveness with which he turned defeat into victory, were some of the qualities that made him the kind of monarch the Roman emperor admired. He was also a great builder. As such he gave Jerusalem a theater. Just outside the city he built an amphitheater and a hippodrome. On the city's western edge he constructed a luxurious palace for himself, with three famous towers, called respectively Hippicus, Phasael, and Mariamne. In honor of his benefactor, Emperor Augustus, he instituted and presided over quinquennial games, for he was a lover of sports. It is true that with this phase of his activity Herod by no means ingratiated himself with all the Jews. In fact, his enthusiasm for athletic activities infuriated many of the more devout, who regarded it as an expression of worldly-mindedness, a bad example for the youth, and a flagrant desecration of pure religion. As they saw it, the prominent place accorded to the figure of the emperor in the amphitheater, as well as the many trophies hung on the wall, were in conflict with the divine law forbidding images. An attempt was even made to assassinate the king, but it failed. The ten conspirators were tortured and afterward executed. In order to add to the luster of his name and, if possible, to win the people to his side, Herod proposed to rebuild and greatly enlarge and beautify Jerusalem's sanctuary, the one at times referred to as the second or Zerubbabel's temple built in the year 516 b.c., seventy years after the destruction of the first (Ezra 5:2ff.; Hag. 1:13–15). In an eloquent address to the people the king, if we can trust Josephus, divulged his plan to make a thankful return, after the most pious manner, to God, for the blessings I have received from him, who has given me this kingdom, and to do this by making his temple as complete as I am able. He began to build it about the year 19 b.c. Long after his death it had not yet been entirely completed. See N.T.C. on the Gospel according to John, Vol. I, p. 126. The grandeur and beauty of this temple which Herod started to build and on which he made very considerable progress is evident from Matt. 24:1, 2; Mark 13:1, 2; and Luke 21:5, 6. See further on 4:5; 21:12, 13, 23; 24:1–3. The king's building activities were by no means restricted to Jerusalem and its vicinity. He restored and adorned on a magnificent scale the ancient city of Samaria, renaming it Sebaste in honor of the emperor. Its temple, also dedicated to the emperor and containing the gigantic statute of Augustus, crowned the city-summit. On the coast between Joppa (now Jaffa) and Haifa he built the magnificent port of Caesarea, which soon afterward became the capital of Roman Palestine. Within the boundaries of his country he rebuilt and beautified many other cities. Outside of Palestine such places as Antioch, Beirut, Damascus, Tyre, Sidon, Rhodes, and even Athens benefited from his urge and ability to build and embellish. In speaking of Herod's capability as a ruler it is but fair and just to mention one important event that occurred during the thirteenth and fourteenth year of his reign. There was a perpetual drought that affected both Judea and Syria, resulting in a famine that has been described as the greatest since the days of Ahab. The royal treasury was empty because the money had been largely spent on the king's vast building program. Most of the people, never very affluent, lost whatever they had. As a result Herod's ability and obligation to provide relief was taxed to its utmost limit. But here again his resourcefulness was equal to the occasion. Says Josephus, He cut off the rich furniture that was in his palace, both of silver and gold &and sent the money to Petronius, who had been made prefect of Egypt by Caesar. Petronius and Herod were friends. It is remarkable that once again as before (Gen. 41, 42) the relief during a famine came from Egypt. The king provided food for all upon conditions which each family was able to meet, wisely making distinctions according to ability to repay. Inasmuch as because of the drought many of the sheep and goats had perished, so that winter clothing had become hard to obtain, Herod also imported and distributed the necessary garments. Moreover, he saw to it that the farmers had seed. Naturally, he himself benefited from this welfare program. For a while he even gained a measure of popularity. He took care that the people understood that the help came from himself! One could expect Herod to do just that. In addition to being capable he was, however, also crafty. He was sly, not to be trusted. The opprobrious epithet that fox, by the Lord applied to Herod Antipas (Luke 13:32), could have been used also to describe the latter's father, Herod the Great. He knew that the Jews regarded him as a foreigner, since, as already indicated, he was not a Jew. He was painfully aware of the fact that his subjects would far rather be ruled by a Hasmonean, a descendant of the original Maccabees. So he looked upon the very existence of prominent Hasmoneans as a threat to himself and his throne. He had no less than ten wives and more than a dozen children. Outstanding among all his wives was Mariamne I (hereafter simply called Mariamne),^[164] a real Hasmonean. In view of what he later did to her it is probably wrong to say, as is nevertheless often done, that he was deeply in love with her. It must have been rather a matter of infatuation, emotional fondness, or at best strong sentimental attachment. Marrying her was, moreover, a clever move, for by means of this union Herod sought to win status among the Jews and to legitimatize his rule over them. However, when he became aware of the fact that his subjects neither loved nor trusted him he plotted the destruction of the entire Hasmonean house. But he went about it in a very devious manner. Before entering any further into this subject it may be well to remind the reader of what has already been written on pp. 157, 158, and to give Mariamne's family tree; that is, only so much of it as is necessary for the understanding of that which follows. When, as a result of the pleading of Herod's wife, Mariamne, and of her mother, Alexandra, the king at last agreed to appoint Aristobulus, the brother of Mariamne, to the highpriestly office, Herod began to take notice of the fact that the comely young man, especially when he was performing his sacred office, was the darling of the people, who mingled with good wishes their joyful acclamations which they made to him (Josephus). Herod was exceedingly displeased, and immediately resolved to do away with his brother-in-law. However, the act must be comitted in such a manner that no one would ever be able to prove that the king himself was the murderer. So the young man, along with many others, was invited to a Jordan River swimming party near Jericho. The day was very hot. At first the king and the highpriest remained on the river-bank, as if it were beneath their dignity to mingle in the water with the commoners. But at last Herod prevailed upon Aristobulus to go into the water. After a while some of the young men, appointed by the king for this very purpose (according to Josephus), plunged the highpriest under water, as if it were all in fun. They held him there until he suffocated. Herod provided a magnificent funeral and in public shed copious tears! Many additional illustrations of the king's treacherous conduct could be given. Deceit was ingrained in his very nature. The murder of Mariamne's brother Aristobulus also shows what a cruel man Herod was. His cruelty was being constantly nourished by his overweening egoism and by his morbid distrust of anyone who, as Herod saw it, might aspire to replace him on the throne. He knew that many of the Jews hated him. They regarded him as the instrument used by a foreign power to keep them under bondage and to rob them of their substance. They thoroughly understood that his Jewishness was a sham and that in heart and mind he was a pagan. He loved power more than anything else. Therefore, the least suspicion that someone had arisen who might wish to deprive him of his throne often drew from him the immediate reaction, He must die! These dark and sinister drives of his nature grew on him because he did not pray for grace and spiritual energy to crush them. So, as he advanced in age he made progress also in mental and moral depravity until he was completely ruined. It stands to reason that his wrath was directed especially against the Hasmoneans, for it was to them that the people, whether openly or secretly, looked for deliverance. With the diagram on p. 161 before us, let us see what happened to Mariamne's family tree: Beginning at the top of the list and working step by step to the bottom, we first meet Mattathias (see p. 157). In the year 167 b.c. he died from the rigors of the revolt which he so nobly initiated. Descending one rung or generation, we note that in 135 b.c. Simon, a son of Mattathias, was treacherously slain by his son-in-law. Still further down, John Hyrcanus, after ruling for nearly three decades, died peacefully in 105 b.c. his son, Alexander Jannaeus, a cruel and bloodthirsty person he once ordered the execution of 50,000 of his own people died in 78 b.c. from an incurable disease. His widow Alexandra ruled for nine years and died in 69 b.c. Next we descend to the days of The First Triumvirate. Crassus, Pompey, and Julius Caesar have divided the government of the Roman Empire between themselves. They go down in that order: first Crassus, then Pompey, finally Julius. In the year 49 b.c. Aristobulus, a son of Jannaeus, was poisoned by partisans of Pompey. Alexander, a son of Aristobulus, was beheaded. Herod now appears upon the scene. These are the days of The Second Triumvirate: Lepidus, Antony, and Octavian. During the bitter struggle for possession of Jerusalem, Herod, in the year 37 b.c., having sent presents to his friend of long standing, Antony, sees to it that Antigonus, another Hasmonean, is executed. This same Antigonus, son of Aristobulus, had mutilated his uncle (see the chart), the weak highpriest Hyrcanus II, so as to disqualify him for the high-priestly office and to undermine any pronounced political influence he might exercise or others might exert in his behalf. Just a little later, in 35 b.c., Aristobulus the brother of Mariamne (hence, not to be confused with the son of Alexander Jannaeus) meets death by drowning, as has just been related (see p. 162). One can well imagine how Alexandra and Mariamne felt about this. Could the king blame them for distrusting him? Alexandra writes a letter to Queen Cleopatra, the Egyptian, informing her about the murder of Aristobulus. Cleopatra, in turn, tells Antony, who orders Herod to meet him and give an account. Before departing, Herod instructs Joseph, who was both his uncle and brother-in-law (the husband of Herod's sister Salome) to slay Mariamne if he, the king, should fail to return alive. On Herod's safe return Salome, who had begun to hate her husband, informs her brother that Joseph had bestowed improper attention upon Mariamne. Herod has Joseph put to death. Mariamne denies any guilt and for a while she and her husband are reconciled. But this does not last. In the year 30 b.c. Herod saw in the aged and mutilated Hyrcanus II a threat to the throne, and had him executed. By this time whatever love Mariamne may have had for her husband had turned into hatred, for she saw him now as the murderer of her brother Aristobulus and of her grandfather Hyrcanus II. In September of the year 31 b.c. the historic naval battle of Actium takes place. Antony, who had divorced Octavian's sister Octavia, in favor of the bewitching, ruthless, grasping Egyptian Queen Cleopatra (the former mistress of Julius Caesar) whom he married, had been defeated. The following year, August 30 b.c., both Antony and Cleopatra committed suicide. See and/or hear Shakespeare's vivid and imaginative drama Antony and Cleopatra. These deaths were a severe blow to Herod, who had consistently taken the side of Antony and had even offered to help him. The king of the Jews feared that Octavian, now Emperor Augustus, would deprive him of his throne and perhaps even put him to death. So Herod sets out on a trip to make a humble appeal to the one whom he had up to now opposed. Before leaving he instructs an underling, Sohemus, to put to death both Mariamne and Alexandra in the event that he, the king, should meet with death.^[165] Before Augustus he very shrewdly does not try to play down his former loyalty to Antony but even emphasizes it, climaxing his appeal with the words, To you I will be the same loyal friend. This strategy succeeds. In triumph, his royal title having been reaffirmed, he returns, in the expectation that his wife will receive him with open arms. In the meantime, however, she has learned about the instructions Sohemus received with respect to her. So on her part the welcome-back is less than enthusiastic. In striving to discover the reason for this coldness Herod hears that there has been a relation of intimacy between Mariamne and Sohemus. The latter is executed. After a mock trial, in the year 29 b.c. Mariamne is convicted of adultery. She is put to death. Herod's subsequent pathetic remorse does not restore her to life. The next year, 28 b.c., Mariamne's mother, the scheming Alexandra, is also executed. So from the chart on p. 161 the name of every Hasmonean who, either in reality or in the sick imagination of the king, was considered to be a challenge to his power, has been crossed out. But two sons of Herod by Mariamne, namely, Alexander and Aristobulus, are still alive. See the chart on p. 189. Surely, Herod will not harm his own children! Yes, he will even do away with them, if he is convinced that they in any way threaten his title as king of the Jews. And so, in the year 8 b.c., after many a family plot and counter-plot, these two sons are also put to death.^[166] And even this is not the end of the horrors. Herod goes from bad to worse. His lust for power, dark suspicion, and almost insane eagerness to avenge himself, enslave him until at last they kill him. Five days before his death there is one more murder of a son. But inasmuch as that occurred after the visit of the wise men a more definite reference to it is reserved for later. See p. 186. By thus describing Herod as a cruel, bloodthirsty tyrant, an increasingly wicked person, more and more as the years rolled along bent on getting rid of anyone who, as he saw it, might wish to deprive him of his power, are we not being unjust to him? Were there no extenuating circumstances? From a medical point of view can it not be argued that, especially in his final years, the king was afflicted with a severe case of hardening of the arteries? Did not the reduction in blood-flow to the brain cause him to lose some of his earlier capacity to subdue his wicked traits? Again, is it not true that Herod was by no means alone in his destructive designs? Was he not being constantly prodded by his equally wicked sister Salome,^[167] a palace resident as was his mother-in-law Alexandra, another trouble-maker? Was not even greedy Queen Cleopatra guilty of making matters worse by her unauthorized interference? Was not Herod's firstborn son, Antipater, an arch schemer? And Herod's sons by Mariamne, were they not cut from the same piece of cloth? Was not the king's court a veritable hotbed of underhanded plotting? Granted that Herod was a great sinner, was he not also the victim of the sins of others? Allowance must be made for all this, but it does not blot out or excuse his own accountability. According to Scripture self-control is one of the cardinal virtues, the fruit of the Spirit's operation in the heart (Prov. 25:28; Acts 24:25; Gal. 5:23; II Peter 1:6). Strikingly touching and forever valid are the words of Rom. 6:12, Let not sin therefore reign [or: be king, hold sway] in your mortal body, to the end that you should obey its lusts. Herod, who was eager to be and to remain a king, was actually a slave, and this by his own choice! It is probably the last year of Herod's reign and of his life. He is gravely alarmed because the wise men have arrived, asking, Where is the (new)born king of the Jews? For we saw his star in its rising and have come to worship him. Understandably, all Jerusalem is also fearfully perturbed. On hearing the bad news the old king stirs up the dying embers of his energy and goes into action. In fact, he becomes very active: he assembles, summons, sends, perceives, is enraged, kills &and then dies! See verses 4, 7, 8, 16, 19, and 22. It is immediately clear that the description here given matches that which we find in the extra-canonical sources. Essentially, therefore, the latter must be right! Herod is no laggard. He is a killer. The thoroughness he displays is matched only by the awakened wrath of which it is the product. Note also this hypocrisy: that I too may come and worship him (verse 8), and his cruelty: the destruction of Bethlehem's infants (verse 16). With this background in mind we are now ready for verse 4. And having assembled all the chief priests and scribes of the people he was seeking to learn from them where the Christ was to be born. Since Herod was living in a day when the hope of deliverance through the arrival and work of a promised Messiah was in the hearts and on the lips of many, he realizes that the king of the Jews and the Messiah are one and the same. By their question the wise men have greatly disturbed Herod. Yet he is far too shrewd a person not to sense that expelling or killing these men would leave the one whom he regards as the potential pretender to the throne unscathed and even undiscovered. After all, not the magi but the Messiah, the king of the Jews, is the one Herod must destroy. To do this he must first of all identify this mysterious individual. He is sufficiently acquainted with the Jewish religion to know that somewhere in the ancient oracles there was a direct prediction of the place where Messiah was to be born. So Herod must learn what place this is, for this knowledge will be a stepping stone toward finding the child and killing him. Herod knows exactly where to go for the desired information. He calls together the official representatives of the Jews, all the chief priests and scribes of the people, that is probably, the entire Sanhedrin.^[168] This was the Jewish Supreme Court. As long as it did not encroach upon the prerogatives of the Roman government, which, for example, passed the final decision on the death sentences of this court, it was the ultimate authority not only in strictly religious but also in civil and criminal matters.^[169] The chief priests consisted of the present ruling highpriest, those who had formerly occupied this high office, and other dignitaries from whose ranks the highpriest was usually chosen. The scribes were the men of letters, those who studied and taught God's law, the experts in the Jewish religion. To this body of men, therefore, Herod submits the question as to where, according to Scripture (implied), the Christ was to be born. 5, 6. They told him, In Bethlehem of Judea; for thus it is written through the prophet: And you Bethlehem, land of Judah, Are by no means least among the princes of Judah; For out of you there shall come a ruler Who will shepherd my people Israel. On the part of the high council there is no hesitancy. Among the Jews it was a well-known fact that the Messiah was to come from Bethlehem (John 7:42). The words of Matt. 2:6are taken from Mic. 5:2(quoted in part). Though the quotation from Mic. 5:2is not according to the letter the main change being the one from who are little to be among to are by no means least among it is according to the essence, for in both cases the meaning is, Though you, Bethlehem, are but little,^[170] yet you are by no means least, for Israel's Ruler shall come forth from you. As Micah saw it, therefore, and as the Jewish authorities now interpret it, Matthew concurring, in the tribal meetings where each city and village was represented by its chief or prince, Bethlehem, though small in population, is very important because Israel's great Leader was destined to be born there. The final line of Matt. 2:6bears great similarity to what is found in II Sam. 5:2. According to the context there, the tribes of Israel come to David with the unanimous request that he be their king. To strengthen their appeal they quote the words which God on a former occasion had addressed to David, namely, You shall be shepherd of my people Israel. By the Sanhedrin and Matthew is in full agreement these words are now applied to David's great Son and Lord, namely, the Messiah. According to Scripture, in several ways David was a type of Christ, for example, with respect to a. birth in Bethlehem: I Sam. 16:4, 12, 13; cf. Luke 2:4, 7; b. being beloved, which is the very meaning of the name David, see also I Sam. 13:14; cf. Matt. 3:17; c. being God's anointed: I Sam. 16:13; cf. Ps. 2:2; Isa. 61:1: Luke 4:18, 21; d. receiving royal position and honor, already implied in the anointing, see also II Sam. 7:13; cf. Luke 1:32, 33; and e. the course each had to follow from bitter humiliation to glorious exaltation: II Sam. 15:23; 22:17–20; cf. John 18:1; Matt. 28:18; etc. Therefore, this application of II Sam. 5:2to the Messiah was fully justified. What is often passed by in silence is the fact that neither King Herod nor the Jewish Sanhedrin for a moment doubted that the reference of Mic. 5:2and the ultimate reference of II Sam. 5:2were to a person (not a nation), namely, the Messiah. When anyone reads such precious Old Testament passages and this includes also Gen. 3:15, 22:18; 49:10; II Sam. 7:12, 13; Isa. 7:14; 8:8; 9:6; and many, many others without seeing the Christ in them, is he not reading them blindly? See Luke 24:25 27, 32. Very beautiful and comforting is what is said about Messiah=Christ in the words, Who shall shepherd my people Israel. The shepherd is here the king. But this king is no cruel tyrant. In the estimation of those whom God tenderly calls my people (John 21:5 17) this king is not only prominent but also provident. To them the word shepherd suggests not only solemnity but also solicitude (Isa. 40:11; Matt. 18:12, 13; Luke 15:3 7; John 10:11, 14, 27 29; Heb. 13:20; I Peter 2:25; 5:4; Rev. 7:17). Continued: 7. Then Herod secretly summoned the wise men and ascertained from them the time when the star had made its appearance. The first meeting, the one of the king and the Sanhedrin, by its very nature could not be kept a secret. But adding a second public meeting to the first would have aroused even more suspicion and fear among the people than was already the case. This may well have been the reason why Herod summoned the wise men secretly, meaning not only that the command that they present themselves before him was issued in secret but also that the actual meeting took place in secret. On the basis of a. what has been brought to light previously with respect to the king's duplicity (see pp. 161 f.) and of b. what a comparison between verses 8 and 16 reveals, we are fully justified in stating that in his private meeting with the magi Herod concealed his real intention. He did not ask them, How old do you think this child would be by now? but, When was it that the star made its first appearance? For the benefit of the wise men he feigned a deep interest in their specialty, the stars, while his real interest was in the child, that he might destroy him. Naturally, the more he would get to know about this potential competitor, as he saw him, the easier it would be to identify and kill him. He already knew his birthplace (verses 4 6). Now, on the basis of the time of the star's appearance he considers himself able to guess the child's approximate age. 8. And he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, Go and make careful search for the little child, and when you have found him report to me &The king now sends the wise men to Bethlehem as his private detectives, ordering them: a. to conduct a thorough search for the child, and, on the presupposition that the search will be successful, b. to report back to him. With diabolical but characteristic cunning he adds, that I too may come and worship him. The narrative now turns back to the wise men: 9. So after listening to the king they went on their way, and look, the star they had seen in its rising went ahead of them. While still in their own country the magi had seen this wonderful star in its rising (verse 2). Now (verse 9) suddenly, dramatically note: and look! they see it again. Where had the star been between then (verse 2) and now (verse 9)? We are not told. We indulge in imaginative speculation when we say that by its reappearance every night the star had led these men all the way from the east to Jerusalem. Had this been the case would not the text have read thus, And look, the star that had led them all the way to Jerusalem, instead of, And look, the star they had seen in its rising? If any conclusion is valid at all, it would rather seem that the star seen in its rising now reappears for the first time. However this may be, one fact is stated with great clarity: this star now went ahead of them. The luminous wonder was actually moving from north to south, from Jerusalem to Bethlehem! What a strange way for a star to behave. Nevertheless, this is what Matthew says. In their interpretation commentators differ widely. According to some, the star did not really point the way. In an unscientific manner Matthew is simply stating the impression which the stars make upon us. When we travel, they seem to travel along with us. When we stop, they seem to stop also. Not the star but Herod had pointed the way to Bethlehem.^[171] Others are of a directly opposite opinion. R. C. H. Lenski writes, The star moved as a guide, the star arrived, the star stood. It is all perfectly plain, absolutely miraculous, unlike any star that ever was. But what has been done with this star? We are told, it never moved at all &the star only appeared to stand still when the magi stood still. ^[172] On this point I happen to be in agreement with Lenski. It is entirely true that King Herod had sent the wise men to Bethlehem (verse 8), to which might be added that God, through Micah, as quoted by the Jewish Sanhedrin, had fixed Herod's attention on Bethlehem as the place of Messiah's birth (verses 4 6). But here, as often, God made use of two means: general revelation (the star) and special Revelation (Mic. 5:2). When both are present, they always agree. Further, I do not believe that for the magi the star did exactly what stars are always doing for us. If that were all that was meant would it not be better to say that the wise men, by their traveling, were leading the star? Explain it we cannot, but this star actually went ahead of the wise men until it stood still over (the place) where the little child was. Literally Matthew says, until, having arrived, it stood still over where was the little child. The star pointed out the very house! As described in verse 9, therefore, at this point the strange and wonderful luminary must have been hanging low. To say that in some other way the magi had discovered the location of the place where the child was^[173] fails to do justice to the text, as I see it. Continued: 10. At the sight of the star they were overjoyed. They rejoiced exceedingly with great joy, thus literally. See Isa. 66:10; John 3:29; and I Thess. 3:9for similar expressions. Their cup of joy was running over. Possible reasons for this exuberant rejoicing: a. they saw their old friend once more, the very star they had observed in its rising, the one that, correctly interpreted, had started them upon the journey to greet the newborn king; b. they now discerned very clearly that God was guiding them by these two means: the star and the prophetic word; c. They knew that very soon they would reach their destination and would pay homage to the Messiah, the king of the Jews whose coming concerned the Gentiles as well. The journey of the wise men reaches its climax in verse 11. Having entered the house they saw the little child with Mary his mother, and they cast themselves to the ground and worshiped him. Nativity scenes depict the arrival of the wise men. Often, however, they are shown standing, or kneeling down, in the company of the shepherds, and in a stable. This is obviously incorrect. According to the evangelist Luke, when the shepherds arrive the babe is still lying in the manger (Luke 2:16). They come at once, that very night (Luke 2:8, 15). The little family, Joseph, Mary, and the child, continues to live in relative poverty for at least forty days, as is evident from Luke 2:22 24; cf. Lev. 12:2–8. If the wise men from the east, bringing precious gifts, had arrived within this period of forty days, then, on the fortieth day Mary's purification offering would probably have been something better than a pair of turtle-doves or two young pigeons. It is clear that Joseph and his family had left the inn stable, perhaps very soon after the child's birth, certainly before the arrival of the wise men. They are now no longer staying in an animal shelter but living in a building for human beings (with some relatives?). With well-nigh unanimity translators agree with the rendering, (the wise men) having entered the house, ^[174] or something similar.^[175] Having entered, the wise men see the little child with Mary his mother. Note that whenever mother and infant are mentioned together (verses 11, 13, 14, 20, and 21) the infant is always mentioned first. It is that little child upon whom the main interest is concentrated. This is as it should be, for in this little one God has become incarnate: Veiled in flesh the Godhead see; Hail th Incarnate Deity. (Charles Wesley) How much of this truth the wise men understood we do not know. We do know, though, that on seeing him they cast themselves to the ground and worshiped him; literally, and having fallen they prostrated themselves before them. They revere him as the Messiah, the king of the Jews. It is true that the verb used in the original and here rendered worshiped does not always indicate an act of reverence paid to God, the Creator and Redeemer. Sometimes it is the creature Peter (Acts 10:25); or the church in Philadelphia (Rev. 3:9) rather than the Creator, to whom homage is rendered. But when this is done these are regarded as standing in close relation to God, so that God speaks and operates through them. However, if, in such cases, the worshipper fails to draw this distinction, and begins to regard a mere man as if he were on a par with God, he may well receive a reprimand. Thus, when Cornelius falls down at Peter's feet and worships him, he is told, Get up; I myself am also but a man (Acts 10:26). When John, the author of the book of Revelation, falls down in order to worship his angel-guide, he receives a similar warning (Rev. 22:8, 9; cf. 19:10). The magi, however, are not told to desist. They may have made more progress in the true faith than we realize. According to Matt. 2:12God, who had previously spoken to them by means of a star and (indirectly) by means of Micah, also speaks to them in a dream. Besides, as has been pointed out previously, believers who lived on the very threshold of the new dispensation must have told them about the Messiah to come. Equipped with all this knowledge, sanctified to their hearts as is clear from the entire account, we may well think of them as men who rendered to the Christ-child the type of homage that was in a very real sense acceptable to God. In this child they somehow see God, and worship him! They have rendered the proper homage. They now offer the appropriate gifts (Ps. 72:10; cf. Isa. 60:3; Ps. 87). We read: Next, they opened their treasure-chests and presented him with gifts: gold and frankincense and myrrh. They are pictured here as not only wealthy but also warm-hearted and worshipful. These men offer their treasures to him: they are meant for the child to honor him. In works of exposition one use is at times assigned to each of these presents. There is probably a good reason for this. Nevertheless, it may not be amiss to begin by showing that in general Scripture assigns more than one use to each of these articles. For example, gold was used extensively in the construction of the tabernacle and its furniture (Exod. 25 31; 35 40) and of the temple and its contents (I Kings 5 7; II Chron. 2 5). Yet, it was by no means limited to holy uses. It was also worn in the form of bracelets (Gen. 24:22), necklaces (Num. 31:50), and earrings (Exod. 32:2, 3). We read about gods of gold (Exod. 20:23), one of them being the golden calf which Aaron made (Exod. 32:4), though he denied that he made it: he merely cast the gold into the fire, and there came out this calf! (Exod. 32:24). James tells the stingy rich that their gold and their silver are rusted (5:3). In a vision which John saw gold serves the very unholy purpose of decorating the great harlot (Rev. 17:4, 5); Frequently the word gold is used in comparisons, to teach men that there are things that are far more precious than gold (Ps. 19:10; 119:72, 127; Prov. 8:10, 19). As to frankincense (literally meaning pure incense), the Old Testament word is derived from a root meaning white. An incision is made in the bark of a certain tree of the genus Boswellia, growing on the limestone rocks of South Arabia and Somalia (E. Africa). The resulting fresh juice has a white or milky color; hence the name.^[176] Now frankincense, too, has various uses. It is mentioned in connection with meal offerings (Lev. 2:1, 2, 15, 16) and wedding processions (Sol. 3:6). It also occurs in a list of articles of commerce (Rev. 18:13). Myrrh was probably derived from a small tree with odoriferous wood, namely, the Balsamodendron of Arabia. It was used for the purpose of perfuming a bed (Prov. 7:17) or a garment (Ps. 45:8). It was prescribed for certain young ladies, to make them more desirable (Esther 2:12). It was also used lavishly in bridal processions (Sol. 3:6). Mingled with wine it served as an anaesthetic (Mark 15:23). Finally, it was used in preparing a body for burial (John 19:39, 40). This list of various uses is somewhat incomplete as any Concordance will indicate. However, it establishes the point to be noted, namely, that according to Scripture (both Old and New Testament) each of the three gifts brought by the wise men serves more than one purpose. Now if this is true, what justification did Origen (and many after him) have for saying that the magi brought gold, as to a king; myrrh, as to one who was mortal; and incense, as to God?^[177] Does not this representation amount to oversimplification? On the surface it would seem that it does. However, another look at the entire list of passages in which these three items are mentioned proves that, to say the least, there is an important element of truth in Origen's observation. To begin with gold, it is striking how often in Scripture this precious metal is indeed associated with royalty: with the king, the queen, the vice-gerent, and the prince. Joseph, a vice-gerent, wears a gold neck-chain (Gen. 41:42). So does Daniel as third ruler (Dan. 5:7, 29). King Nebuchadnezzar, as the first and greatest in a list of earthly rulers, is represented by a head of gold (Dan. 2:32, 38). Rabbah's king wears a crown of gold (II Sam. 12:30). So does the author of (Ps. 21, in the superscription identified with David. Princes own goldJob 3:15). (Ps. 45:9speaks about the queen, in gold of Ophir. The one who calls himself king in Jerusalem is a collector of gold and silverEccl. 2:8). And King Ahasuerus holds out his golden scepter to Queen Esther (Esther 4:11, 5:2; 8:4). As if this were not enough, it can be added that King Solomon not only had drinking vessels of gold and an ivory throne overlaid with gold, but was hemmed in by gold to such an extent that in seven verses descriptive of his wealth (I Kings 10:14–18, 21, 22) gold is mentioned no less than ten times! We see, therefore, that to anyone acquainted with the books of the Old Testament gold would amost immediately suggest royalty. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER III Outline of Chapter 3 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him to Do 3:1–12 The Ministry of John the Baptist 3:13–17 The Baptism of Jesus 3:1–12 The Ministry of John the Baptist Cf. Mark 1:3 8; Luke 3:4 18; John 1:6 8, 15 [Greek] -2 _ftnref1 [Greek] 3 1 Now in those days John the Baptist made his public appearance, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, 2 Be [Greek] -2 _ftnref2 [Greek] for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. 3 It was of him that the prophet Isaiah spoke when he said, A voice of one crying in the wilderness: Make ready the way of the Lord, Make straight his paths. 4 Now this John wore a garment made of camel's hair, and a leather belt around his waist, and his food was locusts and wild honey. 5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, all Judea, and the whole Jordan neighborhood. 6 Confessing their sins they were baptized by him in the Jordan River. 7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism he said to them, You offspring of vipers! Who warned you to escape from the approaching (outpouring of) wrath? 8 Bear fruit therefore in keeping with conversion; 9 and do not presume to say to yourselves, We have Abraham as our father, for I tell you that God is able to raise up children for Abraham out of these stones here. 10 Already the axe is laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 11 I on my part baptize you with water with a view to conversion; but he who is coming behind me is mightier than I I am not fit to remove his sandals he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 12 His winnowing shovel is in his hand, and he will thoroughly clear his threshing floor. He will gather his grain into the granary, but the chaff he will consume with unquenchable fire. In chapters 1 and 2 Matthew has revealed to us the greatness of the Christ, the true Son of David, the One to whom even wise men from the east rendered homage. It is proper that a king, especially sucha king, have a herald to proclaim his approach. This herald was John the Baptist. 1. Now in those days John the Baptist made his public appearance, preaching in the wilderness of Judea. (The expression in those days is very indefinite, probably meaning no more than in the days of Christ's earthly sojourn. For a more precise chronological note see Luke 3:1, 2. If John, like JesusLuke 3:23), was about thirty years of age when he made his first public appearance, then, since the Baptist was about six months older than Jesus (Luke 1:26, 36), and since Jesus probably began his ministry in late a.d. 26 or early 27, [Greek] -2 _ftnref3 [Greek] it was likely during the summer of that same year that John had begun to address the multitudes. Everything about John was startling: his sudden emergence, manner of dress, choice of food, preaching, and baptizing. The evangelist Luke first dwells in great detail (1:5–25, 41, 57 79) on the miraculous manner of John's birth to the priest Zechariah and his wife Elizabeth, the latter also of priestly descent. Then, in one brief note Luke covers the entire period between John's birth and the beginning of his ministry: And the child grew and became strong in spirit, and was in the wilderness until the day when he made his public appearance before Israel (1:80). On that day suddenly there he was, fullgrown, facing a large multitude, his startling debut reminding men of Elijah (I Kings 17:1). He was preaching in the wilderness of Judea, a term indicating the rolling bad lands between the hill country of Judea to the west, and the Dead Sea and lower Jordan to the east, stretching northward to about the point where the Jabbok flows into the Jordan. It is indeed a desolation, a vast undulating expanse of barren chalky soil covered with pebbles, broken stones and [Greek] -2 _ftnref4 ([Greek] Here and there a bit of brushwood appears, with snakes crawling underneath (see verse 7). It is clear, however, from Matt. 3:5John 1:28) that the terrain of John's activity extended even to the east bank of the Jordan. It included the entire region aroundi.e., on both banks of this part of the [Greek] -2 _ftnref5 [Greek] He preached, saying 2. Be converted.& His message was not prolix but pithy, not soothing but soul-searching, not flattering but frightening, at least to considerable degree. He was a preacher of imminent doom (see verses 7 and 10), a catastrophe that could be avoided only by a, radical turnabout of mind and heart. The gist of his message is given here in verse 2. However, the rendering found in many of our translations, namely, Repent thus -2 _ftnref6 (A.V., ) -2 _ftnref7 (A.R.V., ) -2 _ftnref8 (R.S.V., etc. is probably not the best. It has been called a.infelicitous (W. D. Chamberlain), b.a rendering that does not do justice to the original, since it gives undue prominence to the emotional element (L. Berkhof), c.a hopeless mistranslation (A. T. Robertson), and even d.the worst translation in the New Testament (J. A. Broadus). I agree with a.and b., but I find c.and d.too harsh. It is not as bad as all that! The idea of repentanceis definitely included in the Baptist's terse admonition. Genuine sorrow for sin and an earnest resolution to break with the evil past is even emphasizedLuke 3:13, 14). But repentance, though basic, is only one side of the picture. It might be called the negative aspect. The positive is fruit-bearing (Matt. 3:8, 10). The word used in the [Greek] -2 _ftnref9 [Greek] looks forward as well as backward. Therefore the rendering be converted is probably better than repent. Conversion, moreover, affects not only the emotions but also the mind and the will. In the original the word used by the Baptist indicates a radical change of mind and heart that leads to a complete turnabout of [Greek] -2 _ftnref10 ([Greek] Cf. II Cor. 7:8–10; II Tim. 2:25. Does not this insistence on conversion remind one of ElijahI Kings 18:18, 21, 37; Mal. 4:5, 6; Matt. 11:14; 17:12, 13; Mark 9:11 13; Luke 1:17)? It should be stressed that although John attached considerable importance to baptism, baptized many, and was therefore called the Baptist, he did not consider this rite to have any saving significance apart from the fundamental change of life indicated by conversion. It is on the latter that he placed the greatest emphasis (see especially verses 7, 8). To the words Be converted John adds, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.This kingdom of heaven concept will be discussed at greater length in connection with 4:23. For the present it should suffice to state that John meant that the dispensation in which, through the fulfilment of the Messianic prophecies (see pp. 80, 81), heaven's (i.e., God's) reign in the hearts and lives of men would begin to assert itself far more powerfully than ever before, was about to begin; in a sense, had even now arrived. Great blessings were in store for all those who, by sovereign grace, would confess and forsake their sins and would begin to live to God's glory. On the other hand, doom was about to overtake the impenitent. As sovereign Lord, God was about to assert himself most emphatically both for salvation and for damnation. The Baptist emphasized the latter (verses 7, 8, 10 12), though he certainly did not omit the former (verse 12). In order to escape punishment and obtain the blessing men should undergo the radical change already described. Matthew continues: 3. It was of him that the prophet Isaiah spoke when he said, A voice of one crying in the wilderness: Make ready the way of the Lord, Make straight his [Greek] -2 _ftnref11 [Greek] Isa. 40:3 5symbolically pictures the approach of Jehovah for the purpose of leading the procession of Jews who will be returning joyfully to their homeland after long years of captivity. In the Syrian desert, between Babylonia and Palestine, the way must be prepared for the Lord's coming. So, a herald cries out to the people, In the wilderness make ready the way of the Lord, Make straight in the desert a highway for our God. This figure of the herald is by Matthew applied to John, as Christ's herald. The Baptist, by saying, I am the voice, &shows that he agrees with this interpretation (John 1:23). So does Jesus himself (Matt. 11:10). This shows that the deliverance granted to the Jews when, in the latter part of the sixth century b.c. and afterward, they returned to their own country was but a type of that far more glorious liberation in store for all who accept Christ as their Savior and Lord. In other words, Isaiah's prophecy regarding the voice that cried out lacked totalfulfilment until both Messiah's forerunner and also the Lord himself had arrived on the [Greek] -2 _ftnref12 [Greek] The appropriate character of the application of (Isa. 40:3to John the Baptist is evident from the following: a.John was preaching in the wilderness (verse 1); and b.the task assigned to him from the days of his infancyLuke 1:76, 77), yes even earlier (Luke 1:17; Mal. 3:1), was exactly this, namely, to be Messiah's herald or way-preparer. He was to be the Lord's voice to the people, (all ofthat but not more thanJohn 3:22 30). As such he must not only announce Christ's approach and presence but also urge the people (to prepare the wayof the Lord, that is, by God's grace and power to effect a complete change of mind and heart (see verse 2). This implies that they must make straight his paths,meaning that they must provide the Lord with a ready access into their hearts and lives. They must make straightwhatever was crooked, not in line withGod's holy will. They must clear away all the obstacles which they had thrown into his path; such obstructions as self-righteousness and smug complacency ( We have Abraham as our father, verse 9), greed, cruelty, slander, etc.Luke 3:13, 14). It is evident that, both in Isaiah and in John's preaching as recorded by Matthew, the wilderness through which a path must be made ready for the Lord is in the final analysis the people's heart, inclined to all evil. Though the literal meaning is not absent, it is subsumed into the figurative. The root idea is indeed the actual desert. But the very sight of the [literal] wilderness must have had a powerful effect on stupid and hardened men, leading them to perceive that they were in a state of death, and to accept the promise of salvation that had been held out to them (Matt. 3:3). The manner of life of John the Baptist is described as follows: (4. Now this John wore a garment made of camel's hair, and a leather belt around his waist, and his food was locusts and wild honey.John's long, flowing garment, woven from camel's hair, reminds us somewhat of Elijah's mantle, though there is a difference in the descriptionMatt. 3:4with II Kings 1:8). Such rugged apparel may have been regarded as symbolic of the prophetic office. (Zech. 13:4I Sam. 28:14) seems to point in that direction. At any rate, such rough garb was fit for desert wear. It was durable and economical. Jesus makes special mention of the fact that John did not wear fine clothes (Matt. 11:8). He had not been raised as a Little Lord Fauntleroy, and never became a dandy. The Baptist's rough robe matched his message. I (magine a man clothed in soft raimentMatt. 11:8) being a Bussprediger [Greek] -2 _ftnref13 [Greek] Coarse apparel befitted this stern preacher. The leather belt fastened at the waist not only kept the loose robe from blowing and tearing apart but also enabled it to be tucked up to facilitate walking. In this connection see also -2 _ftnref14 N.T.C.on Eph. 6:14. John's food was as simple as was his clothing. He subsisted on locusts and wild honey, evidently such fare as could be found in the wilderness. Honey, the kind that is found in the wild, presents no problem. It was not just a sweetener (sugar, as we now know it, being then rather rare) but an article of food. In the wilderness it could be found under rocks or in crevices under the rocks (Deut. 32:13). The role which wild honey played in the stories of Samson (Judg. 14:8, 9, 18) and of Jonathan (I Sam. 14:25, 26, 29) is too well-known to need elaboration. But locusts!It is entirely possible that one shudders to think of actually eatingthem, their legs and wings having been discarded, their bodies roasted or baked, a little salt added. Nevertheless, it is clear from Lev. 11:22that the Lord permittedand by implication encouragedthe Israelites to eat four kinds of insects which we in North America would popularly call locusts. Even today certain Arabian tribes relish them. And why not? The Latin saying, De gustibus non disputandum est still holds. Those who enjoy shrimp, mussel, oyster, and frog-leg should not find fault with those who eat the locust. See also p. 218. It is, however, not necessary to conclude that verse 4 gives us a complete summary of the Baptist's diet. The main point is that by means of his simple mode of life, evident with respect to both food and clothing, he was a living protest against all selfishness and self-indulgence, hence also against that frivolousness, carelessness, and false security with which many people were rushing toward their doom, and were doing this with the judgment so near at hand (Matt. 24:37–39; and Luke 17:27 29). John's energetic and courageous preaching was effective: (5. Then went out to him Jerusalem, all Judea, and the whole Jordan neighborhood.In very large numbers the Jerusalem population, the residents of Judea in general, and those living on either side of the Jordan (see on verse 1) went out to see and hear John. Everybody took him to be a prophetMatt. 21:26). Continued: (6. Confessing their sins they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.Without confession of sins no baptism! For those who truthfully repented of their evil state and wicked conduct baptism, never an independently operating charisma, was a visible sign and seal of invisible graceRom. 4:11), the grace of the forgiveness of sins and adoption into God's own family. Contrary to the opinion of [Greek] -2 _ftnref15 [Greek] who believe that there was no connection between proselyte baptism i.e., the baptism of non-Jews converted to the Jewish religion and the baptism of John, the opposite theory would seem to have the weight of evidence on its side. Rabbi Hillel may be confidently dated as having lived during the last half of the first century b.c. and the first quarter of the first century a.d. Rabbi Shammai was his contemporary. Their respective followers gave contradictory answers to the question, Is it possible for a non-Jew who becomes a proselyte on the evening before the Passover to partake of the paschal meal? The school of Shammai answered that such a convert must take a bath and may then take part. The school of Hillel denied this. Is it not reasonable to believe that these contradictory answers are traceable to the two opposing teachers? It would seem, therefore, that proselyte baptism preceded the baptism advocated and administered by John the Baptist. Also for another reason it is difficult to believe that John's baptism and the immediately following Christian [Greek] -2 _ftnref16 [Greek] symbolizing in each case a once-for-all radical change of life, historically precededproselyte baptism. Is it at all conceivable that the latter, as a Jewish ritual, would be copied by the Jews from something resembling it among the Christians, their bitter enemies? Conclusion: Proselyte baptism must have preceded Christian baptism. [Greek] -2 _ftnref17 [Greek] As already implied, proselyte baptism was not a constantly repeated ceremonial rite but a once-for-all legal act of reception into the religious fellowship of Judaism. Accordingly, when similarly John the Baptist urged upon the Jews that they be converted and be baptized they must have been aware of the fact that such a baptism, if properly received, would symbolize a definite and public renunciation of their former mode of life. What was new and startling for the Baptist's audience was not the rite of baptism as such, as a symbol of radical change, but rather the fact that such a fundamental transformation and its sign and seal were requirednot only as in proselyte baptism, of Gentiles who adopted the Jewish religion, but even of the children of Abraham! They, too, were filthy! They, too, must acknowledge this openly! They, too, must undergo a basic turnabout in mind and heart! Yet, many confessed their sins and were baptized in the Jordan River. What percentage of them accepted baptism in good conscience, and what proportion did not do so with genuine sorrow of heart, we are of course unable to judge. That there was definite danger of hypocrisy is evident from verse 7. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for [Greek] -2 _ftnref18 [Greek] he said to them, You offspring of vipers! Pharisees and Sadducees Their Origin The exact manner in which, and the exact date when, these parties rose is obscure. There is reason to believe, however, that the Pharisees were the successors of the (%acidhim, i.e., the Pious or Saints. The latter were those Jews who, during and even prior to the Maccabean revolt (see pp. 127, 157), had opposed the adoption of Greek culture and customs. It is understandable that as long as the Maccabeans in their heroic struggle were chiefly motivated by religious principles they would have the full support of the %acidhim; but that when, especially during the days of John Hyrcanus and those who followed him, the emphasis of the Jewish rulers was shifted from the spiritual to the secular sphere, the %acidhimwould either lose interest and withdraw themselves or else would actively oppose the descendants of the very people whom they had formerly supported. The Pharisees, meaning Separatists, may well have been, in their origin, the reformed or reorganized %acidhim, the %acidhimunder another name. They separated themselves not only from the heathen, from publicans and from sinners, but even in general, from the indifferent Jewish mutltitudes, whom they derisively dubbed the people who do not know the lawJohn 7:49). They tried hard not to become contaminated or defiled by associating with anyone or anything that would render them ceremonially unclean. The Sadducees were in many ways the very opposites of the Pharisees. They were the compromisers, the men who, though ostensibly still clinging to the law of God, were not really hostile to the spread of Hellenism. They were the sacerdotal party, the party to which the highpriests generally belonged. It is not surprising that it became popular to derive the name Sadducees from Zadok (LXX: Sadok), an etymology that may be correct. This Zadok was the man who during David's reign shared the highpriestly office with Abiathar (II Sam. 8:17; 15:24; I Kings 1:35), and was made sole highpriest by Solomon (I Kings 2:35). Until the days of the Maccabees the descendants of Zadok had retained the highpriesthood. Their Mutual Opposition One important point on which the two parties clashed is clearly brought out in Acts 23:6 8: Paul, realizing that one section of the Sanhedrin were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, raised his voice and said to them, Brothers, I am a Pharisee and the son of Pharisees. It is with respect to the hope of the resurrection of the dead that I am being examined. And when he had said this there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection or angel or spirit, but the Pharisees accept them all. From Josephus we learn that the Sadducees denied the immortality of the soul along with the resurrection of the body. They held that the soul perished when the body died. Another point on which the two went in opposite directions had to do with the canon. The Pharisees recognized two criteria or standards for doctrine and discipline: the written Old Testament and the oral traditions. As to the latter, they believed that these additions to but in reality often rather peculiar interpretations of the written law had been given by Moses to the elders and had by the latter been transmitted orally down through the generations. They made so much of these traditions that often, by means of their emphasis upon them, they made the word of God of no effect (Matt. 15:6; Mark 7:13). The Sadducees, on the contrary, accepted nothing but Scripture. They esteemed the Pentateuch above the prophets, etc. Finally, if Josephus, who at the age of nineteen had publicly joined the Pharisees, can be trusted, there was still another sharp contrast: the Pharisees believed not only in man's freedom and responsibility with respect to his own actions but also in the divine decree; the Sadducees rejected the decreeJewish WarII.162 166; AntiquitiesXIII.171 173, 297, 298; XVIII.12 17 . Their Co-operation Though they differed so strikingly, yet basically many of these Pharisees and Sadducees were in perfect agreement, for in the final analysis they both tried to attain security by their own efforts: whether this security consisted in earthly possessions on thisside of the grave, as with the Sadducees, many of whom were rich landowners and/or beneficiaries of the trade carried on in the temple precincts; or, on the othersidealsoon the other side , as with the Pharisees, who were striving with all their might to work their way into heaven. Religion in both cases was outwardconformity, through self-effort, to a certain standard. It should not be a matter of surprise, therefore, that when Jesus, with his emphasis on the religion of the heart and on God as the sole Author of salvation, appeared upon the scene of history he was rejected by both groups: by the Pharisees because he denounced them since they cleansed only the outside of the cup or platter (Matt. 23:25), and, while tithing mint, anise, and cummin, neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice, and mercy, and fidelity (23:23); and by the Sadducees because, by means of the temple-cleansing, he exposed their money-grabbing racket, and probably also because they considered his claims to pose a threat to the status quo of the nation and therefore to their own influential position. Besides, it is understandable that both Pharisees and Sadducees envied Jesus (Matt. 27:18). So at last Pharisees and Sadducees co-operate to bring about his death (16:1, 6, 11; 22:15, 23; 26:3, 4, 59; 27:20). Even afterward they combine in their attempt to prevent belief in his resurrection (27:62). It is not strange, therefore, that Jesus would at times in one breath condemn both groups (16:6 ff). Now according to our present passage (3:7) Pharisees and Sadducees are approaching John with a request that he baptize them. This may seem strange. Though not all commentators agree, yet in the light of all that has been said about the two groups, their behavior in the present instance can probably best be explained by their selfishness. They did not wish to lose their hold on the multitudes who were flocking to John to be baptized. If this was the place where the action was they wanted to be part of it, in order, if possible, to assume leadership. But did not submission to the rite of baptism imply confession of sin? Well, if necessary they were even willing to stoop to conquer. Of course, they were not sincere, not really penitent at all nor actually desirous to undergo a radical change of mind and heart. They were deceitful, hypocritical. Cf. Matt. 16:1; 22:15. It is in this light that we can understand the Baptist's stern rebuke, You offspring of vipers. John was acquainted with these desert snakes. Though rather small in size they were very (deceitful. At times it was easy to mistake them for dead branches. Suddenly, however, they would strike and clingActs 28:3). The comparison was apt, [Greek] -2 _ftnref19 ([Greek] Is not Satan, that deceiverJohn 8:44), also called a (serpentRev. 12:9; 20:2)? Are they not his tools? John adds, Who warned you to escape from the approaching (outpouring of) wrath?In this connection the following ideas deserve attention: First, this wrath or settled indignation, rests upon unregenerate man by nature (Eph. 2:3). It pertains even to the present (John 3:18, 36; Rom. 1:18). Secondly, the final outpouring of this wrath is reserved for the future (Eph. 5:6; Col. 3:6; II Thess. 1:8, 9; Rev. 14:10). Thirdly, this final manifestation of wrath (Zeph. 1:15; 2:2) is connected with the (second) coming of the Messiah (Mal. 3:2, 3; 4:1, 5). Fourthly, without genuine conversion man cannot escape it: Who warned you to escape.&? This probably means, Who deluded you into thinking that it is possible to evade God, and encouraged you to try it? Cf. Ps. 139; Jonah 1:3. Fifthly, for the true penitent there is indeed a way of escape: 8. Bear fruit therefore in keeping with conversion.As pointed out earlier (see on verse 2), repentance, if it is to be genuine, must be accompanied by fruit-bearing. A merely outward confession of sin will never do. A mere desire to be baptized, as if this rite were a wonder-working charm, has no positive value. There must be that inward change which expresses itself outwardly in God-glorifying conduct, fruit-bearing in keeping withconversion. According to Luke 3:10 14this fruit-bearing must include such items as generosity, fairness, thoughtfulness, and contentment; according to Matt. 23:23, justice, mercy, and faith; and in view of the manner in which the Baptist descriptively addresses these Pharisees and Sadducees, there must be uprightness. On fruit-bearing see also Matt. 5:20–23; 7:16–19; 12:33; 13:8, 23; 16:6, 11, 12; ch. 23; Luke 13:6 9; John 15:1 16; Gal. 5:22, 23; Eph. 5:9; Phil. 1:22; 4:17; Col. 1:6; Heb. 12:11; 13:15; and James 3:18. The deplorable lack of fruit-bearing on the part of the addressed is evident also from verse (9& and do not presume to say to yourselves, We have Abraham as our father, for I tell you that God is able to raise up children for Abraham out of these stones here.The reason why these Pharisees and Sadducees were headed for damnation was that for their eternal security they were relying on their descent from Abraham. Cf. Gal. 3:1 9and see N.T.C. on those verses. John the Baptist was fully aware of the fact that physical descent from Abraham did not guarantee being a true son of Abraham. He also knew that entirely apart from such pedigree God could give sons to Abraham. The God who was able to create Adam out of the dust of the ground was also able to make true sons of Abraham out of the desert stones to which John probably pointed. Probable symbolical overtone: He can change hearts of stone into obedient heartsEzek. 36:26), entirely regardless of the nationality of these hearts of stone. As far as salvation was concerned, the old distinctions were gradually disappearing. This does not mean that in the order in which this salvation was being proclaimed and in which the church was being gathered there was no distinction. The historical sequence, a reflection of God's plan from eternity, certainly was to the Jew first and also to the Greek (Rom. 1:16; cf. Acts 13:46; Rom. 3:1, 2; 9:1–5). This order is also clear from Matthew's Gospel (10:6; 15:24). But the beginning of a new day, a day in which there would be no distinction between Jew and Greek was dawning. See Matt. 2:1–12; 8:11, 12; 22:1–14; 28:19, 20; Acts 10:34 48; Rom. 9:7, 8; 10:12, 13; I Cor. 7:19; Gal. 3:7, 16, 17, 29; 4:21–31; 6:15, 16; Eph. 2:14–18; Phil. 3:2, 3; Col. 3:11; and Rev. 7:9, 14, 15. As to the impenitent, in verse 10John the Baptist continues: [Greek] -2 _ftnref20 [Greek] the axe is laid at the root of the trees.Judgment is at hand. The axe lies right in front of ([Greek]) or, as we would say, at the root, with sinister intent, ready to hew down one tree after another. Right now,therefore, is the proper moment to repent and to believe. In this connection see also Ps. 95:7, 8; Isa. 55:6; Luke 13:7, 9; 17:32; John 15:6; Rom. 13:11; II Cor. 6:2; I John 2:18; Rev. 1:3. Continued: &every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into fire.The question might be asked, But was the day of the final manifestation of God's wrath upon the wicked actually that close? Is it not true that many centuries have passed by since the Baptist spoke these words, and still the Lord has not returned for judgment? The following facts should be borne in mind: First, John reminds one of the Old Testament prophet who, in speaking about the last days or the Messianic age would at times look upon the future as a traveler does on a distant mountain range. He fancies that one mountain top rises up right behind the other, when in reality the two are miles apart. The two comings of Christ are viewed as if they were one. Thus we read A shoot shall come forth out of the stock of Jesse &and he shall smite the earth (Isa. 11:1–4). Jehovah has anointed me to preach good tidings to the meek. He has sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and &the day of vengeance of our God (Isa. 61:1, 2). I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions.& The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of Jehovah arrives (Joel 2:28 31). Cf. Mal. 3:1, 2. This has been called prophetic foreshortening. Secondly, Jerusalem's fall (a.d. 70) was drawing perilously near, and foreshadowed the final judgment. Thirdly, impenitence has a tendency of hardening a person, so that often he is left in his present lost condition. Without genuine repentance death and the judgment are for him irrevocable and at the door. Fourthly, one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day (II Peter 3:8). Fifthly, as the references given above (Ps. 95:7, 8) indicate, John was by no means the only one who emphasized the imminence of the judgment and/or the need of becoming converted right now. Therefore, if on this score we find fault with the Baptist we would also have to blame the psalmists, the prophets, the apostles, and even the Lord himself! Surely, no true believer is ready to do this. Sixthly, all this does not necessarily mean that the Baptist himself always saw the present and the future in true perspective. See on 11:1–3. It only means that the Holy Spirit guided him so that in his actual preaching as here recordedhe had a perfect right to say what he said. The fire into which the unfruitful trees are cast is evidently a symbol of the final outpouring of God's wrath upon the wicked. See also (Mal. 4:1; Matt. 13:40; John 15:6. Jesus spoke about the Gehenna of fireMatt. 5:22, 29; 18:9; Mark 9:47). This fire is unquenchable (Matt. 3:12; 18:8; Mark 9:43; Luke 3:17). The point is not merely that there is always a fire burning in Gehenna but that God burns the wicked with unquenchable fire, the fire that has been prepared for them as well as for the devil and his angels (Matt. 3:12; [Greek] -2 _ftnref21 [Greek] The question might be asked, If, then, the Baptist was, to a considerable degree, a preacher of hell and damnation, how was it that by divine direction he was called John (Luke 1:13), that is, Jehovah is (gracious? Answer: Warning people that doom is impending and will certainly overtake them unless they repent and believe, is not this a gracious act? Does it not indicate that God is not cruel, not eager to punish, but longsuffering? Did he not show this patience to the antediluviansGen. 6:3; I Peter 3:20); Lot (Gen. 19:12–22); David (II Sam. 23:5); the IsraelitesExod. 33:12–17; Isa. 5:1, 2; 63:9; Jer. 8:20; Ezek. 10:19the lingering of the throne chariot; 18:23; 33:11 ; and Simon Peter (John 21:15 17)? Is not that same divine attribute gloriously revealed in the parable of The Barren Fig TreeLuke 13:8, Let it alone this year also ; in II Peter 3:9; in Rom. 9:22; in Rev. 2:21; and in Rev. 8:1? Turning now to the entire multitude, John continues: (11. I on my part baptize you with water with a view to conversion.But is not this phrase with a view to conversion a contradiction of the idea that a man must already have been converted before he can be baptized, a truth clearly implied in verses 6 10? Answer: Not at all, for, by means of baptism, true conversion is powerfully stimulated and increased. The person who in the proper manner that is, with a pledge to God proceeding from a clear conscienceI Peter 3:21) receives baptism, understanding the meaning of the outward sign and seal, will (all the more heartilyout of gratitude yield himself to God. Moreover, how could reflection on the adopting, pardoning, and cleansing grace of God, as symbolized by the sign and seal of baptism, have any different effect? For such a person the outward sign and seal applied to the body, and the inward grace applied to the heart, go together. Among Biblical passages that prove this point are: I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean &a new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within youEzek. 36:25, 26); Let us draw near with a true heart and fullness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water (Heb. 10:22). This twofold aspect of conversion, a.as already present before the actual baptism, and b.as augmented by means of it, is also beautifully expressed in several Forms for the Baptism of Adults, from one of which the following words are here quoted: It [Baptism] becomes an effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in it, or in him that doth administer it, but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive it (The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, Philadelphia, 1941, p. 448). However, in the final analysis this rich result is not brought about by the person who administers the rite of baptism, not even if that person's name be John the Baptist. All John can do is urge upon his hearers the necessity of conversion. As to baptism, he can supply the sign, but it will take One mightier than John to supply the thing signified. Hence, after saying, I on my part baptize you with water with a view to conversion, he continues, (but he who is coming behind me is mightier than I I am not fit to remove his sandals; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.It was necessary for John to draw this contrast, for the people were already beginning to wonder whether perhaps he might not himself be the ChristLuke 3:15; cf. John 1:19, 20; 3:25–36). The Baptist, therefore, is saying that the contrast between himself and the One who was chronologically coming behind him was so great that he, John, was not even worthy (to unfastenMark 1:7and Luke 3:16), remove and carry [Greek] -2 _ftnref22 ([Greek] his Successor's sandals; that is, that to One so great he was not even worthy to render the services of a slave. It was true that on life's pathway, not only in his birth but also in beginning his public ministry, Jesus had come behind JohnLuke 1:26, 36; 3:23). But between Christ and the Baptist there was a qualitative difference as between the Infinite and the finite, the eternal and the temporal, the original light of the sun and the reflected light of the moon (John 1:15 17). John baptizes with water; Jesus will baptize with the [Greek] -2 _ftnref23 ([Greek] He will cause his Spirit and the latter's gifts to come upon his followersActs 1:8), be poured out on them (Acts 2:17, 33), fall upon them (Acts 10:44; 11:15). Now it is true that whenever a person is drawn out of the darkness into God's marvelous light he is being baptized with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Thus Calvin in his comments on (Matt. 3:11remarks that it was Christ who bestows the Spirit of regeneration, and that, like fire, this Spirit purifies us by removing our pollution. However, according to Christ's own wordsActs 1:5, 8), remembered by Peter (Acts 11:16), (in a special sensethis prediction was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost and the era which it introduced. It was then that, through the coming of the Spirit, the minds of Christ's followers were enriched with unprecedented illuminationI John 2:20); their wills strengthened, like never before, with contagious animation (Acts 4:13, 19, 20, 33; 5:29); and their hearts flooded with warm affection to a degree previously unheard of (Acts 2:44 47; 3:6; 4:32). The mention of (fire fits this application to Pentecost, when there appeared to them divided tongues as of fire, resting on each one of themActs 2:3). The flame illumines. Fire cleanses. The Spirit does both. Nevertheless, it would appear from the context (both before and after; see verses 10 and 12) and from Joel's Pentecost prophecy (Joel 2:30; cf. Acts 2:19), considered in (itscontextJoel 2:31), that the ultimate fulfilment of the Baptist's words awaits Christ's glorious return to cleanse the earth with fire (II Peter 3:7, 12; cf. Mal. 3:2; II Thess. 1:8). Often in Scripture fire symbolizes [Greek] -2 _ftnref24 ([Greek] But fire is also indicative of the work of graceIsa. 6:6, 7; Zech. 13:9; Mal. 3:3; I Peter 1:7). It is not strange, therefore, that this term can be used both in a favorable sense, to indicate the blessings of Pentecost and the new dispensation, and in an unfavorable sense, to indicate the terrors of the coming judgment day. It is Christ who both purifiesthe righteous and purgesthe earth of its dross, the wicked. Moreover, if the Old Testament prophets, as will be shown (p. 467), would often, by means of prophetic foreshortening, combine the events pertaining to Christ's first coming (taken in its comprehensive sense, including even Pentecost) with those of the second, why cannot that same feature be ascribed also to the style of John the Baptist, who resembled these prophets in so many ways? It is clear, therefore, that the case for the interpretation according to which the word firehere in 3:11 refers both to Pentecost and to the final judgment is [Greek] -2 _ftnref25 [Greek] The reasonable character of the explanation, according to which the baptism with fire includes a reference to the final judgment, is also evident from verse 12, which likewise refers to that great day. His winnowing shovel is in his hand, and he will thoroughly clear his threshing floor.The underlying figure is that of a threshing floor where winnowing is taking place. Such a floor is either natural or artificial. If the former, it is the surface of a flat rock on top of a hill, exposed to the wind. If the latter, it is a similarly exposed area, about thirty to fifty feet in diameter, which has been prepared by clearing the soil of stones, wetting it down, and then packing it hard and smooth, causing it to slope slightly upward along the rim, and surrounding it with a border of stones to keep the grain inside. First, the sheaves of grain (barley or wheat) that have been spread out in this area are threshed by oxen, pulling a sled the bottom of which is studded with stones whereby the kernels of grain are separated from the stalks. The chaff (whatever remains of the kernels hard coat, dust, dirt, small pieces of straw) is, however, still clinging to the kernels. Now the winnowing, to which verse 12 refers, begins. Bunch by bunch the threshed grain is tossed into the air by means of a shovel equipped with two or more prongs, letting the afternoon breeze, generally sweeping in from the Mediterranean from May through September, blow away the chaff. The heavier grain kernels fall straight down upon the threshing floor. Thus grain and chaff are separated.The work of winnowing does not stop until the threshing floor has been thoroughly cleared. Thus also Christ at his return will thoroughly clear the area where the judgment will take place. No one will escape detection. Even now he is fully equipped with all that is needed to perform the task of separating the good from the [Greek] -2 _ftnref26 [Greek] Continued: (He will gather his grain into the granary, but the chaff he will consume with unquenchable fire.Returning now to the underlying figure, the threshed and winnowed grain is brought to the granary; literally, the place where things are putstored) away. It is (stored awaybecause it is regarded as being very valuable, very precious. From the underlying figure we proceed to the reality. Even the death of believersis described in Scripture in a very comforting manner. It is precious in the sight of JehovahPs. 116:15); a being carried away by the angels into Abraham's bosom (Luke 16:22); a going to Paradise (Luke 23:43); a blessed departure (Phil. 1:23); a being at home with the Lord (II Cor. 5:8); a gain (Phil. 1:21); better by far (Phil. 1:23); and a falling asleep in the Lord (John 11:11; I Thess. 4:13). Then surely (the final stagein the glorification of God's children, both body and soul now participating in this bliss, will be most precious: a going to the house with many mansionsJohn 14:2), a being welcomed to the very presence of Christ ( I will come again and will take you to be face to face with me, in order that where I am you may be also, (John 14:3), a living forever in the new heaven and earth from which every stain of sin and every trace of the curse will have been removed; in which righteousness dwellsII Peter 3:13); in which God will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and he himself shall be with them and be their God, wiping away every tear from their eyes, etc. (Rev. 21:1–5); and in which the prophecy of Isa. 11:6–9 and of Rev. 21:9 22:5(the new Jerusalem) will reach its ultimatefulfilment. Back to the underlying figure once more. From the grain we now turn to the chaff. This, having dropped down at a place, or places, away from the grain, is collected and burned. So also the wicked, having been separated from the good, will be cast into hell, the place of unquenchable fire. Their punishment is unending. The point is not merely that there is always a fire burning in Gehenna but that the wicked are burned with unquenchable fire, the fire that has been prepared for them as well as for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41). Their worm never dies (Mark 9:48). Their shame is everlasting (Dan. 12:2). So are their bonds (Jude 6, 7). They will be tormented with fire and brimstone &and the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever, so that they have no rest day or night (Rev. 14:9–11; cf. 19:3; 20:10). In which sense is this fire to be understood? Answer: though the idea of a fire which in some sense is physical need not be excluded, yet according to Scripture the literal sense does not exhaust the meaning. Everlasting fire has been prepared for the devil and his angels. Yet these are (spiritsand cannot be hurt by literal fire. Moreover, Scripture itself points the way to the symbolical meaning; i.e., to the divine wrathresting upon the impenitent, and consequently, to their anguishDeut. 9:3; 32:22; Ps. 11:5, 6; 18:8; 21:9; 89:46; Isa. 5:24, 25; Jer. 4:4; Nah. 1:6; Mal. 3:2; Matt. 5:22; Heb. 10:27; 12:29; II Peter 3:7; Rev. 14:10, 11; 15:2). The Baptist's warning, dire and dreadful though it may seem, is filled with mercy, as has been explained (see p. 206). 3:13–17 The Baptism of Jesus Cf. Mark 1:9 11; Luke 3:21, 22; John 1:32 34 13 Then Jesus made his public appearance, (coming) from Galilee to the Jordan, to be baptized by him. 14 But John was trying to prevent him, saying, It is I who needs to be baptized by you, and you come to me? 15 But Jesus answered him, Yield to me this time, for it is proper for us in this way to comply fully with every righteous requirement. Then he yielded to him. 16 And immediately, when Jesus was baptized and stepped up out of the water, look, the heavens were opened and he [John] saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17 And lo, a voice from heaven saying, This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased. 13. Then Jesus made his public appearance, (coming) from Galilee to the Jordan, to be baptized by him.As to both time and place Matthew records the circumstances of Christ's baptism indefinitely: then &the Jordan. In harmony with the preceding context (verses 1 12) and with what is probably the true interpretation of Luke 3:21, the word then probably means, at the height of John's baptizing activity. As to information gained from other passages with reference to the time here referred to see pp. 150, 196. On the basis of those other passages the conclusion seems warranted that it was probably during the latter part of a.d. 26 or in the early days of the year 27 that Jesus went to John to be baptized by [Greek] -2 _ftnref27 [Greek] Jesus came from Galilee (thus Matthew). Mark is slightly more definite by saying from Nazareth in Galilee. John adds that at this time John was baptizing in Bethany beyond the Jordan (1:28), which was probably not located near the Dead Sea but farther north. See N.T.C. on the Gospel according to John, Vol. 1, p. 93. Jesus public ministry begins here, the verb makes his public appearance in 1:13, being the same as the one used in connection with the beginning of John's labors (verse 1). He came to the Jordan with the definite purpose of being baptized by John. So he steps forward, by word and/or gesture requesting to be baptized. Verse 14records John's reaction: But John was trying to prevent him.& John is shocked. His reasoning was probably somewhat along this line: What! One so high and holy about to be baptized?But certainly not by me,a person so immeasurably lower in rank and sanctity. It must not, it cannot be! On the contrary, I should be baptized by him! So John turns to Jesus, saying, It is I who [Greek] -2 _ftnref28 ([Greek] to be baptized by you, and you come to me?John and Jesus were relatedLuke 1:36). John's mother, Elizabeth, was well-informed with respect to Mary's first born son, to whom she had referred as my Lord (Luke 1:42, 43). It is hard to believe that she had not conveyed her knowledge to her son. The very fact that the Baptist surmises that the person who had now stepped forward to be baptized was the Messiah about whom he had already spoken (verses 11, 12) made him protest so strenuously. In view of all this, how must we explain John's subsequent report: I myself did not know him (John 1:31)? Does it suffice to say that the Baptist, born and raised in Judea, and having spent these many years in its wilderness (Luke 1:80), may never before have met Jesus, who had been brought up in Galilee? Hardly, for though this may indeed enter into the picture, John 1:33indicates that when the forerunner said, I did not know him, he was thinking primarily of something else, something higher than mere physical acquaintanceship. In all probability he meant that it had not as yet been divinely disclosed to him that this person was the very Christ. Nevertheless, a promise had been given him, namely, He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining, he it is who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. In his attempt to ward off Jesus request, John, reasoning that the lesser must be blessed by the greater (Heb. 7:7), not vice versa, gives expression to his consciousness of needing to be baptized by Jesus: It is I who needs to be baptized by you. Though he has already received the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:15), he wishes to receive the latter's indwelling and gifts in even greater measure. On the other hand, what is there that Jesusdoes not yet possess and that hecould receive from the Baptist: and you come to me? 15. But Jesus answered him, Yield to me this time, for it is proper for us in this way to comply fully with every righteous [Greek] -2 _ftnref29 ([Greek] This passage shows how Jesus overcame John's scruples. But why did he say, Yield to me this timeand to comply fully with every righteous requirement? The answer has not been specifically revealed to us. In the light, however, of the entire context and also of certain other relevant passages, as will be indicated, could it not be that Jesus had in mind something on this order: As a general rule what you say is true, but at this particular moment in your and my life, when I am about to begin my public ministry, it is proper that I by means of baptism reaffirmmy resolutionPs. 40:6, 8; Eph. 1:4; Heb. 7:22; I Peter 1:20; Rev. 13:8) to take away the sin of the world (John 1:29). Besides, the promise given (to youJohn 1:33) must be fulfilled, so that you will be able all the more persuasively and adequately to proclaimme to the people. For the reasons stated it is proper for us in this way to comply fully with every righteous requirement;the righteous requirement that I reaffirm,and the righteous requirement that you baptizeand proclaim. Could it not be that this was what the Lord had in mind? The objection may be raised that the water of baptism symbolized the removal of filth, that is, sin; and that, since Jesus was sinless, he did not need to be, and could not properly be, baptized. The answer is that he did, after all, have sin, namely (ours. This answer is given in such passages as Isa. 53:6( All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Jehovah has laid on him the iniquity of us all ); Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; John 10:11; II Cor. 5:21; and I Peter 3:18. It must not be overlooked either that by means of what was implied in his own baptismJohn 1:29) Jesus validated John's baptisms, for the latter would have been meaningless apart from the former. The Baptist was deeply impressed by the majesty of the Speaker. He had become convinced that Jesus was right. The objections had been surmounted. Hence, there follows, Then he yielded to him. 16. And immediately, when Jesus was baptized and stepped up out of the water, look, the heavens were opened.& [Greek] -2 _ftnref30 [Greek] The mode of baptism, whether, while Jesus was standing in the Jordan so that his feet were covered with water, the Baptist poured or sprinkled water on his head; or whether his entire body was immersed, is not indicated. It is natural to suppose that he had gone down the river's bank and had at least stepped into the water. Verse 16 informs us that, having been baptized, Jesus stepped up out of the water again. That is all we know. It has not pleased the Holy Spirit to give us any specific details as to the mode of baptism practiced during the period covered by the New Testament. What (isimportant, so important that Matthew directs our special attention to it, by introducing it with look, is that the heavens were opened. This was not merely a subjective experience in the heart of Jesus. It was definitely a miracle, occurring in full view of all who were present there with John and Jesus. Did not Ezekiel also see the opened heavensEzek. 1:1)? Did not Stephen (Acts 7:56)? And the apostle John on Patmos (Rev. 4:1; 11:19; 19:11; cf. Isa. 64:1; II Cor. 12:1–4)? Continued: (and he [John] saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him.Cf. Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32 34. Suddenly the heavens were rent asunder, and John saw the Holy Spirit! Of course, the Spirit himself has no body and cannot be seen with physical eyes. But we are distinctly told that it was under the symbolism of a dove that the third Person of the Trinity manifested himself to the Baptist. What was seen physically was a bodily form resembling a dove. It was seen descending on Jesus. It is not clear just why God chose the form of a dove to represent the Holy Spirit. Some commentators point to the purityand the gentleness or graciousnessof the dove, which properties, in an infinite degree, characterize the Spirit, and therefore also ChristPs. 68:14; Song of Sol. 2:14; 5:2; Matt. 10:16). Thus equipped and qualified, he was able to carry out the very difficult task which the Father had given him to do. To save us from sin he himself needed to be (pure. To endure torment, to pardon our iniquities, and to exercise patience with our weaknesses, he needed gentleness, meekness, graciousness. This, too, he possessed in an abundant measure, and he told his followers that, by the grace and power of God, they should acquire and exercise these same giftsMatt. 11:29, 30; 12:19; 21:4, 5; Luke 23:34; II Cor. 10:1; Phil. 2:5–8; I Peter 1:19; 2:21–25; and in the Old Testament: Isa. 40:11; 42:23; 53:7; and Zech. 9:9). The Baptist noticed that the form of a dove, symbolizing the Spirit, (remainedfor a while on JesusJohn 1:32, 33). It did not immediately disappear. Did this happen in order to fix in the mind of John, and of the entire church throughout the ages, not only that this Jesus was indeed the Christ but also that the Spirit now rested upon him (abidingly,fully qualifying him for his most difficult, yet also most glorious, task? It should be constantly borne in mind that, though Christ's divine nature was not in need of, and was in fact incapable of, being strengthened, the same was not true with respect to his human nature. This could be, and needed to be, strengthenedMatt. 14:23; 17:1–5; 26:36–46; cf. Mark 14:36; John 12:27, 28; and especially Heb. [Greek] -2 _ftnref31 ([Greek] The fact that the anointingby the Holy SpiritPs. 45:7; Isa. 61:1–3; Luke 3:22; 4:1, 18 21) was here given to him, in no way conflicts with his earlier (conceptionby the power of this same SpiritMatt. 1:20; Luke 1:35). The two are in beautiful harmony. So far we have heard about (the Son srequest to be baptized, and his actual baptism, thereby reaffirming his entire willingness to take upon himself and carry away the sin of the worldJohn 1:29); also about the Spirit sdescent upon him, qualifying him for a task so tremendous and sublime. It is altogether fitting that the voice of the Father swholehearted approval and delight be added, so that it may become clear that in the work of saving sinners, as in everydivine work, the three are one. Hence, there follows verse 17. And lo, a voice from heaven saying, This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased. The three are always one; (for example, the Son dies for those whom the Father has given himJohn 10:29); and these are the very ones whom the Spirit brings to glory (John 14:16, 17; 16:14; Rom. 8:26–30). So also here: the three are one. The heavens must be opened, so that Jesus himself may hear the voice, as is the representation in Mark 1:11and Luke 3:22Thou artmy Son, the Beloved , but also so that the Baptist may hear itThis is.& , making him a better witness of the things which he saw and heard (John 1:33, 34). As has already been indicated, in connection with the Son's voluntary reaffirmation of his wholehearted commitment to the task of carrying a burden so infinitely heavy, this voice of delighted approvalwas altogether in place. Whose voice was it? The Speaker is not [Greek] -2 _ftnref32 ([Greek] Neither is this necessary, for the very phraseology identifies the Speaker as being, of course, the Father. Moreover, not only in his official Messianic capacity but also as Son by eternal generation, the One who fully shares the divine essence together with the Father and the Spirit, is he the Father's BelovedJohn 1:14; 3:16; 10:17; 17:23). No higher love is possible than the love which the Father cherishes toward his Son. According to the verbal adjectiveagapetos: beloved here used, this love is deep-seated, thorough-going, as great as is the heart of God itself. It is also as intelligent and purposeful as is the mind of God. It is tender, vast, [Greek] -2 _ftnref33 [Greek] Not only that, but this love is also eternal;that is, it is timeless, raised far above all temporal boundaries. Though some disagree, the rendering in whom I amwell pleased must be considered [Greek] -2 _ftnref34 ([Greek] In the quiet recess of eternity the Son was the object of the Father's inexhaustible delightProv. 8:30). The former's re-affirmation, by means of baptism, of his purpose to shed his blood for a world lost in sin did nothing to diminish that love. That is what the Father is telling his Son. That is what he is also telling John &and all of us. How filled with comfort this paragraph, comfort not only for the Son and for John, but for every child of God, for it indicates that not only the Sonloves his followers enough to suffer the pangs of hell in their stead, but that also the Spirit fully co-operates by strengthening him for this very task, and that the Father, instead of frowning upon the One who undertakes it, is so very pleased with him that he must needs rend asunder the very heavens, that his voice of delightful approval may be heard on [Greek] -2 _ftnref35 [Greek] All three are equally interested in our salvation, and the three are One. Summary of Chapter 3 Verses 1 12 record the sudden emergence, in fulfilment of the prophecy of Isa. 40:3, of Christ's herald or way-preparer. John is pictured as preaching and baptizing in the wilderness of Judea. From Judea and the surrounding country enormous crowds flock to see and hear him. The Baptist's abrupt appearance, ascetic manner of life, and message of impending doom, escapable only by means of basic favorable change of mind and heart, evoke a response from many who, confessing their sins, are baptized in the Jordan. Among those who present themselves for baptism are also many Pharisees (oblique and ostentatious legalists) and Sadducees (wealthy and worldly priests and land-owners). You offspring of vipers! John exclaims. The rest of his speech may be paraphrased as follows: Who deluded you into thinking that without a genuine turnabout of mind and heart you can evade God's judgment? Bear fruit, therefore, in harmony with real conversion. Do not rely on your physical descent from Abraham, as if that could save you. If God wants sons of Abrahamworthy of the name, he does not need you. He can raise up children for Abraham out of these stones here. The Baptist emphasizes that the axe is even now lying at the root of the tree; that is, doom is impending. The divine action of bringing about a final separation between precious grain and worthless chaff (the penitent and the impenitent) is imminent. The grain is headed for the granary; the chaff, for the flame. For the truly converted the kingdom of heaven with its numerous blessings is at hand. Meaning: God's rule operating in hearts and lives and in whatever is influenced by them, and affecting even man's physical existence, is about to assert itself more powerfully and gloriously then ever before. However, it must be understood that neither weal nor woe are at John's own personal disposal. On the contrary, all that heis able to do (besides preaching) is to baptize with water. One far more worthy is about to appear upon the scene; in a sense, has arrived already. It is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire,a prediction that includes Pentecost and the final judgment in one wide sweep. Verses 13 17 relate that at the height of the Baptist's activity Jesus makes his public appearance, requesting John to baptize him. When the herald objects, deeming himself unworthy and suggesting that he be baptized by the One for whose coming he has been preparing the way, Jesus overcomes his scruples by saying, Yield to me this time, for it is proper for us in this way to comply fully with every righteous requirement. It was right that he who had promised to offer himself as a ransom for many ratify this promise by means of submitting to baptism, thereby reaffirming his desire and decision to take upon himself and to carry away the sin of the world. The water of baptism signifies and seals the washing away of sin, and Jesus by means of this sacrament reveals himself as the Sin-bearer. Accordingly, it was also right that John, who was fulfilling his task in obedience to God and in fulfilment of prophecy, should baptize Jesus. For the performance of his infinitely arduous task the Mediator needed to be anointed by the Holy Spirit, for it must be borne in mind that the Son of God was also the Son of man. The second person of the Trinity, being truly divine, has two natures: the divine and the human. The divine does not need strengthening, but the human nature does. All the necessary qualifications are therefore imparted to the Mediator when at his baptism the Holy Spirit, symbolized by the form of a dove, descends upon him in full measure. The Son's present reaffirmation of his desire to take upon himself a task so agonizing elicits an immediate response of love from the heart of the Father, so that the heavens are opened and a voice is heard, saying, This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased. A more glorious sign and seal of approval is unthinkable. Thus Father, Son, and Holy Spirit co-operate in bringing about man's salvation. An additional note on 3:4, And his food was locusts.& Aversion to eating insects, rich in protein, may be just cultural. In other countries insects are part of the diet. Roasted and salted grasshoppers can be bought in Mexico City. Edible insects keep Australian aborigines from starving. And even in the United States of America there are gourmet food stores that carry chocolate-coated bees and ants. Is it not possible that the Baptist was a little ahead of us, that is, that locusts and other insects may fill a future need? -2 _ftn1 198 These cross references to the other Gospels are indicated merely for the purpose of comparison. They do not intend to convey the idea that the entire content of Matt. 3:1 12is paralleled or even reflected in the other Gospels. The degree or amount of resemblance is not shown. -2 _ftn2 197 Or: Make a complete turnabout in mind and heart. See the explanation. -2 _ftn3 199 See p. 150. -2 _ftn4 200 See L. H. Grollenberg, op. cit.,map 2 opposite p. 11; also plate 25 on p. 16. -2 _ftn5 201 Thus literally in the original:! [Greek]. See also R. W. Funk, The Wilderness, JBLLXXVIII, Part III (Sept., 1959), pp. 205–214. -2 _ftn6 A.V. Authorized Version (King James) -2 _ftn7 A.R.V. American Standard Revised Version -2 _ftn8 R.S.V. Revised Standard Version -2 _ftn9 202 ([Greek], sec. per. pl. present imperative of [Greek]. The verb occurs five times in Matt. (3:2; 4:17; 11:20, 21; 12:41), twice in Mark, nine times in Luke, five times in Acts, once in II Cor. (12:21), and eleven times in the book of Rev. The cognate noun [Greek] is also of frequent occurrence, beginning with Matt. 3:8, 11. ) -2 _ftn10 203 See W. D. Chamberlain, The Meaning of Repentance, Philadelphia, 1943, p. 22. B. B. Warfield defines [Greek] as the inner change of mind which regret induces and which itself induces a reformed life Biblical and Theological Studies, Philadelphia, 1952, p. 366. -2 _ftn11 This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER IV: 1 11 Chapter 4:1–11 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him to Do The Temptation of Jesus in the Wilderness 4:1–11 The Temptation of Jesus in the Wilderness Cf. Mark 1:12, 13; Luke 4:1 13 4 1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness, to be tempted by the devil. 2 After going without food for forty days and forty nights he was famished. 3 The tempter came and said to him, Since you are God's Son, tell these stones to turn into bread. 4 But he answered and said, It is written, It is not by bread alone that man shall live, But by every word that comes out through the mouth of God. 5 Then the devil took him along to the holy city, and set him on the pinnacle of the temple, 6 and said to him, Since you are God's Son, throw yourself down; for it is written, He will give his angels instructions concerning you, and On their hands they will bear you up, Lest you strike your foot against a stone. 7 Jesus said to him, It is also written, You shall not put the Lord your God to the test. 8 Again, the devil took him along to a very high mountain, showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their splendor, 9 and said to him, All these I will give you if you will prostrate yourself before me and worship me. 10 Then Jesus said to him, Be gone, Satan, for it is written, You shall worship the Lord your God, And him only shall you serve. 11 Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and were rendering service to him. Its Link with the Preceding and the Following It was the kingship of Christ that was emphasized in 1:1 3:12. At 3:13, however, there is a shift: the king becomes the sin-bearer. By means of his baptism he reaffirms his resolution to offer himself as a ransom for many. Accordingly, (this king is also a priest. He is priest forever after the order of MelchizedekPs. 110:4; Heb. 6:20). Offering himself implies suffering. He suffers (vicariously. One of the forms assumed by this suffering is temptation (4:1–11): He suffered being temptedHeb. 2:18). It should be stressed, however, that though the emphasis shifts from the royal to the priestly office, that royal office is by no means ignored or forgotten. In the present paragraph Jesus appears not only as the priest who suffers being tempted, but also very definitely as the king who gives battle to his chief opponent and overcomes him. Even the prophetic office is not ignored; for, by his entire reaction and specifically by thrice quoting Scripture, Jesus also functions in this respect. In fact, in this very chapter the emphasis gradually shifts to Christ as not only a healer but also a teacher and preacher (verse 23); and The Sermon on the Mount immediately follows (chaps. 5 7). It has already been pointed out that Matthew's Gospel, more than any other, places stress on Christ as prophet (p. 82). It is impossible, therefore, to separate the three offices in which the Lord functions. They can be viewed as constituting one threefoldMessianic office. 1. Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness, to be tempted by the devil.The very wording of the present paragraph shows its close connection with the preceding one: 1 John saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him (3:16). And lo, a voice from heaven saying, This is my Son, the Beloved &(3:17). If you are the Son of God &(4:3). Jesus was (led upfrom the Jordan in which he was baptized, to the adjacent highland. It was by the guidance of the Spirit that he was led up, that very Spirit who not only knew that this temptation experience was necessary but whose plenary and active presence also qualified Jesus to triumph over it. He was led into the wilderness (see on 3:1), where he was with the wild beastsMark 1:13). It was here that he was tempted by the (diabolos; that is, the devil, meaning slanderer, accuserJob 1:9; Zech. 3:1, 2; cf. Rev. 12:9, 10), and (diabolosas its translation of Satan) also (adversaryI Peter 5:8). It is clear that Matthew believed in the existence of a personal prince of evil. So did the other apostles and inspired writers, and so also did Jesus himself. Besides the references in Matt. 4:1, 5, 8; 13:39; 25:41; and the others just mentioned, see also John 8:44; 13:2; Acts 10:38; Eph. 4:27; 6:11; James 4:7; I John 3:8, 10; Jude 9; Rev. 2:10; and 20:2. Having been cast out of heaven, the devil is filled with fury and envy. His hatred is directed against God and his people; especially against God (as he is about to reveal himself in Jesus Christ unto salvation. His purpose, accordingly, is to deceive and seduce his great Enemy, the Messiah, in order that, along with the latter, his kingdom (see 4:23) may also be doomed. The devil's methods are very craftyEph. 6:11). On this subject see -2 _ftnref1 N.T.C.on Ephesians, p. 72. Its Character In connection with Christ's temptation certain rather philosophical questions are constantly being asked: First, Was it possible for the Savior to succumb to temptation? The answer is, Definitely not. He was without sin, not even able to sin (Isa. 53:9; John 8:46; II Cor. 5:21). In fact, he was filled to overflowing with positive goodness; such as holiness, pardoning love, a yearning to heal and to impart the true knowledge of God; etc. (Isa. 53:5; Matt. 5:43–48; 14:14; 15:2, 3; Luke 23:34; Acts 10:38). Secondly, If he was unable to sin, was his temptation real? Yes, he was tempted in all points (in every respect) as we are, yet without sin; that is, without falling into sin (Heb. 4:15). He experienced the various temptations to which men in general, including even believers, are subjected. In all these experiences he was by Satan urged to believe that he could receive a good thing by committing a bad act. Heb. 4:15 (cannot mean, however, that the psychological process involved in being tempted was exactly the same for Jesus as it is for men in general. For the latter, including believers, there is first, the tempting voice or inner whispering of Satan, urging them to sin. But there is also the inner desire goading the tempted one to give heed to the devil's prompting. Thus man, being drawn away and enticed by his own evil desireJames 1:14) sins. With Christ the case was different. The outward stimulus outwardin the sense that it did not originate in the Lord's own soul but was the voice of another was there, but the innerevil incentive or desire to co-operate with this voice from without was not. Nevertheless the temptation that is, the sense of need, the consciousness of being urged by Satan to satisfy this need, the knowledge of having to resist the tempter, and the struggle to which this gave rise was real even for Christ. The soul of our Lord was not hard as a flint or cold as an icicle. It was a thoroughly human, deeply sensitive soul, affected and afflicted by suffering of every description. It was Christ who said, I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how I agonize until it be accomplished (Luke 12:50). Jesus was able to express affection (Matt. 19:13, 14), sympathy (John 11:35), compassion (Matt. 12:32), anger (17:17), gratitude (11:25), and a yearning for the salvation of sinners (Luke 15; 19:10; John 7:37) to the glory of the Father (John 17:1 5). Being not only God but also (man,he knew what it was to be wearyJohn 4:6) and thirsty (4:7; 19:28). Therefore, it should not really surprise us that, after a fast of forty days, he was very hungry, and that the proposal to turn stones into bread was a real temptation to him. The question will be asked, however, But did not this very sensitive and searching mind of Christ immediately discern that the three proposals (verses 3, 6, and 9), as coming from Satan,were evil? One author asks, How could evil be attractive to him? And if it was not attractive, where was the temptation? (A. Plummer). It must be admitted that it is impossible to answer this question in such a manner that everything will now be entirely clear. The subject of the temptation of the perfect Savior is shrouded in mystery. But is not this true of doctrine in general? In fact, Mystery is the vital element of Dogmatics. The truth which God has revealed concerning himself in nature and in Scripture far surpasses human conception and comprehension. [Greek] -2 _ftnref2 [Greek] We are unable to analyze minutely what occurred in the heart of Christ when he was tempted. But neither do we know how sin originated in the sinless heart of Adam, how guilt can be imputed from the sinner to the Savior, how the latter's righteousness can be transferred to his followers, how our Lord can be both omniscient (with respect to his divine nature) and not omniscient (according to his human nature), etc. It ought not to surprise us, therefore, that Christ's temptation, whether here in the wilderness or later, surpasses our understanding. On the basis of the inspired record we believe that it was a real and intense experience. And as to the fact that the deep truths contained in Scripture transcend our comprehension, is not that exactly what can be expected if the Bible is, indeed, the Word of God? Its Progress Step by Step First Temptation 2. After going without food for forty days and forty nights he was famished. (The experiences of Moses on Mount HorebExod. 34:2, 28; Deut. 9:9, 18) and of Elijah on his way to the same mountain (I Kings 19:8) occur to the mind immediately. (Luke 4:2shows that Christ's fast was complete, not partial. Is it not reasonable to believe that the Lord used these forty days to prepare himself, by means of prayer and meditation, for the work which the Father had given him to do, and which he, Jesus himself, had voluntarily taken upon himself? Says Calvin, commenting on 4:1, 2, There were two reasons why Christ withdrew into the wilderness. First, that, after a fast of forty days he might come forth as a new man, or rather a heavenly man, to the discharge of his office. Secondly, that he might be tried by temptation and undergo an apprenticeship before he undertook an office so arduous and so exalted. One is reminded of Moses at the burning bushExod. 3:1 4:17) and of Paul's retreat to Arabia. See N.T.C. on Galatians, p. [Greek] -2 _ftnref3 [Greek] Since Jesus, besides being divine, is also thoroughly human, it is certainly not surprising that at the end of these forty days he is famished. The devil naturally selects this moment as his golden opportunity. So the story continues: 3. The tempter came and said to him, Since you are God's Son, tell these stones to turn into [Greek] -2 _ftnref4 [Greek] It is clear that the temptation came from the outside: the tempter (came tohim. As has been pointed out, only in this way are we even permitted to think of Christ as being tempted. In I Thess. 3:5, too, the prince of evil is called the tempter, and so, by implication, also in Matt. 4:1; Mark 1:13; Luke 4:2; and I Cor. 7:5. His meanness consists especially in this, that he first tempts a man into sin. Then, when the tempted one follows his advice, the tempter becomes the accuser! Moreover, he will even continue to accuse the fallen one after the latter's sin has already been forgivenZech. 3:1–5; Rev. 12:10). It must have been in the spirit of derision that the tempter uttered the words, [Greek] -2 _ftnref5 [Greek] you are God's Son.& He probably meant, Since that is what the Father told you at your baptism (3:17), and what you believe, make use of your majestic dignity, and no longer be tortured by hunger. Son of God &hungry.How ridiculous! If, then, you are God's [Greek] -2 _ftnref6 [Greek] tell these stones to turn into [Greek] -2 _ftnref7 [Greek] It was, of course, a wicked attempt (a.to cause the last AdamI Cor. 15:45) to fail even as the first Adam had failed, in both cases in connection with food consumption. Was not one of the reasons why the Holy Spirit caused Jesus to be tested exactly this, that, as the Representative and Savior of all his people, he must in their stead triumph over temptation instead of succumbing to it as the first Adam had done? Moreover, on the part of the tempter this was a sinister endeavor b.to destroy the Son's confidence in his Father's will and power to sustain him. What the tempter was asking Jesus to do was to distrust his Father, and to take matters entirely into his own hands. Though, as has been pointed out, there are depths that we cannot fathom, it cannot be denied that this temptation was a very real one for Jesus. He knew that he was clothed with power to perform miracles. Also, here was an opportunity to use that power in his own behalf. He must have been very hungry by this time. The reality of the temptation and the severity of the trial may perhaps become even more clearly evident when the last Adam ssituation is compared with that of the first one. Both were tempted by Satan. But the difference in the gravity of the test appears from the following threefold contrast: a.Nowhere in Gen. 3:1 7do we read that the Old Testament Adam had gone without food for any length of time. Jesus, on the contrary, had been fasting for forty days. He was famished. b. (Even had the father of the human race been hungry, he could have easily satisfied that hunger, for he had been told, Of every tree of the garden you may freely eatGen. 2:17). No such provision had been made for Christ. c.Eve's husband, when tempted, had, as it were, everything in his favor, for he was living in paradise. Jesus, at the time of his temptation, was staying in this horrible wilderness! Nevertheless, he withstood the temptation: 4. But he answered and said, It is written, It is not by bread alone that man shall live, But by every word that comes out through the mouth of God. Note the expression, It is written, not only here in verse 4 but also in verses 7 and 10, every time with a reference to the same book, Deuteronomy, which, as is clear, Jesus regarded not as a pious fraud but as the very Word of God. Other passages that give expression to Christ's exalted view of Scripture are Luke 24:25 27, 44 47; John 5:39; and 10:35. For him the Old Testament Scriptures, as interpreted by himself, were evidently the ultimate touchstone of the truth for life and doctrine, the final court of appeal for the reason. The first quotation is from Deut. 8:3. It pictures Moses reminding Israel of God's tender care for his people during the forty years of the wilderness journey. Particularly, it shows how the Lord had fed them with manna, heretofore completely unknown to them and their fathers, that he might teach them that not by bread alone does man live but by everything proceeding out of the mouth of Jehovah does man live. What Jesus means, therefore, may be paraphrased as follows: Tempter, you are proceeding upon the false assumption that for a man, in order to appease hunger and keep alive, breadis absolutely necessary. Over against this erroneous idea I now declare that not bread but the creative, energizing, and sustaining power of my Father is the only indispensable source of my, and of man's, life and well-being. The expression every word that comes out through the mouth of God [Greek] -2 _ftnref8 ([Greek] refers to the word of his power. It is God's omnipotence exercised in creation and preservation. It is his word of effective command;for example, And God said, Let there be light, and there was lightGen. 1:3); By the word of Jehovah were the heavens made (Ps. 33:6). On the part of Jesus this reply to Satan's advice was an expression of filial confidence in the Father's care. Certainly the One who, when there was no bread, had provided manna, and who just a moment ago had said, This is my Son &with whom I am well pleased, would not fail his Beloved in this hour of trial! Second Temptation 5, 6.So, you trust your Father? says the tempter, as it were. Well, then prove it: Then the devil took him along to the holy city, and set him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to him, Since you are God's Son, throw yourself down; for it is written, He will give his angels instructions concerning you, and On their hands they will bear you up, Lest you strike your foot against a stone. There are those who see a discrepancy between Matthew and Luke, since the order in which Matt. 4:5 10records the last two temptations is reversed in Luke 4:5 12. The answer is that, while Matthew indeed appears to present a certain historical sequence, as is clear not only from his use of the word then (verse 5), and from verse 11, Then the devil left him, but also, as already noted, from the inner connection between the first and second temptations; Luke, on the contrary, does not even hint such a sequence. He simply connects the three temptations by means of the conjunction and (4:5, 9), but neither states nor in any way implies that they followed each other in that historical order. So, there is no discrepancy. The words, The devil takes him along, are found also in verse 8, where the question how this must be understood will be considered. We are not surprised that Matthew, the Jew, calls Jerusalem the holy city (cf. 27:53). It was intended to be just that (Ps. 46:4; 48:1–3, 9 14; 122; 137; Matt. 5:35). Many cherished memories are associated with Jerusalem or Zion. Was it not the city where David, Christ's great ancestor, had established his throne? Had God not promised to dwell here? Here stood the temple with its holy place and holy of holies. This was the city to which the tribes went up to give thanks to the name of Jehovah. To this city the devil by God's sufference has brought Jesus, and has set him on the very pinnacle (wing) of the outer wall of the entire temple complex. The exact spot is not given. It mayhave been the roof-edge of Herod's royal portico, overhanging the Kedron Valley, and looking down some four hundred fifty feet, a dizzy height, as Josephus points outAntiq.XV.412 . This spot was located southeast of the temple court, perhaps at or near the place from which, according to tradition, James, the Lord's brother, was hurled down. See the very interesting account in Eusebius, Eccl. [Greek] -2 _ftnref9 [Greek] Since you are the Son of God, says the tempter (exactly as in verse 3), throw yourself down. His reasoning was probably along this line, You will thus be able to prove your confidence in the Father's protection, a confidence which, by implication, you have just now confessed (verse 4). Besides, if Scripture, which you so readily quote, is true, no harm can befall you, for it is written, He will give his angels instructions concerning you. They will not merely arrestyour fall. No, they will do more. Very tenderlythey will bear you up on their hands, lest you, wearing only sandals, should hurt yourself by striking your foot against one of those sharp-edged stones present in abundance in the abyss below. The passage quoted is from (Ps. 91:11, 12. As rendered here in Matt. 4:6, it follows the SeptuagintPs. 90:11, 12). As quoted by the devil, there is, however, an omission, which some regard as being important, others not. According to the Hebrew, (Ps. 91:11ends with the words to guard you in all your ways. Matt. 4:6contains nothing that corresponds to this. Luke 4:10merely has to guard you. Hence, in both of these Gospels the words in all your ways are left out. When these words are included,God promises to protect the righteous man in all his righteous ways; for these are the ways of the man who dwells in the secret place of the Most High, abides under the shadow of the Almighty and has found his refuge in Jehovah, upon whom he has set his love. They are, accordingly, the ways of the saintProv. 2:8), the good man (Prov. 2:20). It is to such a one that the words apply, He will give his angels instructions concerning you, to guard you in all your ways. When these words in all your ways are omitted,does it not become easier to interpret the passage as if it were a promise of Jehovah to protect the righteous no matter what he does?So read, the passage would seem to correspond more closely with what the devil wants Jesus to do. Nevertheless, this point is probably of minor importance, since what Satan omits amounts to far more than a few words in a quotation. He omits any reference to the Scriptural truth that God does not condone but condemns and punishes rashness, a trifling with providence, an impetuous rushing into totally unwarranted danger (Gen. 13:10, 11; Ps. 19:13; Esther 5:14; 7:9, 10; Dan. 4:28–33; 5:22, 23; Rom. 1:30; II Peter 2:10). Obedience to Satan's proposal was tempting, for what man is there who, when asked to prove a point he has made, does not feel as if he should immediately comply, instead of first asking himself, What right has my prompter to ask me to prove it? Jesus, however, does not fall into this trap. He realizes that for him to do what Satan is urging upon him would amount to substituting presumption for faith, effrontery for submission to God's guidance. It would have meant nothing less than to risk self-destruction. The false trustin the Father, which the devil demanded of Jesus in this secondtemptation was not any better than the distrusthe had proposed in the [Greek] -2 _ftnref10 [Greek] It would have amounted to experimentingon the Father. A rabbinical tradition reads, When the king, Messiah, reveals himself, then he comes and stands on the roof of the holy place. [Greek] -2 _ftnref11 [Greek] On the basis of this tradition some commentators are of the opinion that the tempter was trying to suggest that Jesus, by casting himself from the temple's pinnacle, would establish himself as being indeed the Messiah, for, after a miraculous and safe landing, the crowd, having watched the descent with bated breath, would exclaim, Look, he is unhurt. He must be the Messiah! For Jesus, thus the argument continues, this would then be an easy way to success. The cross would be avoided, the crown obtained without struggle or agony. It is an interesting theory. Nevertheless, there is nothing that would lend any further support to it. No spectators are even mentioned in the Gospel accounts. Moreover, Jesus, in his reply, does not refer to anything of the kind. I believe, therefore, that the entire idea should be dismissed. Luke 16:31also argues against it. The reason why Jesus peremptorily rejects the devil's proposal has already been given. It is clearly stated in verse 7. Jesus said to him, It is also written, You shall not put the Lord your God to the [Greek] -2 _ftnref12 [Greek] This is a quotation from Deut. 6:16, which reflects the situation of the Israelites described in Exod. 17:1–7, how at a place called Massah and Meribah they made trial of Jehovah and rebelled against Moses because of lack of water. They accused Moses of having cruelly brought them, their children, and their cattle, out of Egypt and into the desert, to destroy them all. They were almost ready to stone him and, instead of in a childlike manner, making all their wants and wishes known at the Father's throne, they insolently and provocatively challenged God, saying, Is Jehovah among us or not? Jesus knows that similar ill behavior on his part, by unnecessarily exposing himself to danger just to see what his Father's reaction might be, whether the latter would be with him or not, would amount to grievous transgression. He knows that it has nothing whatever to do with humbly trusting in the protecting care promised in Ps. 91. He therefore very appropriately answers the tempter by quoting Deut. 6:16. Daily life all around us affords abundant illustrations of (false confidence,similar to that which the devil urged Jesus to exercise. A person will earnestly beseech the Lord to bestow upon him the blessing of health; however, he neglects to observe the rules of health. Or, he will ask God to save his soul; however, he neglects to use the means of grace, such as the study of Scripture, church attendance, the sacraments, living a life for the benefit of others to the glory of God. Again, someone will plead with the Lord for the spiritual as well as physical welfare of his children, but he himself neglects to bring them up in the way of the Lord. A church member, admonished because at a circus he had eagerly rushed into a corrupt side show, defended himself by saying, I cannot deny that I went there, but while I was there I was constantly praying, Turn away mine eyes from beholding vanityPs. 119:37) -2 _ftnref13 (A.V.). You shall not put the Lord your God to the test is the answer to all of this. Third Temptation And now the devil drops his mask and, having failed miserably in the first two attempts to conquer his enemy, stakes everything on one final, brutal, desperate attempt to achieve his purpose: 8, 9. Again, the devil took him along to a very high mountain, showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their splendor, and said to him, All these I will give you if you will prostrate yourself before me and worship me. How is it to be understood that, in the second temptation, the devil takes Jesus alongto the holy city, and sets him on the pinnacle of the temple, and that now, in the third temptation, Satan takes him alongto a very high mountain? Some insist that this must all be taken literally: The transfer of Jesus to the temple was physical &takes him with himself and placed him makes the devil provide the motive power. [Greek] -2 _ftnref14 ([Greek] Just how we must conceive of this is not explained. Did the devil assume a physical bodyGen. 3:1; cf. John 8:44), and did the two Jesus and the devil walk side by side through the wilderness, enter Jerusalem, and climb to the pinnacle of the temple? How did they reach a mountain from which the devil could show Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor? In the vicinity of the Judean Wilderness or of Jerusalem, which mountain would that be? Did they glide smoothly through the sky, the devil functioning as a kind of engine? Did they sail along together all the way to Mount Everest? But even then, would not some kind of miracle have been required to enable the devil from there to show Jesus (allthe kingdoms of the world, and this not just in dim outline, but very distinctly, so that all their splendorglory) would be plainly visible; and again, not little by little during a lengthy period of time, but, as Luke adds, in a moment? This is not at all a question of believing Scripture or not believing it. It is simply a question of how best to interpretwhat we fully accept. The writer of this commentary has not been able anywhere to find a solution that satisfies him better than that of Calvin. In his Commentary, reflecting first on the second, then on the third, temptation, he remarks: It is asked, was he [Jesus] actually carried to this elevated spot, or was it done in a vision? &What is added, that all the kingdoms of the worldwere exposed to Christ's view &in one moment &agrees better with the idea of a vision than with any other theory. In a matter that is doubtful, and where ignorance brings no risk, I choose rather to suspend my judgment than to furnish contentious people with an excuse for a debate. Calvin is being very careful. It is clear that he favors the vision idea. On the other hand, he does not wish to press it, leaving room for any other reasonableinterpretation anyone might be able to offer. I only wish to add that Scripture contains two comparable passages in which we are told that someone is set on or carried to a high mountain. These two are Ezek. 40:2and Rev. [Greek] -2 _ftnref15 ([Greek] Ezekiel plainly states that this happened in the visions of God. To the seer of Patmos visions were shown while he was in the SpiritRev. 1:10). It was in the Spirit that he was carried away to a mountain great and high. Calvin's view, accordingly, is worthy of very serious [Greek] -2 _ftnref16 [Greek] The objection that if the temptations (whether only the second and the third, or, perhaps better, all three) occurred to Jesus during visions they were not real, is groundless. Was not Ezekiel's experience real,even though it occurred in a vision? Is John's description of Jerusalem the Golden bereft of value because it, too, came to him in a vision? Besides, if even a dreamcan be so vivid that there are said to be cases on record according to which people died as a result, shall we then say that the reality of Christ's temptation experiences is diminished in any way because it was in visionsthat the tempter came to him and addressed him? This view must not be confused with that according to which the temptations were of a merely subjective nature. No, even if it was in a vision that the devil came to Jesus, the great adversary was very real, and it was he,not the Lord, who said, Tell these stones to turn into bread, throw yourself down, and prostrate yourself before me. If it was in a vision that the Lord was urged to do these things, we may be sure that what occurred in the vision was as real to his mind as if there had been no vision at all, and everything had taken place with strict literality. From the top of the very high mountain (whether or not it was in a vision makes no difference) the devil shows Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and (in) their splendor. All this is vividly displayed to Jesus; according to Luke (as we have already seen) in (just onevery significant moment! To gain some conception of what must have been included in the panorama that was spread out before the Lord, would it not be wise to read carefully the following three paragraphs: II Chron. 9:9–28; Eccl. 2:1–11; and Rev. 18:12, 13? All this wealth is by Satan offered to Christ, all for the price of just one genuflection! If Jesus will but cast himself to the ground and worship(see on 2:11; cf. 2:2, 8) the devil, he can have it all. He can have it in his possession and under his authorityLuke 4:6). The question has been asked whether Satan was really the possessor of all these things, and whether he was actually in control of all of them, to such an extent that he could offer them to anyone he wished. Often this question is answered in the affirmative, with an appeal: to (Eph. 2:2, where Satan is called the prince of the domain of the air; to 6:12, which speaks about the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places; to I John 5:19, which states that the whole world lies in (the power of) the evil one; and even to Luke 4:6, in which the great adversary pictures himself as the rightful owner of, and ruler over, all. Further substantiation is by such interpreters found in the fact that Jesus in his answerMatt. 4:10) did not in so many words dispute Satan's claim. Do these passages really prove what those who appeal to them are trying to prove? I do not believe they do. The first three merely prove that Satan exercises a very powerful influence for evil over the lives of all those wicked people and spirits that acknowledge him as their master. But such references certainly do not prove that the devil is the ultimate owner and ruler of the nations, with the right and the might to dispose of them and of their wealth as he pleases, so that Christ himself, at least during the present dispensation, would have to take a back seat to him. The contrary is the truth, as is proved abundantly by such passages as (Gen. 3:15; Ps. 2; Matt. 11:27; 28:18; Rom. 16:20; Eph. 1:20–23; Col. 2:15; and Rev. 12; 20:3, 4, 10. If it be argued that some of these passages refer to the power given to Christ in his exaltation, the answer is that even during the latter's humiliation Satan was able to do no more than Christ suffered him to do, as both Matt. 4:11and also the Gospels in general testifyMatt. 12:29; Luke 10:18; John 12:31). And as to Satan's boast (Luke 4:6), it is too absurd to merit an answer. But if an answer of a sort be demanded, let it be John 8:44. On the surface it may therefore seem as if the third temptation was for Christ no temptation at all. Jesus knew that the devil was lying; that is, that the prince of evil had no enchanting kingdoms to give away. No doubt the Lord also knew that even if Satan had possessed them, he would not have fulfilled his promise. In what sense then can we say that also Satan's (thirdattempt was a real temptation for Christ? As I see it, only in this way that, although the particular form in which the proposal was made contained nothing that would recommend it to the mind and heart of the Savior, nevertheless the implied suggestion to try to obtain the crown without enduring the crosswas able to foment a bitter struggle within him. To be sure, it was not a struggle that involved him in sin or could bring him to the point of committing sin, but it was a state of agony, nevertheless. How else can we explain the words uttered in Gethsemane, My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wiltMatt. 26:39)? Or, how can we explain Luke 12:50? It is clear, therefore, that for Christ thistemptation, too, was very real. Satan received the answer he deserved: 10. Then Jesus said to him, Be gone, Satan, for it is written, You shall worship the Lord your God, And him only shall you serve. The expression, Be gone, Satan, a command which was obeyed (see verse 11), not only shows Christ's abhorrence of the devil's proposal, but also his supremacy over him. The answer reflects Deut. [Greek] -2 _ftnref17 ([Greek] It also reveals the sharp contrast between Christ, who is ever doing what his Father wants him to doJohn 5:30; 6:38), and Satan, whose purpose is the exact opposite (Gen. 2:17, cf. 3:4; Zech. 3:1, 2; John 8:44; I Thess. 2:18; I Peter 5:8; I John 3:8; Rev. 12; 20:8, 9); and who is true to the meaning of the name whereby Jesus here addresses him, adversary. At Christ's command Satan, thoroughly vanquished, leaves him, as is stated in verse (11. Then the devil left him.He withheld any further attacks for the time being, waiting until another opportunity would present itselfLuke 4:13). That he did, indeed, resume his attacks afterward is clear from such passages as Matt. 16:23; Luke 22:28. In the light of Heb. 2:18see also Matt. 26:36–46; Mark 3:21, 31; 8:32, 33. The visions if such they were vanish. Jesus is conscious of being in the wilderness. Continued: and behold, angels came and were rendering service to him.Just what this service implied is not stated. Those commentators who reject the vision idea say that, among other things, the angels now assist Jesus in his descent from the very high mountain where the third temptation had just been [Greek] -2 _ftnref18 [Greek] The general statement that angels were sent by the Father to provide for the Son's needs, whatever these may have been, is perhaps the best. That this also included providing bodily nourishment would seem to be a reasonable inference. Its Lessons 1. Resist the devil by appealing to Scripture, as Jesus did three times in succession. 2. Rest assured that Jesus, as his people's Representative, has vicariously rendered the obedience which Adam, as mankind's representative, failed to render. 3. Derive comfort from the fact that we have a Highpriest who, having himself been tempted, is able to help us in our temptations (Heb. 4:14–16). 4. Note that by notgiving heed to the devil, Jesus receives the very blessings which Satan had held out to him. However, it is in a far more glorious sense and with the Father's favor resting upon him that he receives the strength to endure physically, the ministry of the angels, and authority over the kingdoms of the world. Summary of Chapter 4:1–11 Adam, when tempted, failed. So Christ, too, must now be tempted, in order that by his victory over temptation and over the tempter he may, for all those who believe in him, undo the results of Adam's failure. So the Spirit, who when Jesus was baptized had descended upon him never to leave again, leads him into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. The three temptations took place at the end of a forty day fast, so that Jesus was very hungry. Since you are God's Son, says Satan to him, probably meaning, Since that is what the Father told you at your baptism, and what you believe, tell these (desert) stones to turn into bread. Why should he trust the Father any longer? Why not, as God's Son, endowed with power, should he not take matters into his own hand? Quoting Deut. 8:3Jesus answers, It is not by bread alone that man shall live, but by every word that comes out through the mouth of God. Life does not depend primarily on bread but on the sustaining power and love of God. Jesus is God's own Son; hence, the Father will provide for him and sustain him. Prove that you trust him, says Satan, as it were, by casting yourself down from the pinnacle of the temple. In order to encourage him to do so the devil quotes from Ps. 91:11, 12, as if that passage justified rashness, the substitution of presumption for faith. With an appeal to Deut. 6:16It is also written, You shall not put the Lord your God to the test, Jesus parries that assault. Finally, what may well have been the greatest temptation of all: Satan is willing to relinquish his dominion, his powerful influence, over all the kingdoms of the world, and to hand over all these realms together with all their glorious wealth, to Jesus, for him to possess and to control; so, at least, he says. He will do this on one condition, namely, that you will prostrate yourself before me and worship me. The Messiah will not need to suffer at all: no crown of thorns, no shame, no cross. Like an arrow the answer flies back, Be gone, Satan, for it is written, You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve. Then, for the time being, the devil leaves Jesus. Angels came and were rendering service to the Victor. The lessons to be derived from this temptation account are summarized on p. 235. The Work Which Thou Gavest Him to Do Its Progress or Continuation Chapters 4:12 20:34 CHAPTER IV: 12 25 Outline of Chapter 4:12–25 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him to Do A. The Great Galilean Ministry 4:12–17 Its Beginning 4:18–22 The Calling of Four Fishermen 4:23–25 Christ's Teaching, Preaching, and Healing 4:12–17 The Beginning of the Great Galilean Ministry 4 12 Now when he heard that John had been taken into custody, he withdrew into Galilee. 13 Leaving Nazareth he went and settled in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali, 14 that what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: 15 Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali, Toward the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles, 16 The people sitting in darkness Have seen a great light; And upon those sitting in the land of the shadow of death Light has dawned. 17 From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, Be converted, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Verses 13 16 are peculiar to Matthew; see above, p. 17. For verses 12 and 17 see also Matt. 11:2; 14:3–5; Mark 1:14, 15; 6:17–20; Luke 3:19, 20; 4:14, 15; and cf. John 4:1 3, 43, 44. 12. Now when he [Jesus] heard that John had been taken into custody, he withdrew into Galilee.A new section of Matthew's Gospel begins here. Therefore, a chapter division at this point would have been very proper. Matthew does not indicate any chronological connection between this verse and the preceding material (the account of the baptism and the temptation). There may well have been a time interval of about a year, during which the events related in John 1:19 [Greek] -2 _ftnref19 [Greek] If so, the date when Jesus set out for Galilee to begin the Great Galilean Ministry was probably about December of the year a.d. 27 or a little later. But though thus separated in time from the preceding events, yet what Matthew is about to tell us is in material substance closely connected with that which precedes. The preparation for, and inauguration of, the work which the Father gave Jesus to do is ended. The beginning has been accomplished. The identity of Jesus as David's Son who is at the same time David's Lord has been established (chap. 1). From the wise men he has received the honor due to the One who is King of kings and Lord of lords (chap. 2). He has been heralded as sovereign, and by means of his baptism has confirmed his decision to take upon himself the sin of the world (chap. 3). He has proved himself worthy, for in the wilderness he has triumphed over the devil, as our representative succeeding where Adam had failed. Therefore, nothing now prevents him from carrying forward the task assigned to, and voluntarily assumed by, him. Accordingly, the time has now arrived for Jesus to withdraw from Judea to go to Galilee. This was in fulfilment of prophecy, as Matthew is about to record (verses 14 16). But, as verse 12 shows, it also had something to do with the imprisonment of John the Baptist. The latter, as has been shown, had made his first public appearance in the summer of the year a.d. 26. And now, about eighteen months later, he has been imprisoned for the reason stated in 14:3, 4. The Jewish leaders, especially those in Jerusalem, who in the days of John's great popularity had been filled with jealousy, and about whom John had made some very uncomplimentary remarks (3:7), must have rejoiced. But this joy was of short duration, for other tidings reached the ears of the leaders; namely, that the multitudes surrounding Jesus were more numerous than those which had followed the herald. In fact, even before John's imprisonment Jesus had forged ahead of John in popular favor (John 3:22 26). Hence, from the point of view of the leaders matters were becoming worse instead of better. Now when the Lord knew that John had been imprisoned (Matt. 4:12) and that the Pharisees, with headquarters in Jerusalem, had heard that Jesus was gaining and (through his disciples) was baptizing more disciples than John (John 4:1), he left Judea and started on his way to Galilee. Why did he do this? Was not Galilee ruled by Herod Antipas, the very tetrarch who had imprisoned John the Baptist? Indeed, but it must be borne in mind that this miscarriage of justice was for a very special reason: we do not read that (Jesushad personally rebuked Herod, as John had done. When, after John's cruel death, Herod becomes convinced that Jesus is John the Baptist, raised from the dead, Jesus, too, will withdraw himself to some extentfrom that king's immediate attentionMatt. 14:1, 2, 13). At the time indicated in 4:12 it was not Herod Antipas from whom Jesus needed to withdraw himself, but the Jewish religious leaders in Judea. The question may well be asked, however, But why did Jesus have to withdraw himself at all? Was he afraid? Did he lack courage? Perish the very thought! The real reason was this, that he was well aware of the fact that his own great popularity in the country region of Judea would bring about such keen resentment on the part of the Judean religious leaders that this resentment, in the natural course of events, would lead to (a premature crisis. The Lord knew that for every event in his life there was an appointed time in God's decree. And he also knew that the appropriate moment for his death had not yet arrived. As soon as that moment arrived, he would voluntarily lay down his lifeJohn 10:18; 13:1; 14:31). He would do so then,but not before then. Hence, he must now leave Judea. Just where did Jesus go when he arrived in Galilee? Did he wend his way directly to what had heretofore been his home in Nazareth? Matthew knows that this is what the readers of his Gospel would expect Jesus to do (2:23). Nevertheless, the Lord does the very opposite. Though, to be sure, he has not forgotten Nazareth, and will make a visit to that place when the time is ripe (Mark 6:1 6; Luke 4:16 30), Nazareth will not be his headquarters. It has ceased to be his place of residence. This is indicated in verse (13. Leaving Nazareth he went and settled in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali.Capernaum can mean village of Nahum. Even so, it is not at all certain that the place was named for the Old Testament prophet who predicted Ninevah's overthrow. Originally the reference may have been to some other Nahum. Or, since Nahum, in turn, means compassionate,the name may also be interpreted as village of compassion or of consolation. No one knows. What is established, however, is that at one time Matthew, the author of this Gospel, had his office at this place. As has been indicatedMatt. 9:9), he was a publican, that is, a tax-collector or revenue officer. It was in the vicinity of this village that Jesus had called his first disciples (John 1:35 42). It was here also that Peter and Andrew, James and John were subsequently invited to become fishers of men (Matt. 4:18–22). Capernaum became the center of Christ's activities, his headquarters during the great Galilean Ministry. It was here that Jesus performed many miracles (Luke 4:23, 31 37; 7:1–10), customarily attended the synagogue, and delivered several messages, including the address on The Bread of Life (John 6:24 65). Matthew even called Capernaum Christ's own city (9:1). The ruins of a Capernaum synagogue have been unearthed. It has been partly restored. That structure dates back to the second or third century a.d. It is thought that an older house of worship, probably the very one that had been provided by the centurion who loved the Jewish nation (Matt. 8:5, 6; Luke 7:5, 6), and where Jesus taught, lies buried beneath the foundation of the one uncovered. It is evident that a detachment of soldiers was garrisoned at Capernaum. The story about the royal officer whose son Jesus healed (John 4:46 54) may indicate that Capernaum was also a center of political administration. In the year 1905 excavations were started at Tell Hum on the northwestern shore of the Sea of Galilee. They were completed by the Franciscans, who supplied evidence to show that Tell Hum is the site of ancient Capernaum, situated about 2½ miles west of the place where the Jordan River, coming from the north, enters the sea. For Jesus and his disciples the location was strategic, for from this point in (what used to be) the Zebulun-Naphtali territory, most of the towns and villages of Galilee and surroundings were easily accessible. They could be reached either by land for Capernaum was situated on the rather thickly populated shore and on the trade route that connected Damascus and the Mediterranean or else by sea. Because of the fact that, in spite of all the works of mercy and power that Jesus performed here, and all the gracious words that fell from his lips, the inhabitants of Capernaum on the whole remained impenitent, Jesus predicted their doom, as will be explained (Matt. 11:23, 24). As to the destruction of the city itself, what occurred here was so shocking that for centuries even Capernaum's site was a matter of [Greek] -2 _ftnref20 [Greek] By the Spirit's guidance Matthew, giving us his own version of Isa. 9:1, 2, views Christ's settlement in Capernaum as another fulfilment of prophecy; this time 14 16 &that what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali, Toward the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles, The people sitting in darkness Have seen a great light, And upon those sitting in the land of the shadow of death Light has [Greek] -2 _ftnref21 [Greek] In his sovereign grace God did the wholly unexpected. Not mainly to the Jerusalem aristocracy, but especially to the despised, sorely afflicted, and largely ignorant masses of Galilee, a mixed Gentile-Jewish population, did he send his Son. It was in and around Galilee that Jesus spent most of his incarnate life on earth. It was here that he grew up; here also that he subsequently traveled from village to village on his errands of mercy, imparting comfort and healing, and above all else seeking to save the lost. It was here that he walked the shores and addressed the crowds. It was in this general region that he gathered around him a band of disciples. It was from this northern portion of Palestine that his words of life and beauty, of admonition and consolation, were carried far and wide and from father to son. In all probability the five items mentioned here in verse 15 refer to five different sections of Greater Galilee. See Bible map showing these areas. The land of Zebulunwas west of the Sea of Galilee, and was bounded on the north by the land of Naphtali. The region toward the seawas to the west of these, and extended from north to south along the Mediterranean. Beyond the Jordanindicates the territory east of the Jordan. The region which because of the strong pagan element in its population is called Galilee of the GentilesGalílin the Old Testament was the northernmost stretch of what used to be called Naphtali. One of its chief cities during Old Testament times was Kedesh (Josh. 20:7; 21:32). The name of Galíl (Isa. 9:1) was changed to Galilee, and thus altered, became the designation of the entire large province ruled by Herod Antipas. It is evident that the term land in verse 5 refers primarily to the people who inhabited it. Cf. (Jer. 22:29, Land, land, land, hear the word of Jehovah. This applies also to the other three designations, toward the sea.& The entire population of this quintuple northern part of Palestine is described as the people sitting in darkness, and as those sitting in the land of death's shadow. For centuries those living in this large territory had been exposed to political and military aggression from the north (Syria, Assyria, etc.) and to the corrosive moral and religious influences of a pagan environment. They had been overrun and imperiled on a scale much larger than had been the case with respect to the people of Jerusalem and surroundingsII Kings 15:29; Isa. 8:4). No doubt to many of the inhabitants of Galilee the words recorded in II Kings 17:33with specific reference to the Samaritans would also be applicable: They feared Jehovah, and served their own gods. Sitting in (darknessand in the land of the shadow of deathindicates a condition of danger, fear, and hopelessness, a pining away, with no human help in sight. In Scripture the designation darkness,when used figuratively, refers to one or more of the following features: delusionII Cor. 4:4, 6; Eph. 4:18); depravity (Acts 26:18); and despondencyIsa. 9:2; see its context, verse 3 . Though all three qualities are probably in the picture here, yet the emphasis may well be on the last of the three (despondency, hopelessness), as has already been explained. The antonym of darkness is (light,which, accordingly, refers to genuine learningPs. 36:9), life to the glory of God (Eph. 4:15, 24; 5:14), and laughter (Ps. 97:11). All three may well be included, but here too the emphasis is perhaps on the last of the three. The real meaning of the quotation, accordingly, is this, that Jesus Christ, by his presence, words, deeds of mercy and power, would fill the hearts of all his Galilean followers with the joy of salvation. No longer would they be pining away in gloom and despair. When Jesus comes into Galilee and begins his great ministry there, the words of a popular hymn go into effect, The whole world was lost in the darkness of sin, The light of the world is Jesus. Matthew concludes this paragraph by stating 17. From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, Be converted, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.The following points should be noted: a. In essence,though not in detail, Christ's message is the same as that of John the Baptist, witness the fact that in 3:2 the herald's proclamation was summarized in identical words. It is unnecessary therefore to repeat the explanation that has already been given; but see also on 4:23. b. In connection with the preceding context (4:13–16) the meaning here in verse 17 is that Jesus now begins to bring this gospel of the kingdom into regions which the Baptist had not penetrated to any great extent. The good news is beginning to be spread over a wider territory. The demand that men be converted resounds in regions where it had not been heard before. c. The fact that the coming of Christ has indeed brought about a tremendous change on earth, so that millions of people have been translated from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of light, shows that the proclamation, the kingdom of heaven is at handwas fully justified. d. Not immediately or all at once was this message proclaimed throughout the world. From the beginning its spread was intended to be progressive: it was to reach first the Jew (10:5, 6), then also, step by step, all the nations (Acts 13:46; Rom. 1:16). It is not surprising, therefore, that the announcement the kingdom of heaven is at hand, found first on the lips of the Baptist, then confirmed by Jesus, is at Christ's command repeated by the disciples (Matt. 10:7), with the intention that it shall at last reach the entire world: every nation. Then shall the end come. 4:18–22 The Calling of Four Fishermen Cf. Mark 1:16 20; and for Matt. 4:19b and Mark 1:17b cf. Luke 5:10b 18 While he was walking along the Sea of Galilee he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and Andrew his brother, throwing a casting-net into the sea, for they were fishermen. 19 He said to them, Come, follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. 20 At once they left their nets and followed him. 21 And going on from there he saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them. 22 And immediately they left the boat and their father and followed him. 18 20. While he was walking along the Sea of Galilee he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and Andrew his brother, throwing a casting-net into the sea, for they were fishermen. He said to them, Come, follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. At once they left their nets and followed him. As stated in the explanation of verse dabove , the wonderful gospel of the kingdom was not intended only for the men living during the time of Christ's earthly ministry. It was intended for the ages. It is not at all surprising, therefore, that at the very beginning of his ministry Jesus chose men who, by means of their testimony both oral and written, would perpetuate his work and proclaim his message. For a teacher to have not only a general audience but also a band of (close companionsor discipleswas nothing new. Did not Socrates have disciples? Did not John the Baptist? The Pharisees? The rabbis? Christ's disciples were to become the links between himself and his church. They were to be the precious foundation stones for Jerusalem the GoldenRev. 21:19, 20). Think, for example, of the importance of such men as Matthew, John, and Peter in the formation of the Gospels, which are our chief sources of information about Jesus Christ. Accordingly, while he was walking along the Sea of Galilee Jesus invites certain men to come to him. There were several calls to discipleship and to closely related apostleship: a. The one mentioned in John 1:35 51. See N.T.C. on those verses. b. The one mentioned here (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16 20). c. The one mentioned in Luke 5:1 11. d. The one mentioned in Matt. 9:9–13; Mark 2:13 17; Luke 5:27 32. e. The one mentioned in Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13 19; Luke 6:12 16. The five invitations differed; probably as followsato eas listed above : a.About February of the year a.d. 27 this call was extended to Andrew and an unnamed disciple, in all likelihood John, inviting them to accept Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah, and to become his spiritual followers. Andrew brought his brother Simon (Peter) to Jesus. John probably rendered the same service to his own brother James. Almost immediately afterward Philip and (through him) Nathaniel were added to the list. Although occasionally accompanying Jesus on his trips, the disciples continued to pursue their secular occupations. b.This occurred about a year later; hence, about February of the year a.d. 28. The four disciples referred to in John 1:35 41(Peter, Andrew, James, and John) now become the Lord's more steady companions, and are made more conscious than ever of the fact that they are being trained for apostleship, that is, for becoming fishers of men. Even now, however, Matt. 4:20and 22 can hardly be interpreted to mean that they bade a final farewell to their secular occupation as fishermen. More will be said about b.in a moment. c.This takes place a little later. It comprises the story of the miraculous catch of fishes. Luke 5:10b resembles Matt. 4:19b and Mark 1:17b; that is, catch men and become fishers of men, are similar, though perhaps not identical, the Matthew and Mark passages emphasizing the effort,the Luke passage the success. Aside from this resemblance, however, the two accounts are entirely different. In the Matthew-Mark account Jesus is walking along the sea; in Luke he is standing. In the former Simon and Andrew, James and John are all mentioned by name. All are also addressed by Jesus. In the beloved physician's account Jesus directs his words to Peter alone. Andrew is not even mentioned, though he may have been present. In the earlier account Simon and Andrew are casting a net into the sea; i.e., they are fishing; James and John are mending their nets. In Luke the fishermen are washing their nets. In the former, Peter and Andrew leave their nets and follow Jesus; similarly, James and John leave the boat and their father and follow the Master. But in Luke the disciples leave all,during the entire precrucifixion period of Christ's earthly ministry saying farewell to their occupation as fishermen, and following Jesus permanently. d.This was the call of Matthew (=Levi) the publican, the writer of this Gospel. It probably occurred very shortly after c.Proof: see Luke 5:11, 27. Matthew, too, in following Jesus, forsook all. e. (This concerns the entire group of twelve. For all of them it is the formal call to discipleship-apostleship. There was probably a brief interval between Mark 3:13 19Luke 5:27 32) and Matt. 10:1ff. The men who were chosen by Jesus to be his immediate companions needed to be trained for apostleship. Simon the fickle must become Peter the rock. Something similar was true with respect to all. When we first meet these men, and to a certain extent even much later, they manifest lack of deep spiritual penetration (Matt. 13:6; 15:33; 16:7–12, 22, 23; 17:10–13; 19:10–12, 23 30; 24:3); of fervent sympathy (14:15, 16, 23; 19:13–15); of profound humility (18:1–4); of the gladly forgiving spirit (18:21, 22); of persevering prayerfulness (17:16–21); and of unflinching courage (26:56, 69 75). Nevertheless, on their part it required a degree of courage to become Christ's followers and thereby face the opposition of many, including the religious leaders. For further details on The Twleve see on 10:1–4. In this connection one fact must not be ignored. Theirdecision to side with Jesus exhibits hisgreatness: the impelling force of his influence over the minds and hearts of men, so that when he calls they follow immediately. The breadth of his sympathy and the magnitude of his power are also shown here. Is it not marvelous that he was willing and able to take such common folk, four fishermen, etc., unlettered individuals, and, in spite of all their prejudices and superstitions, to transform them into instruments for the salvation of many; to make them leaders who, by means of their testimonies, would turn the world upside down? The four mentioned in verses 18 22 are: Peter, the impetuous (Matt. 14:28–33; 16:22, 23; 26:33–35; John 18:10), who becomes the leader of The Twelve, and is mentioned first in every list of apostles (Matt. 10:2–4; Mark 3:16 19; Luke 6:14 16; and Acts 1:13). Peter's brother Andrew, who is always bringing people to Jesus (John 1:40 42; 6:8, 9, cf. Matt. 14:18; John 12:22). Zebedee's son James, the first of The Twelve to wear the martyr's crown (Acts 12:1, 2). His brother John, who is called the disciple whom Jesus lovedJohn 13:23; 19:26; etc. . To be sure, the Lord loved all his own very intensely (John 13:1, 2), but between Jesus and John the tie of attachment and understanding was the [Greek] -2 _ftnref22 [Greek] A few more details now on verses 18 20. Peter and Andrew were throwing a casting-net into the sea. For (netMatthew uses three different words. One is diktuon,used in verses 20 and 21. It is the most comprehensive or general word of all, and can refer to any net whatever, even a hunting net or a net for catching birds. In the New Testament, however, it is confined to fishing nets of any and every description. The sageneis the seineor dragnet. Very appropriately it is used in Matt. 13:47; see on that verse. The third is the one used here in 4:18Mark 1:16), the amphiblestron,i.e., casting-net. When skillfully cast over the shoulder it will spread out, forming a circle as it falls into the water, and then, because of the pieces of lead attached to it, will quickly sink into the water, capturing the fish [Greek] -2 _ftnref23 [Greek] That was the kind of net with which Peter and Andrew were fishing when Jesus, walking along the sea, said to them, Come, follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. The Lord exercises his sovereignty over these men, not even allowing them to finish their work. They must be ready to follow immediately when he calls them. Cf. 8:21, 22; 10:37. Peter and Andrew hailed from Bethsaida (John 1:45), but Peter had recently moved to Capernaum (Matt. 4:13; 8:5, 14, 15; Mark 1:21, 29, 30; Luke 4:31, 33, 38). By this time these men had come to know Jesus, because a year had elapsed since the unforgettable event recorded in (John 1:35 42. Hence, when he nowMatt. 4:19) said to them, Come, follow me, and I will make you fishers of men, they at once left their nets and followed, encouraged by the promise of their Lord to train them for a task far superior even to the honorable one in which they were now engaged. Instead of catching fish for the table they would recruit men for the kingdom. It must not escape us that by means of the promise, I will make you fishers of men Jesus sets the seal of his approval upon the words of the inspired author of the book of Proverbs, He who wins souls is wise (Prov. 11:30); confirms (Dan. 12:3: They that turn many to righteousness shall shine as the stars forever and ever; adds his own authority to Paul's striking statement, To all I became all, that in one way or another I may save someI Cor. 9:22); and anticipates his own glorious invitation, Come to me, all who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest (Matt. 11:28). Two other disciples of Jesus were given the same command and promise: 21, 22. And going on from there he saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them. And immediately they left the boat and their father, and followed him.These two are not fishing like Peter and Andrew, but mending their nets. They receive the same call. They too must be ready at this time to enter into a new relationshipb,pp. 245, 246 , that is, a transitionfrom a.off-and-on fellowship with ChristJohn 1:39stage This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTERS V VII Chapters 5 7 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him to Do The Sermon on the Mount The First Great Discourse 5:1 7:29 The Sermon on the Mount Cf. Luke 6:17 49 5 1 When he saw the crowds he went up into the mountain; and when he had seated himself his disciples came to him. 2 And he opened his mouth and began to teach them, saying: 3 Blessed (are) the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed the mourners, for they shall be comforted. 5 Blessed the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. 6 Blessed those hungering and thirsting for righteousness, for they shall be fully satisfied. 7 Blessed the merciful, for they shall have mercy shown to them. 8 Blessed the pure in heart, for they shall see God. 9 Blessed the peace-makers, for they shall be called sons of God. 10 Blessed those persecuted for righteousness sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 Blessed are you whenever people heap insults upon you and persecute you and, while telling falsehoods, say all kinds of evil about you for my sake. 12 Rejoice, yes, be filled with unrestrained gladness, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way did they persecute the prophets who lived before your time. 13 You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt becomes tasteless, what will make it salty again? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown away and trampled underfoot by men. 14 You are the light of the world. A city situated on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do men light a lamp and place it under the peck-measure, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 So let your light shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven. 17 Do not think that I have come to set aside the law or the prophets. I have not come to set aside but to fulfil. 18 For I solemnly declare to you, Until heaven and earth disappears not even the tiniest letter or the tiniest hook on a letter will in any way disappear from the law until all (it calls for) shall have taken place. 19 Therefore, whoever annuls one of the least of these commandments and so teaches men shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness excels that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will surely never enter the kingdom of heaven. 21 You have heard that it was said by the men of long ago, You shall not kill, and whoever kills deserves to be punished (with death). 22 But I say to you that (even) anyone who is angry with his brother deserves to be punished (with death). And whoever says to his brother, You blockhead! deserves to be condemned (to death) by the supreme court. And whoever says, You idiot deserves to be cast into the hell of fire.^[250] 23 Therefore if, while you are bringing your offering to the altar, you there remember that your brother has a grievance^[251] against you, 24 leave your offering there in front of the altar, and first go and be reconciled to your brother; then come (back) and present your offering. 25 Make friends quickly with your opponent, while you still have the opportunity to deal with him,^[252] lest the opponent hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. 26 I solemnly declare to you, never will you get out of that place until you have paid the last cent. 27 You have heard that it was said, you shall not commit adultery. 28 But I say to you that anyone who looks at a woman in order to lust after her has already commited adultery with her in his heart. 29 So if your right eye lures you into sin,^[253] pluck it out and fling it away from you. It is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand lures you into sin, cut it off and fling it away from you. It is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go down into hell. 31 It was also said, Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a divorce certificate. 32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife except on the ground of (her) infidelity^[254] exposes her to adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman involves himself in adultery. 33 Again, you have heard that it was said by the men of long ago, You shall not break your oath, but shall keep the oaths you have sworn to the Lord. 34 But I tell you, Do not take any oath at all, either by heaven, for it is God's throne, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 Nor shall you swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 Let your speech be such that yes is simply yes and no is simply no. Anything beyond that comes from the evil one. 38 You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. 39 But I tell you, Do not resist the evil-doer; but to him that slaps you on the right cheek turn the other also. 40 And if anyone wishes to go to law with you and take your shirt, let him take your robe also. 41 And whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 To him that asks (anything) of you give, and from him that wants to borrow of you do not turn away. 43 You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those that persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven, for he causes his sun to rise on evil (people) and good, and sends rain on righteous and unrighteous. 46 For if you love those who love you, what is your reward? Are not the tax-collectors doing the same thing? 47 And if, with cordial greetings, you approach your brothers only, what are you doing that is exceptional? Are not the Gentiles doing as much? 48 You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. 6 1 Take care that you do not practice your righteousness before the people, to attract their attention; otherwise you will not have any reward with your Father who is in heaven. 2 So, whenever you give to the poor do not publicly announce it with a blast of the trumpet,^[255] as the hypocrites are in the habit of doing in the synagogues and in the alleyways in order to win the admiration of the people. I solemnly declare to you, they have already received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to charity, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 that your deeds of charity may be (performed) in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. 5 Also, whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to say their prayers standing up in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by the people. I solemnly declare to you, they have already received their reward in full. 6 But whenever you pray, enter into your most private room, and having shut your door, pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. 7 Moreover, in praying, do not babble on and on like pagans,^[256] for they imagine that they will be heard because of their flow of words. 8 Do not be like them therefore, for your Father knows what you need before you (even) ask him. 9 This, then, is how you should pray: Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, as in heaven so on earth. 11 Give us this day our daily bread,^[257] 12 And forgive us our debts as we also have forgiven our debtors, 13 And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from the evil one.^[258] [For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.] 14 For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. 16 And whenever you fast, do not be like the hypocrites, looking glum, for they make their faces unsightly in order that (other) people may see that they are fasting. I solemnly declare to you, they have already received their reward in full. 17 But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, 18 that not men but (only) your Father who is in secret may see that you are fasting. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. 19 Do not gather for yourselves^[259] treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume, and where thieves dig through and steal. 20 But gather for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consume, and where thieves do not dig through and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. 22 The eye is the body's lamp. Therefore if your eye is sound, your whole body will be illumined. 23 But if your eye is in poor condition, your whole body will be dark. If then the (very) light in you is darkness, how great (is) that darkness! 24 No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and look down on the other. You cannot serve God and Mammon. 25 Therefore I say to you, Do not be anxious^[260] about your life, what you are going to eat or what you are going to drink, nor about your body, what you are going to wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? 26 Look at the birds of the air. They neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, yet your heavenly Father feeds them. You are of more value than they, are you not? 27 And who among you is able, by being anxious, to add (even) one cubit to his life-span? 28 Moreover, why be anxious about clothes? Consider the lillies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin; 29 yet I tell you that even Solomon in all his splendor was not attired^[261] like one of these. 30 Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will he not much more surely clothe you, O men of little faith? 31 So, do not become anxious, saying, What are we going to eat? or What are we going to drink? or What are we going to wear? 32 For all these things the Gentiles crave; besides, your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. 33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be granted to you as an extra gift. 34 Do not therefore become anxious for tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Each day has enough trouble all by itself. 7 1 Do not pass judgment (on others), that you may not have judgment passed on yourselves. 2 For in accordance with the judgment whereby you pass judgment you yourselves will be judged; and in accordance with the measure whereby you measure it will be measured back to you 3 And why do you gaze at the speck in your brother's eye, while the beam that is in your own eye you do not (even) observe? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, Let me take the speck out of your eye, and look! a beam in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly (enough) to take the speck out of your brother's eye. 6 Do not give what is holy to the dogs, and do not fling your pearls before the hogs lest they trample on them with their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces. 7 Ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you. 8 For whoever asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to him that knocks it shall be opened. 9 Or what man is there among you, who, when his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or also (if the son) asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11 If, therefore, you, evil though you are, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him! 12 Therefore whatever you want (other) people to do for you, do also for them, for this is the law and the prophets. 13 Enter by the narrow gate; for wide (is) the gate and broad the way that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. 14 For narrow (is) the gate and constricted the way that leads to life, and few are those who find it. 15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 By their fruits you will recognize them. Grapes are not picked from thorns, or figs from thistles, are they? 17 So every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the sickly tree bears worthless fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear worthless fruit, neither can a sickly tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not yield good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will recognize them. 21 Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who puts into practice the will of my Father who (is) in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, in thy name did we not prophesy, and in thy name did we not cast out demons, and in thy name did we not perform many mighty works? 23 And then will I say to them openly, Never have I known you; go away from me, you law despisers! 24 Everyone then who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice will be like a sensible man, who built his house on rock. 25 Down poured the rain, and there came the floods, while the winds blew and fell upon that house, but it did not fall, for it was founded on rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice will be like a foolish man, who built his house on sand. 27 Down poured the rain and there came the floods, while the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and the crash it produced was tremendous. ^[262] 28 Now when Jesus had finished these sayings the crowds were astounded at his teaching, 29 for he was teaching them as having authority, and not as their scribes. As was mentioned earlier (see pp. 26–28) it is characteristic of Matthew to introduce a subject and then to expand upon it. The river broadens into a lake. So also here. Christ's preaching and his healing have been introduced (respectively 4:12–17, 23a and 4:23b, 24). So now a sample of this teaching is given in 5:1 7:29; of the healing, in 8:1 9:34. First, then, the Sermon on the Mount. It was probably delivered in the spring of the year 28, after Jesus had spent a night in prayer (Luke 6:12). The prayer was followed by the choosing of the twelve disciplesMark 3:13 19; Luke 6:13 16; on Matt. 10:1 4see p. 449 . This, in turn, was followed by the healing of many sick (Luke 6:17 19). The sermon was next (Luke 6:19, 20). Introduction to the Sermon As the popular title indicates, Jesus was on the mountain when he preached this sermon: 5:1, 2. When he saw the crowds he went up into the mountain; and when he had seated himself his disciples came to him. And he opened his mouth and began to teach them, saying.& From Matt. 8:5and Luke 7:1it would appear that the mountain referred to was in the general vicinity of Capernaum. The definite article ( the mountain, not just a mountain) probably shows that a well-known mountain is indicated. Was it the Horns of Hattin, named thus because its peaks resemble two horns when seen from afar? This elevation is located about four miles west of the Sea of Galilee and about eight miles southwest of Capernaum. Or was it even closer to, and in the same direction from, Capernaum? If so, the reference could be to the gentle, grassy slope just west of Tabgha.^[263] In connection with the site of the sermon there is this other problem, that according to Luke the sermon was preached on a level place (6:17), but according to Matthew on the mountain. The seeming contradiction disappears either by supposing that Jesus delivered his discourse on a mountain-plain; or that, having chosen his disciples on the mountain top, he with them descended to a plain where he healed the sick, and afterward with the disciples returned to the topMark 3:13; Luke 6:17; and Matt. 5:1, in that order . If the latter view be adopted it would then appear that in the plain he stood to heal the sick; on the mountain top he sat, according to the then prevailing custom (Mark 4:1; 9:35; 13:3; Luke 4:20), to deliver the sermon. Whichever view one adopts it is clear that a conflict between Matthew and Luke cannot be proved. Matt. 5:1 7:29 (and Luke 6:17 49clearly convey the impression that all the sayings contained in these two sections were spoken at one time and constitute one sermon. The entire discourse is preceded by: And he opened his mouth and began to teach them sayingMatt. 5:2; cf. Luke 6:20). It concludes with the words, Now when Jesus had finished these sayings (Matt. 7:28; cf. Luke 7:1). It is clear that the sermon recorded by Matthew and the one reported by Luke are one and the same. The historical setting is the same in both; i.e., in both Gospels the sermon is preceded by the account of a great multitude flocking to Jesus to be healed. It is followed either immediately, as in Luke, or almost immediately, as in Matthew by the story of the healing of the centurion's servant. Also, the train of thought is to a considerable extent the same in both: the beatitudes, the supremacy of the law of love, and the parable of the two builders. Cf. Matt. 5:3 12with Luke 6:20 23; Matt. 5:43 48with Luke 6:27 38; and Matt. 7:24 27with Luke 6:47 49. It is admitted, nevertheless, that the two reports are by no means identical. In fact, Matthew's coverage is more than three times as extensive as Luke's. This shows that the Gospel writers were not mere copyists. Each wrote in accordance with his own background, character, and endowment. Perhaps even more important: each wrote in harmony with his own specific purpose. Thus it is not surprising that Matthew includes various matters that were of special interest to his Jewish readers whom he was trying to reach for Christ (for example, 5:17–42; 6:1–6, 16 18). Since Luke was not primarily writing for Jews he omits such matters. On the other hand Luke's account contains material (6:24–26, 38 40) not found in that identical form in Matthew.Luke 6:38with Matt. 7:2b. As was pointed out previously (see p. 35) it is not only possible but very probable that many of the sayings found in The Sermon on the Mount were repeated by the Lord as he traveled from place to place. The Mount of the Beatitudes has often been compared and contrasted with Mount Horeb, where Moses received the law from God. On the one hand, Mount Horeb: cold, bleak, barren, almost inaccessible, situated in the midst of a howling wilderness with its fiery serpents. On the other hand, the Mount of the Beatitudes with its smiling landscapes and grassy slopes, as it were extending a hearty welcome to all and spreading delight by means of its lilies, daisies, hyacinths, and anemones. At Horeb: God appearing in thunder and lightning, and the people overcome with fear. In Galilee: Immanuel, grace and truth proceeding from his lips, sitting down in the midst of his disciples who listen without fear or trembling. Yet we must be careful. Although it is true that from Mt. Horeb Jehovah revealed his greatness and his glory, nevertheless the law was given in a context of love (Exod. 20:2; Deut. 5:2, 3, 6, 28, 29, 32, 33; 6:3–5). Also, what was proclaimed at Sinai is not set aside but is given its deeply spiritual interpretation by Jesus Christ (Matt. 5:17). There are those who claim that when Jesus delivered this sermon he neither directly nor indirectly had in view the church of today, and that its precepts are unlivable today, irrelevant to the conditions prevailing in this modern age. Objection: This view can be maintained only when it is coupled with a crassly literal interpretation of such passages as 5:29, 30, 34. However, the very thrust of the sermon is directed against this error in interpretation (see 5:21–48). Jesus throughout his ministry opposed it. Friend and foe alike were constantly taking literally those precious statements of the Master that were meant to be taken figuratively (John 2:19, 20; 3:3, 4; 4:10, 11, 32, 33; 6:51, 52; 11:11–13; 14:4–6). Besides, even Jesus himself did not carry out all these precepts literally; cf., for example, (Matt. 5:34with 26:63, 64, which shows that under the proper circumstances the Lord did not object to the oath. It is evident that the various teachings here presented must be interpreted in the light of their specific contexts and according to their broad spiritual purpose. When this is done, it will become evident that Christ in this discourse deals with those fundamental principles of conduct which, according to his own testimony, remain the same in every ageMatt. 5:17, 18). Even in his prayers Jesus refused to limit his horizon to the people living during the time of his own earthly sojourn (John 17:20, 21). The wisdom of Christ applies today as well as yesterday. Now as well as then the poor in spirit, etc., are, and are pronounced, blessed (5:1–12). Today, too, believers in the Lord Jesus Christ are the salt of the earth and the light of the world (5:13, 14). Also at this present time not only the outward deed of murder but also the inner disposition of hatred that could lead to it are punishable in God's sight (5:21, 22). Now as well as then adultery is a matter not only of the outward act but also of the polluted heart and lustful eye (5:23–26). It is not true that this discourse has meaning only for one age and not for another, or that it can be applied only to a certain class of people the still unconverted, for example but not to others. The principles here enunciated are applicable always and to all. The unconverted person should listen in order that he may recognize his total inability to keep these precepts and may flee to Christ for refuge (Matt. 11:28–30; John 3:16). The believer should take to heart the lessons here taught, in order that in the strength of the Lord and by his grace he may begin to obey them out of gratitude. The underestimation of this discourse, as if it applied only to certain groups or to men living during a certain period of history must be condemned. So, however, must its overestimation. It amounts to this, We do not believe in theology; we believe in the Sermon on the Mount. It contains all we need to know in order to live as Christians. It has no blood theology; no doctrine, only ethics. Answer: It is surely a very arbitrary procedure to accept the Sermon on the Mount but to reject those sayings of the same Jesus in which he demands faith in himself as present Savior and future JudgeMatt. 16:16–20; 22:42–45; 25:31–46; John 14:1ff. etc. , and clearly teaches the doctrine of atonement by bloodMatt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; John 6:53, 55; etc. . Besides, does not even the sermon itself declare the majesty of Christ? See especially 5:17; 7:21–23, 28, 29. The reason why the doctrine of the atonement is not here specifically set forth may be that even the disciples were not yet ready to receive it. It was reserved for later. But whatever was the reason we have no right to pick and choose between Christ's teachings, rejecting the one and accepting the other. Besides, the way here prescribed and the way of the cross do not clash but blend beautifully (Matt. 5:3–5, 10 12with 16:24–26; John 15:20). Essentially they are the same. Sermon Summary The sermon itself is well organized. This is true with respect to all the reported discourses of our Lord. Let preachers take note of this in making their sermons. Jesus never rambled. He chose a theme. In the present case that theme is obviously the gospel of the kingdom (4:23). Throughout the discourse this kingdom is mentioned again and again (5:3, 10, 19, 20; 6:10, 33; 7:21). The meaning of this concept has already been indicated (see pp. 249, 250). The sermon also has its well-defined divisions or points. These are not stiff or formal the bones do not stick out but organic, so that one subdivision gradually develops into, or merges with, another. First Jesus speaks about the citizens of the kingdom (5:2–16), describing their character and blessedness (verses 2 12) and their relation to the world (verses 13 16). They are the salt of the earth, the light of the world. Secondly the Lord sets forth the righteousness of the kingdom, the high standard of life demanded by the King (5:17 7:12). We are shown that this righteousness is in full accord with the moral principles enunciated in the Old Testament (5:17–19), but is not in accord with the current and traditional (rabbinical) interpretation and application of God's holy law (verses 20 48). It exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus day as well as that of the ancient Jewish interpreters. This contrast is pointed out with respect to several of the Old Testament commandments. The essence of the righteousness of the kingdom with respect to man's relation to God amounts to this: Love God above all (chap. 6). Secret (unostentatious) devotion to, and unlimited trust in, God is required. This secret and sincere devotion of the heart, rather than the merely outward deed to attract the attention of the people and to win their admiration, must reveal itself in such matters as giving, praying, and fasting (verses 1 18). And as to unlimited trust in God, it is incompatible with mammon worship and with worry, and is based on the assurance that upon those who seek God's kingdom and his righteousness all things necessary will be graciously bestowed (verses 19 34). The essence of the righteousness of the kingdom with respect to man's relation to man is this: Love your neighbor as yourself (7:1–12). This implies absence of censoriousness, discrimination in judgment. Wisdom to judge aright, as well as whatever else one needs, is obtained by prayer. Verse 12 contains Christ's own version of the golden rule. Thirdly Jesus concludes his sermon with an earnest exhortation to enter the kingdom (verses 13 27). He pictures the beginning of the way (verses 13 and 14), progress upon the way (verses 15 20), and the end of the way: what happens in the end to those who are mere sayers, as contrasted with what happens to doers (verses 21 23); or, to mere hearers versus doers (verses 24 27). These last four verses contain the strikingly vivid parable of The Two Builders: the sensible man who built his house on rock, contrasted with the foolish man who built his house on sand. The effect of the sermon upon the audience is portrayed in verses 28 and 29. The Setting During the Great Galilean Ministry Jesus often addressed the crowds. So also here (5:1). The sight of great multitudes of people always filled his heart with sympathy, a desire to help them in their needs (Mark 6:34; 8:2; Luke 9:13). When they were hungry he would feed them. When they would bring their sick to him he would heal all those who were afflicted. So also when, as always, they were in need of teaching he would teach them. Our present passage makes mention of the crowds seen by him and of his disciples who came to him. Mark speaks of twelve (3:14); Luke of a great multitude of his disciples (6:17, cf. verse 20). Perhaps we are permitted to picture the scene in this way, that The Twelve formed a circle immediately around the Savior; farther down stood a large company of other disciples; beyond these the great multitude of other interested and inquisitive listeners. Jesus opens his address with those precious sayings that have imparted comfort and encouragement to the distressed throughout the centuries and, because of the oft-repeated Blessed, have become popularly known as The Beatitudes. The Citizens of the Kingdom: Their Character and Blessedness (the Beatitudes) and Their Relation to the World: Salt and Light The people listening to Jesus that day must have been spellbound from the very beginning. They must have been enthralled by the very opening sentence, for Jesus was telling them things which on the surface seemed absurd. He was actually saying that not the rich, the gay, the well-fed, and the unoppressed were to be accounted well-off, but rather the poor, the mourners, the hungry and thirsty, and the persecuted ones. To be sure here in Matthew more so than in Luke some of these descriptions were modified. Hence not necessarily every poor person but the poor in spirit, and not without qualification the hungry and thirsty but those hungering and thirsting for righteousness are pronounced blessed. But the fact remains that here was a reversal of all human evaluations. The paradoxical nature of the sayings becomes even clearer when the meaning of the predicate adjective blessed is considered. Note that it stands at the very beginning of the sentence and occurs no less than nine times in close succession, yielding nine or, if verses 10 12 are combined because of thought similarity, eight beatitudes. From here on they will be considered a group of eight. The marked emphasis upon the word blessed cannot be questioned. In the spirit of the Old Testament psalmists the Lord is saying, O the blessedness of the poor in spirit, the mourners, the meek! etc. Think of David's exuberant exclamation in Ps. 32:1, Blessed (is he whose) or O the blessedness (of him whose) transgression (is) forgiven, (whose) sin (is) covered! The sayings of (Matt. 5:1 12must have resounded from the mountain with tremendous emotional force. What the Speaker is doing is nothing less than this: he is stating that though everybody may consider his followers to be most wretched and unfortunate and though they themselves are by no means always filled with optimism regarding their own condition, in the sight of heaven and by the standards of its kingdom they are happy indeed; yes, happy in the most exalted sense of the term; hence, superlatively blessed.^[264] Not only is this true because of the blessings in store for them in the future that, too, is implied; see especially 5:12: your reward in heaven is great but even because of their present state. Already heaven's favor is resting upon them. Right at this moment the light of their future bliss is beginning to engulf them. Even now, no matter how despised they may be, this is true, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon themI Peter 4:14). Each beatitude consists of three parts: a. an ascription of blessedness, b. a description of the person to whom this ascription applies, that is, of his character or condition ( the poor in spirit, the mourners, etc.), and c. a statement of the reason for this blessedness. Those who are always looking for contradictions and discrepancies in Scripture see a conflict between Matthew's and Luke's account of the beatitudes. Now it is true that there are differences. Thus (Matthew 5records (at least) eight beatitudes; Luke 6only four, followed by four woes. Also, in Matthew the sayings, with the exception of the last, are in the third person; in Luke in the second. Finally, where Matthew has poor in spirit (5:3) Luke simply reads you poorMatt. 5:6with Luke 6:21). One might say, therefore, that in Matthew's version the emphasis is on the spiritual quality of the citizens of the kingdom; in Luke the external condition is brought more into the foreground. But are such differences tantamount to contradictions? Not in the least. Luke nowhere tells us that Jesus uttered only four beatitudes. Again, it is entirely possible that Jesus used both the third and the second person; or that, while using the third person, he was looking at his immediate disciples (Luke 6:20), so that this very gesture indicated that this comfort was intended especially for them. In either case was not Luke fully justified in using the second person? Finally, Jesus certainly did not mean and could not have meant that every person who is poor in earthly possessions is for that very reason to be accounted blessed. The implication even in Luke's account is that although with respect to earthly possessions people may be ever so impoverished, yet because of their faith in the Son of man (Luke 6:22) theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Conclusion: there is no real conflict. See also what has been said earlier about these alleged contradictions and discrepancies (pp. 75, 76). It is hardly necessary to state that when Jesus speaks about the poor in spirit, the mourners, the meek, etc., he does not refer to eight different classes of people: some poor in spirit, others mourning, still others meek, etc., but to one and the same group. Moreover, in describing those who belong to this group he is at the same time giving a description of the kingdom to which they belong showing that it is not an earthly realm but a heavenly; not a physical but a distinctly spiritual empire, in which the one and only true God, the Father of Jesus Christ, is acknowledged and worshiped as Sovereign. Cf. Luke 17:21; John 18:36; Rom. 14:17. It has been argued that the qualities mentioned in these beatitudes are far too passive and self-renunciatory to meet the requirements of the age in which we are living. Is not the world sinking into a morass of moral and spiritual degradation? Has not scientific progress left religious advancement far behind? Therefore, instead of the life of privation here set forth, is it not rather intense Christian activity, deep involvement in mission programs and in social reform, that is called for today? Is not energetic enterprise instead of tame, uncolorful, rather sheepish poverty in spirit, mournfulness, meekness, purity of heart, etc., the real answer to our problem? Answer: The world of Elijah, too, was very, very wicked. Nevertheless, Jehovah was not in the wind, nor in the earthquake, nor in the fire, but in a still small voice. To Zechariah came the message, Not by might nor by power but by my Spirit says Jehovah of hosts (Zech. 4:6). Through Isaiah the word of the Lord comes to us, In quietness and confidence shall be your strength (Isa. 30:15). He who thinks lightly of the qualities mentioned in these beatitudes must be consistent. Let him never again speak of stooping to conquer, about the quality of mercy &blessing him that gives and him that takes, and about the pen being mightier than the sword. Also, let him never again wax enthusiastic about the contents of (I Cor. 13. Involvement in programs of Christian action? By all means, as long as the main purpose is the glory of GodMatt. 5:16; I Cor. 10:31)! Extending help toward the needy and underprivileged of any and every race, whether by individual or group action? Definitely, with the same proviso. Read (Gen. 47; Prov. 14:21; 19:17; Matt. 25:34–40; II Cor. 8:1–9; Eph. 2:10; James 2:6, 8, 13; 5:1–6, to mention only a few of the long list of passages in which such endeavor is prescribed and even emphasized. However, only when the heart is right, that is, when such effort is being expended for the benefit of others and thus to the glory of God, and not to win men's approval or to build up one's ego, will heaven reward it. It is the spirit of hypocrisy, the doing of so-called good works from bad (ulterior) motives, that is condemned in the Sermon on the MountMatt. 6:1–18). It is preaching what one does not practice that is denounced (Matt. 23:4; Luke 11:46). We should never forget that when Jesus here pronounces a blessing upon the meek he does it as the One who himself was the meekest of all men (Matt. 11:29; 12:17–21, cf. Isa. 42:1–4; Matt. 21:5, cf. Zech. 9:9). So also when the merciful are promised mercy it is the supremely merciful One (Luke 23:34) who makes that promise. When the pure of heart receive the assurance that they shall see God the One who conveys this assurance is also the very One who is able to ask, Who of you convicts me of sin? (John 8:46). And when the peacemakers are honored with the title sons of God it is the chief Peace-maker (Isa. 9:6; John 14:27; 20:19–21; Eph. 2:14) who confers this title upon them. The qualities which the Lord demands of others he himself possesses in infinite degree. That is one reason why his teaching was and is so dynamic. This holds also for Christianity. A Christianity (?) devoid of the qualities held before us in these beatitudes lacks vitality. On the other hand, a Christianity that treasures and displays these graces in all that it is and does is a channel of blessing for mankind. A final question demands an answer: Must we conceive of these beatitudes as so many separate grains of sand, or are they more like a chain of events in which each link, or at least each group of links, is organically connected with the others? Is the sequence in which they follow each other of such a nature that No. 8 might as well be No. 1, and No. 6 could trade places with No. 2, or is there a discernible orderly arrangement? In some commentaries this question is not even discussed. Now it must be granted that a certain amount of overlapping may well be present; compare, for example, the poor in spirit with the meek. It may indeed be impossible to prove that there is here a rigid step by step progression so that each beatitude (after the first) would indicate an ascending stage in the development of Christian character and/or experience. Though it might be true, it is perhaps impossible to prove that merciful, pure in heart, and peace-making represent a climactic sequence. Nevertheless, a general group by group onward trend is not difficult to detect. Thus we observe that both here in Matthew and also in Luke a blessing is pronouned first on the poor in spirit (thus Matthew) or simply you poor (Luke). Also, in both of these Gospels the entire series ends with an exhortation that the maligned and persecuted children of God should rejoice. Moreover, elsewhere too the Lord, in his description of man's state and condition, begins where the beatitudes begin. Jesus consistently pictures the sinner as being at the outset dead by nature (Matt. 8:22; Luke 9:60; 15:24, 32; John 6:53; 11:25, 26), utterly lost (Matt. 10:6; 15:24; 18:11; Luke 15:4, 6, 9, 24, 32; 19:10), and in need not merely of reform but of rebirth (John 3:3, 5). He must repent (Matt. 4:17; Luke 13:3, 5), in the sense already explained (see pp. 196, 197). Is it then strange that the first three beatitudes are those in which that man is pronounced blessed who recognizes his own poverty and lack; as did, for example, the prodigal in the parable popularly known as that of The Prodigal SonLuke 15, especially verse 17 ? Next, when the prodigal recognizes his wretched condition and is filled with regret as he reflects on the fact that he himself is to blame for it, does he not hunger and thirst for an opportunity to say, Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you? Is not the re-establishment of the right relation with God the chief object of his yearning? With this longing for righteousness compare the fourth beatitude. And now having received mercy, will he not be merciful in return and thus the recipient of even more mercy than he has already received (Matt. 5:44–48; 18:21–35; Luke 6:36)? And will he not also, by God's grace and power, strive to be pure of heart, trusting God with singleness of purpose (Matt. 6:22; Luke 11:34)? And, having himself received the peace that passes all understanding, will he not become a peace-makerMark 9:50; Luke 10:5, 6; Phil. 2:1ff. ? In other words, will not the fifth, sixth, and seventh beatitudes apply to him? Finally, note that the blessing pronounced upon those who for Christ's sake endure persecution is placed at the close of the entire series, as the eighth and final beatitude. Is not also this true to life? Generally it is not the person who has just come to himself that is persecuted, but rather the one who has already begun to reveal himself outwardly as a new man. Thus also in the parable of The Prodigal Son the displeasure of the self-righteous elder brother toward the returned penitent is mentioned near the end of the story (Luke 15:30). Similarly, Christ's Upper Room Discourse ends (just before the touchingly beautiful highpriestly prayer) with the words, In the world you have tribulation; but be of good courage. I have conquered the world (John 16:33). Cf. Matt. 10:13b 42after 10:1 13a. It is clear, therefore, that at least in their general trend the beatitudes follow the actual course of the developing new life, and that, in broad outline, the sequence found here parallels what is found elsewhere in the sayings and discourses of the Lord. But though these pronouncements reveal the beginning and the further progress of the faith of the citizens of the kingdom, and the persecution to which this faith is subjected, showing us the various features of Christian character in their (to some extent) successive development, yet, as the flower-bud already contains the flower, so the earliest grace, consciousness of spiritual poverty, already contains all the others in its bosom and is itself never lost but rather enhanced in beauty and winsomeness through its blending with all the other virtues. The First Beatitude 3. Blessed (are) the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. The world says the exact opposite, Blessed are the rich, etc. Jesus says, Blessed are the poor, mourners, meek. Reason: one's outward condition may be ever so enviable; in the end it vanishes like a dream. God never made a soul so small that the whole world will satisfy it. But the inner state and character of the soul abides. Cf. Luke 12:15; I Cor. 7:31. However, Jesus does not pronounce these people blessed because they are poor in material goods, though for the most part they are that also. They are called blessed as being poor in spirit, not in spirituality but with respect to their spirit; that is, they are the ones who have become convinced of their spiritual poverty. They have been made conscious of their misery and want. Their old pride has been broken. They have begun to cry out, O God, be thou merciful to me, the sinner (Luke 18:13). They are of a contrite spirit and tremble at God's word (Isa. 66:2; cf. 57:15).^[265] They realize their own utter helplessness (Rom. 7:24), expect nothing from self, everything from God. Theirs, theirs alone, right now is the kingdom of heaven, that is complete salvation, the sum-total of blessings that result when God is acknowledged as King over heart and life. See definition on p. 249, under point b. It is theirs even now in principle. Therefore they are pronounced blessed. The book of Revelation contains two vivid passages that respectively show a. how one can be poor though deeming himself to be rich, and b. how a person can be rich indeed in the midst of his poverty. The risen and exalted Church Visitor, Jesus Christ, addresses lukewarm Laodicea as follows: So because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I am about to spew you out of my mouth. For you say, I am rich and have become richer right along and have need of nothing whatever, but you do not know that you are the one who is wretched and pitiable and poor [or: beggarly] and blind and naked (3:16–17). But he gladdens the church of Smyrna by saying: I know your tribulation [or: affliction] and your poverty, but you are rich (2:9). How, then, can the poor be called rich? The answer is found in such meaningful passages as, I have everything (Gen. 33:11); and To them that love God all things work together for good (Rom. 8:28). For further confirmation of this glorious truth see Ps. 23; 63:1; 73:23–26; 81:10; 116; Prov. 15:16; 16:8, 19; 19:1; John 1:16; 14:1–3; 17:24; Rom. 8:31–39; I Cor. 3:21–23; II Cor. 4:8; Eph. 1:3; I Peter 1:3–9; I John 5:4; Rev. 7:9–17; 17:14; 21:1–7. The Second Beatitude 4. The poor in spirit are also the mourners. It is this aspect of their life and behavior that is brought to the fore in the second beatitude: Blessed the mourners, for they shall be comforted. Blessed indeed is the person who, having said, I perish here with hunger, continues by saying, Father I have sinned. People mourn for many reasons: sickness, pain, bereavement, material loss, wounded pride, etc. In the present context, however, a basically different kind of mourning is in view. It is the mourning of those who recognize their spiritual bankruptcy (first beatitude) and are or are presently going to be hungering and thirsting for righteousness (fourth beatitude), that is emphasized. To be sure, when a person bemoans his sin he also laments sin's consequences (Rev. 21:4). From the many distresses of life, including the physical, none need be excluded. But they are included only in their character as the results of sin. Accordingly, by no means all mourners are here called blessed. Cf. II Cor. 7:10. It is not necessary, however, to limit this mourning to that which takes place because of a person's own individual sins: those whereby he himself has grieved his God. That type of sorrow can be poignant indeed (Ps. 51:4). More, however, is undoubtedly included. The regenerated learn to love God to such an extent that they will begin to weep because of all the deeds of ungodliness which the ungodly have committed in such an ungodly manner (Jude 15). Their mourning therefore is God-centered, not man-centered. They sigh and cry not only over their own sins, nor only over these plus the power of the wicked to oppress the righteous (Hab. 1:4; II Tim. 3:12), but over all the abominations that are done in the midst of Jerusalem (Ezek. 9:4). It grieves them that God, their own God whom they love, is being dishonored. Cf. Ps. 139:21. This type of grief to the glory of God is also strikingly expressed in Ps. 119:136, Streams of water run down my eyes because they do not observe thy law. See also Ezra 10:6. In a most touching chapter Daniel, in mourning over and making confession of sin, combines his own personal sins and those of his peopleDan. 9:1–20; see especially verse 20 . In doing so he pleads, O Lord hear, O Lord forgive, O Lord hearken and do; defer not, for thine own sake, O my God, because thy city and thy people are called by thy name (verse 19). The powerful surge of emotion that characterizes the outpouring of heart expressed in Ps. 119and in Dan. 9fits the present context, because the word for mourning in the second beatitude indicates a sorrow that begins in the heart, takes possession of the entire person, and is outwardly manifested.^[266] The blessedness of these people consists in this, that they shall be comforted. Godly sorrow turns the soul toward God. God, in turn, grants comfort to those who seek their help from him. It is he who pardons, delivers, strengthens, reassures (Ps. 30:5; 50:15; Isa. 55:6, 7; Mic. 7:18–20; Matt. 11:28–30). Thus tears, like raindrops, fall to the ground and come up in flowers (Ps. 126:5; Eccl. 7:3; John 14; see N.T.C. on that very comforting chapter; I Cor. 10:13; II Cor. 1:3, 4; Rev. 7:14–17; 21:4). At times the comfort consists in this, that the affliction itself is removedII Chron. 20:1–30; 32:9–23; Ps. 116; Isa. 38; Acts 12:5ff.; etc. . Often, however, the affliction remains for a while but a weight of glory outbalances the grief (II Cor. 4:17; 12:8, 9). Think also of Rom. 8:28; even better, of 8:28–39. Most beautifully is this comfort summarized in Lord's Day 1 of The Heidelberg Catechism: Question. What is your only comfort in life and death? Answer. That I, with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Savior Jesus Christ; who with his precious blood has fully satisfied for all my sins, and delivered me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my heavenly Father not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, wherefore by his Holy Spirit he also assures me of eternal life, and makes me heartily willing and ready henceforth to live unto him. Add to this II Tim. 1:12; 4:7, 8; Rev. 17:14; 19:7. The Third Beatitude 5. Blessed the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. There is very little difference between being poor in spirit and being meek. Nevertheless, there is a slight distinction, namely this, that the first designation describes the man more as he is in himself, namely, broken-hearted; whereas the second pictures him more definitely in his relation to God and the fellowman. What is said here about the meek individual is an echo of (Ps. 37:11(see also verses 22, 29, 34 of that same psalm). In order therefore to learn what is meant by the expression the meek we do best to derive the content of this concept from that psalm. It describes the person who is not resentful. He bears no grudge. Far from mulling over injuries received, he finds refuge in the Lord and commits his way entirely to him. All the more does he do this because he has died to all self-righteousness. He knows that he cannot claim any merit before GodPs. 34:18; 51:17). Since God's favor means everything to him he has learned to take joyfully the plundering of his possessions, knowing that he has a better possession and an abiding one (Heb. 10:34). Yet meekness is not weakness. Meekness is not spinelessness, the characteristics of the person who is ready to bow before every breeze. It is submissiveness under provocation, the willingness rather to suffer than to inflict injury. The meek person leaves everything in the hand of him who loves and cares. The blessedness of those who are meek consists in this, that they shall inherit the earth. In a sense they inherit it even now, and this for several reasons: a. by not paying undue attention to enriching themselves but rather to doing their duty before God and fulfilling their task on earth; in other words, by first and most of all seeking God's kingdom and his righteousness, all these things (food, clothing, etc.) are graciously bestowed upon them as an extra gift (Matt. 6:33). The law of indirection is by no means a dead letter. b. Their very meekness makes them a blessing to their fellowmen, some of whom will bless them in return (Mark 10:30; Acts 2:44, 45; 16:15; Phil. 4:18). c. They may possess only a small portion of this earth or of earthly goods, but a small portion with God's blessing resting upon it is more than the greatest riches without God's blessing. Except in a very formal or legal sense, does a man whose soul is racked by the fear of the coming judgment really possess his earthly goods? Does he possess them in the sense of enjoying them? Of course not! It is not he who has them: they have him! A comparison of two passages from the book of Isaiah shows who are really the ones that inherit the earth: Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on thee, because he trusts in thee (26:3). There is no peace, says Jehovah, for the wicked (48:22). Not the men of the world but the meek are those who know that Rom. 8:28is true. Therefore, they, and they alone, are the ones who possess the earth. But the most complete fulfilment of the promise is reserved for the future, when at Christ's return in glory the meek will inherit the new heaven and earth, the rejuvenated universe from which every stain of sin and every remnant of the curse will have been removed and in which righteousness will forever dwellRev. 21:1ff. . To inherit the earth indicates the following: a. By grace the citizen of the kingdom has a right to this possession; b. He will certainly receive it as an inalienable treasure; c. He will not need to cannot even earn it himself. The Fourth Beatitude Out of the depths of conscious spiritual poverty, mourning over sin, and meekness the citizens of the kingdom cry to God for fulfilment, that is, for righteousness, the complete satisfaction of their basic spiritual need. The fourth beatitude therefore follows very naturally: 6. Blessed those hungering and thirsting for righteousness, for they shall be fully satisfied. This righteousness consists in perfect comformity with God's holy law, that is, with his will. It is first of all a righteousness of imputation: Abraham believed in Jehovah; and he reckoned it to him for righteousness (Gen. 15:6). Man is unable to earn this right standing with God. No amount of good works will ever be able to atone for his sin. In fact, All our righteousnesses are as a polluted garment (Isa. 64:6). No human cleansings of any kind, be they ceremonial or other, can ever wash away sin, For though you wash yourself with lye and use abundant soap, the stain of your guilt is still before me, says the Lord Jehovah (Jer. 2:22). No amount of sacrifices is able to wipe out human guilt: Sacrifice and offering thou hast no delight in &burnt-offering and sin-offering hast thou not required (Ps. 40:6). No mere human being can ever atone for the sin of his brother: None of them can by any means redeem his brother, or give God a ransom for him (Ps. 49:7). In fact, as far as man himself is concerned the situation is entirely hopeless. His chief, basic, and irreplaceable need is to be in perfect accord with God; and this is also the goal that he can never attain: How can a man be just before God? (Job 9:1). Into this hopeless and horrifying situation God's Son in his glorious and sovereign grace entered. It was he (together with the Father and the Spirit, the one only true God) who came to the rescue when all other means failed. Then said I, Lo, I am come; in the roll of the book it is written of me; I delight to do thy will, O my God; thy law is within my heart (Ps. 40:7, 8). The manner in which the sinner's rescue was to be accomplished and salvation provided is clearly depicted in (Isa. 53: He was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Jehovah has laid on him the iniquity of us all (verses 5 and 6). And so the Immanuel was destined to become Jehovah our righteousnessJer. 23:7). Through him as a ransom the sins of his people were freely pardoned, so that David could sing, Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered (Ps. 32:1). All of this, of course, was known to Jesus when he said, Blessed those hungering and thirsting for righteousness. Even while on earth he was fully cognizant of his function as Substitute. Was it not in order to perform that office that he had left his heavenly home (II Cor. 8:9)? See also on (Matt. 20:28Mark 10:45). And was it not for his people that he was going to pour out his blood (Luke 22:19, 20; I Cor. 11:24, 25; cf. John 10:11, 28; Acts 20:28; Eph. 1:7, 14; Col. 1:14; Heb. 9:12; I Peter 1:19; Rev. 5:9)? Moreover, the fact that man's righteousness is based on God's mercy and not on human merit or works is a truth that did not need to wait for Paul (Rom. 4:3, 9; Gal. 3:6) to be discovered. Not only did Moses know it (Gen. 15:6), and David (Ps. 32:1), but certainly also Jesus. He clearly taught it in the unforgettable parable of The Pharisee and the PublicanLuke 18:9 14; see especially verses 13 and 14 . It is true that the teaching of the Old Testament and of Jesus paved the way for the broader and far more detailed exposition of this doctrine by the apostle to the Gentiles. That here in Matt. 5:6Christ, nevertheless, refers to a righteousness not merely by imputation but also by impartation, not merely of legal state but also of ethical conduct, seems to follow clearly from such a passage as Matt. 6:1, Take care that you do not practice your righteousness before the people, and see also Matt. 5:10, 20 48. The two are inseparable. Though it is impossible for good works to justify anybody, it is just as impossible for a justified person to live without doing good works. The term righteousness as used by Christ is therefore very comprehensive, embracing both the forensic and the ethical. Relation between righteousness as pictured by Christ and the righteousness of the Pharisees: the former is internal, the latter generally external; the former is of the heart, the latter predominantly of outward appearance; the former is genuine, the latter all too often a manufactured article. Cf. Matt. 5:20 6:18. For they shall be fully satisfied.^[267] Note, however, that not those who merely feel that something is wrong, but only those who hunger and thirst after righteousness shall be filled. The righteousness imputed and imparted by God must be the object of intense desire, earnest yearning, and relentless pursuit. Cf. Ps. 42:1, As the hart pants for the water-brooks.& Cf. Isa. 55:1; Amos 8:11; John 4:34; 6:35; 7:37; Rev. 22:17. How does this hunger and thirst for righteousness become fully satisfied? By the imputation of Christ's merits. Thus we obtain a righteousness of state. By the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. Thus we obtain a righteousness of inner condition and outward conduct. Cf. Rom. 8:3–5; II Cor. 3:18; II Thess. 2:13. These two are inseparable: those for whom Christ died are sanctified by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, those whose sins are forgiven render the sacrifice of thanksgiving.^[268] The Fifth Beatitude The fifth, sixth, and seventh beatitudes describe the fruits of the work which God through his Spirit performs in the hearts of his children. They are therefore very closely connected with that which immediately precedes. Those who, according to the fourth beatitude, have become filled or fully satisfied as the result of God's mercy shown to them, now in turn exercise mercy towards others (fifth beatitude). Those who have experienced the purifying influence of the Holy Spirit become pure in heart (sixth beatitude). And, of course, these same people, having been saved by the Prince of Peace, now become peace-makers (seventh beatitude). As was indicated earlier, it is impossible to prove that merciful, pure in heart, and peace-making represent a climactic sequence or are the manifestations of a step by step gradually ascending development in the believers life. It is conceivable, to be sure, that the relation is as follows: those who have become merciful become conscious of the fact that their mercy is still mingled with sin, and thus all the more strive after purity of heart. Also it is possible that peace-making is mentioned next according to the rule stated by James, namely, that the wisdom which is from above, is first pure, then peaceable (3:17). However, as A. Plummer, followed by A. T. Robertson, has stated, the order in which James mentions these two is probably more logical than chronological.^[269] Accordingly, since the reason for the sequence in which the fifth to the seventh beatitudes are reported is not clear they will simply be regarded as parallel responses to God's redeeming grace. First, then, the fifth beatitude: 7. Blessed the merciful, for they shall have mercy shown to them. Mercy is love for those in misery and a forgiving spirit toward the sinner. It embraces both the kindly feeling and the kindly act. We see it exemplified in the parable of The Good Samaritan (Luke 10), and especially in Christ, the merciful Highpriest (Heb. 2:17). Although it would be unrealistic to deny that, due to God's loving disposition, remembered and unremembered acts of sympathy and kindness are in evidence all around us, even in the world of the unregenerate (Acts 28:2), the mercy spoken of in this beatitude grows out of the personal experience of the mercy of God (Lenski). As such it is a peculiarly Christian virtue, which holds also for the other characteristics mentioned in the beatitudes. All indicate qualities of the citizens of the kingdom. For that matter, it should never be forgotten that while the Romans spoke of four cardinal virtues wisdom, justice, temperance, and courage mercy was not among them. And to obtain a balanced view of the semblance of this grace in the world at large it is but fair to balance Acts 28:2with Prov. 12:10, The tender mercies of the wicked are cruel. It is worthy of note that again and again Scripture exhorts believers to show mercy out of gratitude for the mercy with which they themselves have been treated. The parable of The Unmerciful Servant (Matt. 18:23–25) is a striking example. See also (Matt. 25:31–46; Rom. 15:7, 25 27; II Cor. 1:3, 4; Eph. 4:32; 5:1; Col. 3:12–14. This mercy must be shown to those who belong to the household of the faith, but must not be confined to themGal. 6:10). In fact, it must be shown to all men, not even excluding those who hate and persecute believers (Matt. 5:44–48). It is immediately apparent that if the implication of the fifth beatitude were put into practice with greater zeal and consistency the preaching of the gospel would be far more effective! What a blessing for mankind this would be! For they shall have mercy shown to them. They, they alone, who exercise mercy can expect to receive from the Lord the reward of mercy, as is evident not only from some of the passages mentioned in the preceding paragraph but also from (II Sam. 22:26; Matt. 6:14, 15; and James 2:13. When this golden seed is sown an abundant harvest is gathered inMatt. 7:2; Luke 6:38). The Sixth Beatitude 8. Blessed the pure in heart, for they shall see God. It is often said that the pure in heart are the sincere and honest people, the men of integrity. A reference to Ps. 24:3, 4would seem to confirm this: Who shall ascend the hill of Jehovah? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart; Who has not lifted up his soul to falsehood And has not sworn deceitfully. Purity in heart is also commended in Ps. 73:1. Similarly, in I Tim. 1:5pure is a synonym for unfeigned. And see also II Tim. 2:22and I Peter 1:22. All this could easily lead to the conclusion that the people who in the sixth beatitude are pronounced blessed are without any further qualification the sincere individuals, the men who think, speak, and act without hypocrisy. Now there can be no doubt about the fact that sincerity, honesty, the condition of being without guile, is indeed the emphasis here. Over against all human duplicity, be it Pharisaic or otherwise, Jesus pronounces his blessing upon the persons whose outer manifestation is in harmony with their inner disposition. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ The Sincere Devotion of the Heart (6:1–18) Speaking, then, about righteousness in the ethical sense (included in 5:6), that is, the practice of the true religion here particularly as expressed in the religious exercises of giving to charity, prayer, and fasting Jesus says, 6:1. Take care that you do not practice your righteousness^[307] before the people, to attract their attention; otherwise you will not have any reward with your Father who is in heaven. But is not this exhortation in conflict with 5:16, So let your light shine before men that they may see your good works? It is not, for the purpose commended in 5:16 was to secure praise for the Father who is in heaven (see 5:16b). On the other hand, the purpose of the hypocrites, referred to in 6:1 ff., is to obtain praise for themselves. They perform their religious acts in order to attract the people's attention, ^[308] so that the latter will carefully inspect and closely examine them, while they are engaged in almsgiving, prayer, and/or fasting. Hopefully the spectators will then say, How devout, how remarkably pious are these scribes and Pharisees! Naturally, a public display, so motivated, must be avoided. The point in &otherwise you will not have any reward with your Father who is in heaven is, You will then already have your reward, yes, your reward in full, namely, from men, the very people from whom you expected the reward of honor, admiration, and praise. Since in your innermost being you never meant to please and glorify God, he will not reward you. All the more is this true because such religious (?) exercises are fraudulent. If you engage in them, you are trying to cover up your real motive. You are putting on an act. You are dissimulating, for under the guise of giving glory to God you are seeking glory for yourselves, as if you could deceive the Omniscient! In such cases (verses 1, 2, 5, and 16) the one reward, from men, cancels the other, from God. For the expression your Father who is in heaven see pp. 287, 326; for reward, pp. 316, 479. The general principle having been enunciated (verse 1), the three expressions of righteousness that are here considered namely, charitable giving, prayer, and fasting are now taken up one by one. Charitable Giving As to this, Jesus begins by saying, 2. So, whenever you give to the poor do not publicly announce it with a blast of the trumpet, as the hypocrites are in the habit of doing in the synagogues and in the alleyways in order to win the admiration of the people. Giving to the poor is demanded by the laws of God (Exod. 23:10, 11; 30:15; Lev. 19:10; Deut. 15:7–11), the exhortations of the prophets (Jer. 22:16; Dan. 4:27; Amos 2:6, 7), and the teaching of Jesus (Matt. 7:12; Luke 6:36, 38; cf. 21:1–4; John 13:29; Gal. 6:2). It also pertains to the expression of gratitude for benefits received. In this very sermon Jesus has already pointed out that it is exactly the merciful who shall have mercy shown to them (5:7). We are not surprised therefore when here in 6:2 he takes such charitable giving for granted. He assumes that it is being done. Almsgiving was by no means confined to the disciples of Jesus. Even those Jews who refused to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior took pride in it. In fact, in Christ's day relief for the underprivileged was provided by the religious community, each person being taxed according to his ability.^[309] This amount was supplemented by voluntary gifts. The latter welfare contributions were announced publicly in the synagogues, and, as here indicated, even in the alleyways, the places where the poor were accustomed to gather, near where they lived. That such doles were literally announced by means of trumpet-blasts cannot now be ascertained. It seems unlikely that in the synagogues this would be allowed. Besides, since in his sayings and discourses Jesus again and again makes use of symbolical language, it is probable that he does this also in the present case, and that he is simply referring to the fact that the Pharisees did everything in their power to advertise their gifts. It is this practice that the Lord condemns. No wonder, for it was hypocrisy, and the men who were guilty of it were therefore rightly called hypocrites. They were hypocrites (cf. 15:1, 7; 23:1 ff.) because while they pretended to give, they really intended to receive, namely, honor from men. Continued: I solemnly declare to you, they have already received their reward in full. No future reward awaits them. See on 6:1. In all kinds of ways, sometimes bold, at other times subtle, people are still advertising their deeds of benevolence and in the process of doing so are depriving themselves of any real reward. Not only is it wrong, however, to seek praise from others, it is also wrong to praise oneself: 3. But when you give to charity, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. The two hands almost always act in unison. Together they often lift, carry, and catch things. They are together in work and in play. They can therefore be viewed as being thoroughly acquainted with each other. Whatever the one does, the other knows. Symbolically speaking therefore, for the left hand not to know what the right hand is doing means total lack of acquaintance, utter ignorance. And since the hands are part of the person, the expression probably refers to the fact that as much as possible a person must keep his voluntary contribution a secret not only to others but even to himself; that is, he should forget about it, instead of saying in his heart, What a good man, woman, boy, girl, am I! This explanation receives support from 25:37–39, where the righteous are represented as being totally unaware of their own past benevolent deeds. Continued: 4. that your deeds of charity may be (performed) in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.^[310] It is God who keeps the account. Nothing escapes him (Gen. 16:13; Ps. 139; Heb. 4:13; cf. John 21:17). It is he who on the judgment day will grant the reward (Matt. 25:34–36) to the surprised well-doers. And are there not anticipatory rewards even now, such as a good conscience and rejoicing along with the recipients? As far as grammar is concerned, the correct Greek text can also be rendered, &and your Father, the seeing One, will reward you in secret. Objections to this construction: a. After the introduction, which refers to hypocrites who do their best to have men admire their good works, and in which Jesus admonishes his hearers that these works must not be advertised but must be kept as secret as possible, we rather look for a statement to the effect that unadvertised deeds will, nevertheless, be seen and rewarded, namely, by your Father who sees in secret. The sudden introduction of the Father as the seeing One, without modifier, would make little sense here. b. Scripture everywhere proclaims that all of men's words, actions, etc., including what occurred in secret, will become public (Eccl. 12:14; Matt. 5:3–12; 10:26, 27; Mark 4:22; Luke 8:17; 12:2, 3; Rom. 2:16; I Cor. 3:13; 14:25; Rev. 20:12, 13). The idea that deeds of kindness toward the poor, done in secret, will remain secret forever, even the reward being bestowed in secret, clashes with this prevailing teaching. Prayer in General Turning, then, to this subject (verses 4 15) Jesus says, 5. Also, whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to say their prayers standing up in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by the people. The reference here is to prayer in general, including thanksgiving, praise, adoration, confession of sin, personal petition, intercession for the needs of others, etc. Among the Jews, though prayers were always appropriate, there were set times for prayer, when the pious were expected to attend to their devotions. Thus, there were morning, afternoon, and evening prayers (Ps. 55:17; Dan. 6:10; Acts 3:1). According to Josephus (Antiquities XIV.65) sacrifices, including prayers, were offered in the temple twice a day, in the early morning and at the ninth hour. There was also a sunset service.^[311] Naturally, if one were living or staying in or near Jerusalem and could get to the temple in time, that would seem to the devout Israelite to be the best place to pray (Luke 18:9, 10; Acts 3:1). Otherwise, the synagogue would do, or even the street. Now Scripture nowhere condemns public prayer (II Chron. 6:14–42; Neh. 9; Acts 4:24 31), nor individual prayer offered in a public place. Neither the Pharisee nor the publican sinned by praying in the temple (Luke 18:9, 10). What the Lord condemns here is ostentatious praying, that is, having one's private (?) devotions in the most public place, with the intention of being seen and honored by the people. That was, however, exactly what the hypocrites were in the habit of doing. When the Pharisee of Christ's famous parable (Luke 18:9 14) entered the temple, he took care not to be standing in some corner or at a considerable distance from the front, like the publican. He stood up in front, in full view of everyone who might be present. What happened in the temple took place also in the synagogue. And even at the street corners! Note: here not alleys or alleyways as in 6:2, but the corners of the busiest streets. Did the hypocrites just happen to reach the most conspicuous place at exactly the right moment? However that may be, their motive and purpose was to be seen by the people and to be admired by them. It is this that Jesus condemns. From this it appears clearly that in the teaching of Jesus it is the inner disposition that counts. It is the heart truly and humbly devoted to God upon which the divine approval rests (John 4:24). As to the hypocrites and their vain display, Jesus repeats the words spoken just a moment ago (see on verse 2): I solemnly declare to you, they have already received their reward in full. The negative condemnation of the wrong practice is followed by the positive exhortation to follow the right practice, just as in verses 2 and 3 in connection with giving to charity, and in verses 16 18 in connection with fasting. From start to finish the sermon is arranged in a very orderly, systematic, and logical manner. 6. But whenever you pray, enter into your most private room, and having shut the door, pray to your Father who is in secret. The idea is not that there must be a separate prayer room. As was pointed out earlier, the houses of many in the audience had only one room. The sense is this: if there be a private room^[312] then use that for your private prayer; otherwise choose the most hidden corner. Do not try to make yourself conspicuous. The main emphasis, however, is not even on the place of prayer but on the attitude of mind and heart. Not the secrecy is the real underlying thought but the sincerity. The reason for mentioning the secret place is that the sincere and humble worshiper, one who is not interested in making a public display for the sake of enhancing his prestige, will find the secluded nook or den to be most appropriate for his devotions. It is there that he can shut out the world and be alone with his God. The shutting of the door (II Kings 4:33; Isa. 26:20) makes the secret place even more secret. As to the Object of the prayer, namely, the Father, he not only sees in secret (verse 4), but also is in secret: he fills every secret (as well as public) place with his presence, yet transcends all spatial limitations (I Kings 8:27; Ps. 139:7–10; Isa. 66:1; Jer. 23:23, 24; Acts 7:48, 49; 17:27, 28). Here again it is necessary to add that the purpose of entering the secret place and shutting the door can be defeated if one begins to advertise this practice, as some ministers are in the habit of doing, when at the beginning of the worship service sometimes even in the pastoral prayer they assure the congregation that before they sat down to prepare the sermon they had locked the door of their study and spent so many minutes in earnest prayer! The one who prays with the proper disposition of heart and mind is blessed, as in verse 4: and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. The man who so prays will have peace of heart and mind. He will know that the Father, in his infinite love, will give the supplicant whatever is best both for himself and for all concerned. He will also know that this same Father is able to do infinitely more than all we ask or imagine (Eph. 3:20, 21). A sincere prayer does not have to be wordy: 7. Moreover, in praying, do not babble on and on like pagans, for they imagine that they will be heard because of their flow of words. Is it possible that, in saying this, Jesus was also thinking of the scribes, who for a pretense make long prayers (Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47)? However that may be, the Lord condemns this practice as being pagan in character. Not as if a lengthy prayer is always wrong. Such a position would immediately condemn the prayers found in (II Chron. 6:14–42; Neh. 9; and Ps. 18, 89, and 119. The motive must be kept in mind. Pagans pray on and on because they imagine that the longer and the louder they pray, the greater also will be their chance of success in receiving what they desire. The prayer of the priests of BaalI Kings 18:25–29) offers a striking example: They called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon. Another example is the prayer-wheel of the Tibetan Buddhists, a cylinder revolving on an axis, and inscribed with written prayers. Is not the rosary, used for example to keep count of five decades of Ave Marias, each preceded by a paternoster and concluded with a Glory Be, another illustration? As if the acceptability of our prayers depends, at least in part, upon the number of words we use or the number of prayers we rattle off! Many of the most striking and fervent prayers recorded in Scripture are brief and pithy; such as that of: Moses (Exod. 32:31, 32), Solomon (I Kings 3:6–9), Elijah (I Kings 18:36, 37), Hezekiah (II Kings 19:14–19), Jabez (I Chron. 4:10), Agur (Prov. 30:7–9), the publican (Luke 18:13), the dying thief (Luke 23:42), Stephen (Acts 7:60), and Paul (Eph. 3:14–19). To this class belong also the many sentence prayers or ejaculations of Nehemiah (Neh. 4:4, 5; 5:19; 6:9; 13:14, 29, 31). Christ's highpriestly or intercessory prayer, too, can hardly be called lengthy (John 17), and the Lord's Prayer, which he taught his disciples to pray, is certainly marked by brevity (Matt. 6:9–13; Luke 11:2 4). Continued: 8. Do not be like them therefore, for your Father knows what you need before you (even) ask him. What Jesus means is, You must not approach your Father with the idea that he is uninformed, totally unaware of your needs, so that you have to explain to him in every detail just what your (or: your) situation happens to be. On the contrary, before you even begin to pray, your Father already knows your need. Some might object, Then, why pray at all? The objector, however, misses the point. Jesus was not condemning the outpouring of the heart to God, not even when of necessity such an outpouring contains a brief statement of certain facts already known to the Lord (see, for example, many of the Psalms). In fact, it is just because an earthly father or mother understands a child so thoroughly and knows its needs better than any stranger does, that the child will go with his needs to him and/or to her, which is exactly what loving parents want him to do. So, far more so, it is also with the heavenly Father (Ps. 81:10; Matt. 7:7, 8; John 15:7; Heb. 4:14–16; James 4:2). What Christ condemns is the spirit of fear and distrust, which causes pagans, who recognize no heavenly Father, to babble on and on, in the belief that otherwise their gods will not be thoroughly informed nor sufficiently placated to grant the requests. The Model Prayer Jesus introduces this prayer as follows: 9a. This, then, is how you should pray. Before entering into the contents of this prayer a few introductory remarks may be in order: (a) Christ's Reason for Teaching His Disciples This Prayer Literally, according to the original, the sentence reads: Thus (or: in this manner), therefore, you should pray. Some stress the fact that the second person plural imperative verb is in the present tense. They interpret this present as having continuative force (you should keep on praying), and on this they base their conclusion that Jesus wants his very prayer to be prayed again and again and again. Now it certainly is not wrong to make frequent use of this prayer if the worshiper, when he does this, is able to do it with heart and mind. On the other hand, very frequent use may easily lead to the sin of formalism which the Lord has been condemning. Besides, it must be borne in mind that Jesus said, Thus or In this manner or This is how. He did not say, Use exactly these words, and no other. The so-called Lord's Prayer is really the model prayer; meaning: it should serve as a pattern for our devotions. Its characteristics should mark also our prayers. Some of these qualities will now be mentioned: (b) Its Brevity The prayer consists of two parts: an invocation and six petitions; or, if the conclusion be considered as belonging to it, then three parts, approximately seventy words in all. (c) The Priority to Which It Points In harmony with the fact that, according to both Old and New Testament, the glory of God is important above everything else, the first three petitions have reference to the Father's name, kingdom, and will. Human needs bread, pardon for sin, and victory over the evil one take second place. (d) Its Breadth or Scope There are six petitions,^[313] as follows, Petitions with reference to God's name first petition verse 9b reign second.......10a will third.........10b Our bread fourth.........11 debts fifth..........12 foe sixth..........13 The comprehensive or universe-embracing nature of these petitions appears from the fact that they bear reference not only to God's glory, etc. (first three petitions), but also to our needs (last three); not only to our physical needs (fourth petition), but also to our spiritual (fifth and sixth); not only to our present need (fourth petition), but also to our need with reference to the past (fifth), and even to our future need (sixth). Finally, in this prayer the worshiper carries to the throne of grace the burdens that are not only his own but also his brothers. All of this is included in the six brief requests. This is indeed the perfect pattern for our prayers! The Invocation or Words of Address 9b. Our Father who art in heaven. It is immediately clear that not everyone is privileged to address God thus. That is the exclusive prerogative of those who are in Christ (John 1:12; Rom. 8:14–17; Gal. 4:6; II Cor. 6:18; I John 3:1, 2). To be sure, there is a sense in which God can be correctly referred to as the Father of all men. He has created all, and provides sustenance for all (Mal. 2:10; Ps. 36:6). But that is not the usual sense in which in Scripture the term Father can be interpreted. In the Sermon on the Mount, too, the term is used in a definitely soteriological or redemptive sense, a sense in which God is the Father not of all (Luke 6:35, 36) but of some. He is called your (also: your) Father (5:16; 6:18, etc.), the Father of the peacemakers (5:9) and of those who love even their enemies (5:44, 45). Similarly, according to Christ's teaching recorded elsewhere, those who reject him are children not of God but of the devil (John 8:44; I John 3:10). Once this is understood it becomes clear that this model prayer is for believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, for them alone. It also follows that the objection of those who say that the Lord's Prayer is not a Christian prayer because it does not even mention the name of Jesus, and/or because it does not end with the phrase, for Jesus sake, is groundless. The name and the atoning work of the Lord are clearly implied in the very words of the invocation. Apart from Christ no one can come to the Father (John 14:6). As to the words of address themselves, first of all see what has been said earlier (pp. 286, 287). The striking fact, of which we should never lose sight, is that he who is King of the kingdom of heaven is at the same time the Father of its citizens. The citizens are the children. The kingdom is the Father's Family. See N.T.C. on Eph. 3:14, 15. Note also the combination of immanence and transcendence, of condescension and majesty. Our Father indicates his nearness. He is near to all his children, infinitely near. Therefore with confidence they approach the Father's throne, to make all their wants and wishes known to him, that is, all those that are in harmony with his revealed will. They need not be afraid, for God is their Father who loves them. Yet, he is the Father in heaven. Therefore, he should be approached in the spirit of devout and humble reverence. The chumminess or easy familiarity that marks a certain type of present day religion is definitely antiscriptural. Those who indulge in this bad habit seem never to have read Exod. 3:5; Isa. 6:1–5; or Acts 4:24! Also, whereas the words Our Father indicate God's willingness and eagerness to lend his ear to the praises and petitions of his children, the addition who art in heaven shows his power and sovereign right to answer their requests, disposing of them according to his infinite wisdom. Finally, reflect again on those words, Our Father &in heaven. They make the Father's children feel that they are pilgrims here below, and that their real home is not here but in heaven. It is comforting to know that not only do the children wish to be where the Father is, but the Father also desires that his children be where he Isaiah (Ps. 73:23, 24; Jer. 31:3; cf. John 17:24). Does the child sing (Ps. 42:1? With slight change of wording Ps. 42:1can be (shall we say is being?) sung also by God himself. The idea of a God who sings, rejoicing in his children's salvation, has scriptural supportZeph. 3:17). Then in glory these children will forever address God as their Father, but nevermore will they have to add who art in heaven, for they will be with him. The First Petition 9c. Hallowed be thy name. In ancient times the name was not generally regarded as a mere appellation to distinguish one person from another, but often rather as an expression of the very nature of the person so indicated, or of his position, etc. This was true to such an extent that frequently when in some important respect the facts concerning a man had undergone a change, he was given a new name. See pp. 132, 138. The name was to some extent identified with the person. This is especially true with respect to the names of God. God's name is God himself as revealed in all his works. This is not so difficult to understand, for also among us the same holds with respect to the name Jesus, as is clear from the poetic line, That beautiful Name, that beautiful Name from sin has power to free us! (from the hymn That Beautiful Name, by Jean Perry). We immediately recognize the fact that a mere vocal cannot free or save anybody, but a person can and does! Now since God's names reveal who he himself is, it is necessary for us to know them. This, moreover, is very rewarding. In the Old Testament the Supreme Being is called El, that is, God, viewed as the Mighty One. This name occurs in various combinations. El-Shaddai is God Almighty, the source of salvation for his people (Gen. 17:1; Exod. 6:3). Elohim (Gen. 1:1) is a plural, and refers to God in the fulness of his power. Elyon indicates the Most High (Num. 24:16). Adonai points to God as Master or Lord; cf. O Lord, I am not a man of words (Exod. 4:10). The meaning of the name Jehovah is to some extent explained in Exod. 3:13, 14; cf. 6:2, 3. It is a form of the verb to be, and has been interpreted to mean I am that I am, or I shall be what I shall be. In the original Hebrew this name consists of the four letters YHWH, and is therefore called the tetragram (maton). There came a time, perhaps about 300 b.c., when the Jews, owing to a. their reverence for God, b. their interpretation of Lev. 24:16, and c. their resulting fear of becoming guilty of the sin of desecration, ceased to pronounce this name. In reading Scripture they substituted for it Adonai or, less frequently, Elohim. The Masoretes, those Jewish textual experts who flourished between the destruction of Jerusalem (a.d. 70) and the tenth century, but whose activity in a more general sense antedated the period of the Maccabees and extended to the year a.d. 1425, attached to the four consonants (YHWH) the vowels of Adonai (or of Elohim).^[314] It is sufficiently clear from such passages as Exod. 6:2–4; 15:1–3; Ps. 83:18; Isa. 42:8; Hos. 12:5; and Mal. 3:6that the name Jehovah, however it be vocalized or transliterated, emphasizes God's unchangeable covenant faithfulness toward his people. Various combinations occur in connection with this name. Probably most familiar are the designations Jehovah of hosts (Ps. 46:7, 11), and Jehovah our righteousness (Jer. 23:6). Other combinations are Jehovah will provide (Gen. 22:14), Jehovah (is) my banner (Exod. 17:15), Jehovah heals you (Exod. 15:26), Jehovah (is) peace (Judg. 6:24), and Jehovah (is) my shepherd (Ps. 23:1). To hallow God's name means to hold it in reverence; hence, to hold him in reverence, to honor, glorify, and exalt him. To do this, far more than a merely intellectual knowledge of the meaning of the divine names is required. Humility of spirit, gratitude of heart, earnest study of God's works until observation changes into rapturous astonishment and worship is certainly implied. The composers of the Psalms knew what this meant. Everywhere in the work of creation and in the events of history they observed and took time to meditate upon God's majesty. They viewed their God as the One who delivered them from their enemies and constantly protected them. As such he was a God filled with wrath aimed at those who rejected him and who persecuted his people. This very wrath was, as it were, the proof of his tender love for his ownPs. 3; 4; 5; 7; 11; 13; 14; 18; 48; 50; 63; 97; 135; etc. . As to the latter (the tender love), the Psalms are filled to overflowing with the idea that for those who trust in him the Lord is the hearer of prayer, the refuge in the time of storm, the one who daily cares, who blots out transgression, and never forsakes his children, not even at the moment of deathPs. 16; 17; 23; 42; 73; 81; 89; 91; 92; 103; 111; 116; 118; 146; to mention but a few . Hallowed be thy name means, therefore, that the one who has been brought into fellowship with this tenderly loving Father now calls upon everyone to share this experience with him, and to exalt this glorious God. This means far more than that the petitioner does his utmost to fight profanity. It has a positive content. The supplicant calls upon the entire creation and especially upon the world of men to praise his God. He exclaims, as it were, O magnify Jehovah with me, and let us exalt his name together (Ps. 34:3). He traces God's steps in history (Pss. 76 80, especially 78; further 106; 107; 118; 124; 126; 136), and wants his children and everyone to adore and glorify God because of his wondrous deeds. He also is filled with gratitude and amazement when he observes God's wisdom and goodness in nature, and he desires that his own thrilling observations and lasting impressions shall be shared by others, so that they too may see the reflection of God's glorious attributes in the sky above as well as in the earth below, and may exult in the One whom he calls my God (Ps. 8; 19; 29; 63; 65; 104; 139; 145; 147; 150). So also today the person who knows what it means to pray Hallowed be thy name will joyfully magnify the Lord when he beholds the blue of the starlit sky, full of silent beauty and majesty, with its myriads of stars, scintillating like so many dewdrops upon the meadows of the heavens. He praises God when he sees his glory reflected in the softly blending hues of the rainbow, in wooded hills, fruited groves, murmuring brooks, sparkling lakes, and meandering rivers, as well as when he listens to the richly variegated, almost continuous song of the mockingbird. He marvels when he contemplates the wisdom of God revealed in the construction of the human body (Ps. 139:15, 16). And when from general revelation he ascends to special revelation, and ponders the implications of such passages as (Isa. 53; John 3:16; Rom. 5:8–11; 8:31–39; and I Cor. 8:9, is it any wonder that he falls in love with the matchless name of him who through Christ is his Father, that he pours out his heart in fervent doxologiesII Cor. 9:15; Eph. 1:3ff.; I Peter 1:3ff.; Rev. 19:16, 17), and urges others to do likewise? Style and grammar help us to enter into the spirit of this prayer. Not only is the contrast between the three imperative passives, all in the third person, of the first three petitions (literally, Let be sanctified thy name, let come thy kingdom, let be done thy will ) in striking and pleasing contrast with the second person verbs of the last three requests, but also these three crisp, opening third person imperatives, being aorists and in each case heading the petition, stress urgency. With respect to the first petition this means that the worshiper is so completely filled with unrestrained eagerness that the Father's name be adored, honored, and glorified, that he cannot wait to communicate his consuming desire that it receive this honor from the lips, hearts, and lives of everyone. The Father's name will not be hallowed throughout the world unless his royal rule be acknowledged. This leads to The Second Petition 10a. Thy kingdom come. For the meaning of the concept kingdom of heaven or of God see pp. 249, 250. The second petition implies the following: 1. It is only when the heavenly Father, on the basis of the Son's atonement, and through the operation of the Holy Spirit, rules in men's hearts that true and lasting betterment in individual, family, social, national, and international conditions can be expected (Ps. 20:7; Zech. 4:6). 2. This is a prayer. In the history of missions it has been demonstrated again and again that the coming of the entrance of the reign of God into human hearts requires earnest prayer (Matt. 7:7; Mark 9:29; Acts 4:31; 13:3). 3. Until the moment of the second coming there is need for this prayer; for, though the kingdom is here already (Luke 17:21), it is still absent from many hearts. In fact, there is every reason to doubt that progress in evangelization is keeping pace with progress in iniquity. 4. The transforming grace and power of God is required before a man changes from the ardent yearning, My kingdom come, and from the boast, By my own effort I am already on the way to the realization of this goal, to the humble petition, Thy kingdom come. As to the boasters and their fall, think of Korah and his company (Num. 16), Sennacherib (Isa. 37:10–13, 37, 38), Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 4:30–33), Edom (Obad. 1 4), Haman (Esther 3 7; especially 5:11, 12), Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:21 23), and the rich fool of the parable (Luke 12:18 20). 5. Prayer for the establishment of the kingship of Christ in human hearts does not exclude the necessity of work. There must be preaching, visits to the homes, Bible translation and distribution, follow-up work, etc. Cf. Acts 20:17 38; I Thess. 2:9–12. 6. Thy kingdom come is clearly a prayer for the progress of missionary activity (Rev. 6:2); Jesus shall reign where er the sun Does his successsive journeys run; His kingdom stretch from shore to shore Till moons shall wax and wane no more. (Isaac Watts) 7. The desire of the supplicant is, however, not only that the kingdom mar come extensively but also that it may more and more be established intensively, that is, that he himself and all those already converted may increasingly acknowledge God in Christ as their sovereign Ruler: Fill thou my life O Lord my God In every part with praise, That my whole being may proclaim Thy being and thy ways. Not for the lip of praise alone, Nor e en the praising heart I ask, but for a life made up Of praise in every part. (Horatius Bonar) Just as the first petition already implied the second, so the second implies the third, for God's kingdom will not come unless his will be done. So we proceed to The Third Petition 10b. Thy will be done, as in heaven so on earth. The will of God to which reference is made is clearly his revealed will, expressed in his law. It is that will which is done in heaven, but not yet to any great extent on earth. On the other hand, the will of God's decree or plan from eternity is always being realized both in heaven and on earth (Dan. 4:35; Eph. 1:11), and cannot be the subject of prayer. (Incidentally, the statement that God's revealed will is being perfectly obeyed in heaven hence not only by heaven's angels but also by the hosts of the redeemed implies that the very moment a soul is translated from this sinful earth to heaven it has been freed from every vestige of sin.) It is the ardent desire of the person who sincerely breathes the Lord's Prayer that the Father's will shall be obeyed as completely, heartily, and immediately on earth as this is constantly being done by all the inhabitants of heaven. As to completely, the story of King Saul shows that incomplete obedience, in which man sets his own will over against the divine, does not receive God's approval and may have serious consequencesI Sam. 15:1–3, 7 9, and note especially verses 22 and 23 . As to heartily, note the words of (Deut. 26:16and Matt. 22:37. And as to immediately, the cherubim in Ezekiel's vision of the throne-chariot, each cherub being equipped with four faces, and the chariot itself with wheels within wheels, so that its drivers were always ready to take it wherever the Lord wanted it to go, furnish a vivid illustration of the kind of obedience in which heaven delightsEzek. 1; 10). Examples of human obedience: Noah (Gen. 6:22), Abraham (Gen. 11:28–32, cf. Acts 7:3; Gen. 12:1, cf. Heb. 11:8; Gen. 22:2ff., cf. James 2:23); Joshua (Josh. 5:13–15); Samuel (I Sam. 3:1–10); Simon (Peter) and Andrew (Matt. 4:19, 20); Simon (Peter) once more (Luke 5:5); James and John (Matt. 4:21, 22); Peter and the apostles (Acts 5:29); Mary of Bethany (John 11:28, 29); Paul (Acts 16:6 10; 26:19); and the Philippians (Phil. 2:12). The greatest example of all is Jesus Christ himself (Luke 2:51, 52; John 15:10; 17:4; Phil. 2:5–8; and Heb. 5:8). It was he who in the garden said, Not as I will, but as thou wilt (Matt. 26:39). As to the manner in which obedience is rewarded, from a host of passages that could be listed the following few should suffice: Josh. 1:8; Matt. 7:7, 8; John 7:17; 8:29; 14:21, 23; 15:10; Phil. 2:9, 10; Heb. 12:1, 2; and Rev. 3:20. The petitions for the fulfilment of human needs follow. Although it is true that between the first three petitions, pertaining to God, and the last three, pertaining to man, there is a rather sharp division, the two are not to be regarded as wholly separate. If the believer is to take an active part in the hallowing of God's name, the coming of his kingdom, and the doing of his will such an active part being certainly implied in the first three petitions he must have bread (Luke 10:7, cf. I Tim. 5:18; Gal. 6:6; Eph. 4:28; Phil. 4:15, 16). Jesus, accordingly, is not forgetful of the physical needs of his disciples (Matt. 6:25–34; 25:34–40; Mark 10:29, 30; cf. Acts 24:17; II Cor. 8:8f.; James 2:15, 16), both in order that they may live and be happy, and that they may be able vigorously to support kingdom causes. This introduces The Fourth Petition 11. Give us this day our daily bread. What did Jesus mean by daily? In Greek literature the word which it translates is very rare; in fact, so rare that it used to be thought that it was coined by the evangelists. In Scripture it occurs only in the Lord's Prayer (Luke 11:3). Although it has now become clear that the word did not originate with the Gospel writers, there is no unanimity in explaining it. All kinds of guesses have been ventured, among them being continuous, supersubstantial, ready at hand, for future use, for sustenance, etc. The explanation sufficient for the next day has been strongly defended.^[315] As I see it, a good argument can be made in favor of: a. Give us this day our bread for (or: belonging to) the current day (the day in being), ^[316] and of b. Give us this day our needful bread, that is, our bread necessary for existence. ^[317] The two ideas (a. and b.) combine easily. In any case we must make sure that our interpretation does not run counter to the teaching of Jesus in this very chapter (verses 31 34), the warning against worry about food. See especially verse 34. Personally I see no reason, therefore, to depart from the translation to which many people have become accustomed, namely, daily. The meaning then would be, Give us today the portion that is needed for any one day. ^[318] What has been said so far indicates that by means of this petition Jesus teaches his disciples to be moderate in their desires and requests. This is brought out even more strikingly in the original, where the words our daily bread occur at the very head of the petition; hence, Our daily bread give us this day. Christ's disciples must ask for bread, not for luxuries. Neither poverty nor riches give thou me. Feed me with the bread that is appointed to me, lest, being full, I deny thee and say, Who is Jehovah? Or, lest, being poor, I steal and profane the name of my GodProv. 30:8, 9, taken from the prayer of Agur . It is clear, of course, that the term bread should not be taken too literally. Whatever is necessary to sustain physical life is meant. Not only a. moderation is here taught, also b. trust in the heavenly Father, who loves and cares, the childlike confidence expressed so beautifully in (Ps. 37:25. Yet, it is not making provision for the futureGen. 41:33–36; Prov. 6:6–8) that is here condemned, but anxiety about the future, as if there were no heavenly Father. And well may the conviction of c. total dependence fill the heart, for all men, including even the richest, in order to have, consume, and enjoy food, are dependent upon the condition of soil, water, weather, and health of body. Moreover, in order to eat, men of slender and those of average means need to work, that they may earn their bread. Therefore, all men are dependent upon the general state of the economy, together with all its contributing factors, ecological, social, political, etc., which in the final analysis means that all are dependent upon the sovereign God, who is in control of the universe. Then, too, d. humility is required; hence, Give us.& Although the supplicant is making a living in the sweat of his brow and besides has even paid for his groceries, he must still accept what is on the table as a gift from God, a product of grace; for, not only is God the ultimate source of every blessing (James 1:17) but also, by reason of sin man has forfeited all! e. Willingness to work is also presupposed. Else how would one dare to pray for daily sustenance (II Thess. 3:10)? To all this add one more quality, namely, f. generosity; hence, not Give me, but Give us &our daily bread. The needs of believers all over the world are included, for together they constitute one family (Eph. 3:14). And, in the spirit of Gal. 6:10, are not the supplicant's horizons extended even beyond the camp of the saints, the beloved city?^[319] Man has been endowed by the Creator with body and soul (Gen. 2:7). So, from a petition for the fulfilment of the needs of the body the prayer now advances to a request for the satisfaction of the soul's requirements, that what is spiritual may be both first (see the first three petitions) and last (see the last two, or the last two plus the doxology). The Fifth Petition 12. And forgive us our debts as we also have forgiven our debtors. In connection with this petition, which sounds so simple, a few questions are in order: 1. What is the difference between debts (verse 12) and trespasses (verses 14, 15)? Answer: see on verse 14. 2. Why should we pray for forgiveness, since we no longer sin? Answer: We do, indeed, sin daily. See p. 317. 3. Granted that we sin, why must we still daily pray for forgiveness, since through Christ's atonement we are already cleansed (justified) from every sin? Answer: It is true that the basis of our daily forgiveness has been established once for all by means of Christ's atonement. Nothing need be and nothing can be added to that. But this total, objective cleansing needs daily application for the simple reason that we sin every day. A father may have bequeathed a large inheritance to his son. It now very definitely belongs to the son. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the latter is immediately allowed to withdraw the entire huge amount from the bank and spend it all within one week. Very wisely the father included a stipulation limiting the withdrawal privilege to a certain generous amount each month. So also when a person receives the grace of regeneration, this does not mean that all of that which Christ merited for him is immediately experienced by him. If it were, would it not overwhelm and crush his capacities? Rather, He [God] giveth and giveth and giveth again. See also John 13:10. The prayer for forgiveness implies that the supplicant recognizes that there is no other method by which his debt can be wiped out. It is, therefore, a plea for grace. However, a totally different difficulty arises in connection with Forgive us our debts as we also have forgiven our debtors. This certainly cannot mean that our forgiving disposition earns God's pardon. The forgiveness of our debts is based not on our merits how could we have any? but on Christ's, applied to us. Consequently, from our point of view, forgiveness is based on God's unmerited (not merited by us) favor, that is, on divine grace (Eph. 1:7), compassion (Matt. 18:27), and mercy (Luke 18:13). Nevertheless, our own forgiving disposition is very important. In fact, without it we ourselves cannot be forgiven. For us it is the indispensable condition of receiving the forgiveness of sins. That fact is stated clearly in verses 14 and 15, which, together with 18:21–35, is the best and simplest explanation of 6:12 one could ask for. It is with this as it is with salvation in general. We are not saved on the basis of our faith, as if faith had earning power. We are saved by grace (Eph. 2:8). Yet faith must be present if we are to be saved. Faith and one of its manifestations, namely, the disposition to forgive, are conditions that must be met and exercised if salvation and its component, pardon, are to be received. We must believe, we must forgive. God does not do these things for us. Nevertheless, it is God who plants in our hearts the seed of faith and of the forgiving disposition. Moreover, the power to believe and the power to forgive are from God. At every step beginning, middle, and end, all along the way God is both present and active. With fear and trembling continue to work out your own salvation; for it is God who is working in you both to will and to work for his good pleasure (Phil. 2:12, 13). See also N.T.C. on Eph. 2:8and on Phil. 2:12, 13. It is exactly as Greijdanus observes, in commenting on the parallel passage, Luke 11:4. He writes, In spite of for, this clause does not indicate the ground upon which God bestows forgiveness, but that which must be complied with for us to enjoy God's forgiveness of our own sins. ^[320] To be genuine, this forgiveness that we ourselves bestow upon our fellow men must be given gladly, generously, and with finality; not in the spirit of, I'll forgive, but I'm telling you that I'll never forget. Lord's Day 51 of the Heidelberg Catechism gives a correct, succinct, and beautiful explanation of the fifth petition: Be pleased, for the sake of Christ's blood, not to impute to us, miserable sinners, any of our transgressions, nor the evil which always cleaves to us; as we also find this witness of thy grace in us that it is our full purpose heartily to forgive our neighbor. A possible objection to the explanation given must be briefly answered: Does not this mean, then, that our act of kindness toward the one who has injured us precedes Christ's act of kindness toward us? Answer. In the circle of salvation the beginning is always with God, never with us. See I John 4:19; cf. John 13:15; Eph. 4:32; and I Peter 2:21. Nevertheless, the forgiving love of Christ not only precedes but also accompanies and even follows the love with which we love him and the neighbor. Our sincere purpose to forgive those who have injured us, and thus also our experience of the pardoning love and grace of God in Christ, can be enhanced by the following considerations: Extend forgiveness to others, for 1. God so commands. Vengeance belongs to him, not to us (Deut. 32:35; Rom. 12:19). 2. We should follow the example Christ himself has given us (Luke 23:34; John 13:12 15; Eph. 4:32; 5:1, 2; Col. 3:13). 3. We cannot be forgiven unless we forgive, as has been shown. 4. The man who injured us needs our sympathy and love. We owe him this love (Rom. 13:8). 5. Harboring a grudge and planning revenge is not only wicked but also foolish, for it deprives us of the strength we need to do effective work. We should have the forward look (Phil. 2:13). 6. Forgiving others will impart peace of heart and mind to us, the peace that passes all understanding (Phil. 4:7, 9). 7. Thus, thus alone, will God be glorified, which should be our aim in all we do (I Cor. 10:31). The fourth petition is linked to the fifth, and the fifth to the sixth, by the conjunction and. All three represent human needs, and are closely connected. The connection between the fourth and fifth has already been indicated. Very close is also the relation between the fifth and the sixth, and this in at least the following respect: we are in need not only of forgiveness of past sins, but also of God's protecting care so that in the future we may not fall into the clutches of Satan. Between And lead us not into temptation and deliver us from the evil one there is no conjunction and. On the contrary, the conjunction but shows that the petition simply continues, the negative request being balanced by the positive in one petition. These two are, as it were, the two sides of the same coin. Accordingly, I am in agreement with all those who accept six, not seven,^[321] petitions. The Sixth Petition 13. or 13a.^[322] And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from the evil one. Probable meaning: If it be thy will do not permit us, weak as we are by nature and prone to sin, to enter into situations which in the natural course of events would expose us to temptation and fall (cf. 26:41), but, whatever be thy way with us, deliver us from the evil one. Though it is true that here as before (5:37) both the neuter from evil and the masculine from the evil one are possible, and, as Calvin points out, There is no necessity of raising a debate on this point, for the meaning remains nearly the same, nevertheless, both because in the consciousness of Christ the devil was very real (see proof on p. 309), and because one naturally associates temptation, mentioned in this petition, with the tempter (see especially 4:1), I, along with many others,^[323] give the preference to the rendering the evil one. Though it is true that God himself never tempts man to sin (James 1:13), it is also true that there is good reason to ask him not even to permit us voluntarily to run into temptation; for example, by establishing a dangerously close alliance with the world, becoming unequally yoked with unbelievers (II Cor. 6:14–16); or by going into the opposite extreme and withdrawing ourselves entirely from society (Matt. 5:14; Phil. 2:15); by becoming so absorbed in our daily affairs that the spiritual atmosphere which should characterize our home is neglected, by serving on so many good-cause committees that matters even more important are not attended to; etc. It is God alone who knows how many tests of faith, and how severe, each saved sinner can endure, as he is constantly being assaulted by the devil (Eph. 6:12; I Peter 5:8), the world (John 15:19), and his own flesh (Rom. 7:23; Gal. 5:17). Instead of going down to defeat in this struggle, may he remain watchful at all times, and in any event, may he triumph completely over the evil one (Rom. 16:20; I Thess. 5:23). For more with respect to Satan and his crafty methods see N.T.C. on Ephesians 2:2and 6:11, 12. The logic of the petition is clear. An analogous request would be, Lord, grant that I may be so careful in observing the rules of health that I may not become ill, but whatever in thy providence befalls me, keep me close to thy side that my faith may not fail. Here, too, however, we, our, and us should be substituted for I, my, and me. The supplicant is constantly including others in his prayers. The Conclusion 13b. [For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.] It is commonly held that, since these words are absent from the leading manuscripts, the rules of textual evidence do not favor their inclusion in the Lord's Prayer. Without disputing the correctness of this view it is but fair to point out, however, that, in one form or another, the doxology is found in some rather ancient versions. Moreover, the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (VIII.2), by many regarded as having originated in the first half of the second century, contains the conclusion in the abbreviated form for thine is the power and the glory forever. A defense of the authenticity of the Greek words upon which the A.V. form of the conclusion is based is found in E. F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, Des Moines, 1956, pp. 97–102. His main argument is that from the earliest times in the worship of the church the conclusion was separated from the rest of the Lord's Prayer. The body of the prayer was repeated by the people, the conclusion, exclusive of Amen, by the priest, after which the people responded, Amen. ^[324] Because of this liturgical separation, so he argues, this conclusion began to be regarded by some Christians as a man-made response and not part of the original prayer as it fell from the lips of Christ. Now it is true that even during the gatherings for worship, whether regular or on special occasions, both in ancient Israel and in the apostolic church, the scene was more lively and responsive, less formal, than in much of later Christendom (except for the modern trend). To be sure, the services were generally orderly. If they were not, the membership was apt to be duly admonished (I Cor. 14:23–40). The control was definitely in the hands of the leader. There were, however, responses by the congregation (Deut. 27:15–26; I Chron. 16:36; Neh. 5:13; 8:6; I Cor. 14:16; cf. Rev. 5:14). Nevertheless, whether an argument of this type, based to a large extent on ancient liturgical practices, is sufficient to offset the considerable lack of manuscript support for the retention or insertion of the words in question is debatable. The evangelist Luke, in reporting the Lord's Prayer, omits any mention of a concluding doxology. On the other hand, it must be admitted that the A.V. conclusion reflects the spirit of both the Old TestamentI Chron. 29:11; Neh. 9:5; the conclusions of Pss. 145 150 and the NewJohn 8:50; 17:4; I Cor. 10:31; II Tim. 4:18; Rev. 1:6; 4:11; 5:12, 13; 19:1ff. . It would be difficult, indeed, to frame or devise a more fitting close.^[325] Is it not entirely appropriate that we, the supplicants, having concluded our humble petitions, as it were turn our eyes upward again (as in the beginning of the prayer) in adoration, and concentrate heart and mind on God's majesty and love, which constitute the basis of our confidence that the prayer will be heard?^[326] Viewing the words of the doxology, therefore, as being in any case in thorough harmony with the rest of the Bible, and as constituting an eminently suitable conclusion of this prayer, a few words of interpretation are in order. The phrase For thine is the kingdom can be regarded as pertaining to each of the preceding petitions, as if to say, Hallowed be thy name, for thine is the kingdom, that is, for it is thy sovereign right as King that thy name be hallowed; so also, Thy kingdom come, for thine is the kingdom, that is, for it is proper that thy divine authority over hearts and lives be reverently acknowledged; Thy will be done, for thine is the kingdom, that is, for since thou art King thy will should be obeyed by us and by everyone; and so on through the rest of the prayer. Not only the Father's right to grant the requests, since he is King over all, but also his power to do so is recognized, and this, too, is basic to each of the preceding petitions. Those who pray this prayer acknowledge that all power belongs to the Father, not only the power over the entire universe and all it contains, but even the power that resides within all: in the sun to glow, in winds to blow, in rivers to flow, in plants to grow, etc. Even the power exercised by sinister forces is his, though they are responsible for its evil use. If it were not his, how would he be able to overrule it for good? Finally, since all of God's virtues are reflected in his work of creation and redemption, in each according to its own nature, the children of this heavenly Father, deeply impressed with the manifestations of his power, wisdom, and goodness, add, and the glory, ^[327] joyfully ascribing to the Father all these three the kingdom, the power, and the glory not only now but forever. With a reverend Amen, in attestation of the sincerity of their words and of their conviction that the Father will attend to their needs, they conclude the prayer. Though the Lord's Prayer is ended, Jesus regards it necessary to append to it a clarification of the fifth petition, And forgive us our debts as we also have forgiven our debtors. Since in the explanation of the petition I have already touched on verses 14 and 15, little need be added here. 14, 15. For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. Though in the teaching not only of Paul (Rom. 3:24; Eph. 2:8; Titus 3:5) but certainly also of Christ (Matt. 5:1–6; 18:27; Luke 18:13) salvation rests not on human accomplishments but solely on the grace and mercy of God, this does not mean that there is nothing to do for those who receive it. They must believe. Included in this faith is the eagerness to forgive. Unless the listeners forgive men their trespasses, they themselves will remain unpardoned. In verse 12 sins were called debts, that is, that which we owe, and for which we must suffer punishment unless payment is made, satisfaction rendered, by ourselves or by another. Here, in verses 14 and 15, these sins are called trespasses, deviations from the path of truth and righteousness.^[328] Now whether these deviations are of the milder character, as in Gal. 6:1and perhaps also in Rom. 5:15, 17, 18, or whether they are far more serious, as in Eph. 1:7; 2:1, they must be forgiven. Moreover, as far as it is in his power to do so a follower of Jesus should make not only his brothers in the Lord but also men in general the objects of his forgiving love, as is clear from the fact that the very word men, that is, human beings, is spelled out in full, and this both in verse 14 and in verse 15. The question might be asked, But in the process of bringing about forgiveness and reconciliation, does the entire obligation rest upon the person who has been sinned against? Does not the offender also have an obligation? The answer is, Indeed, he does. He must repent and with the message of this repentance he must gladden the heart of the one whom he has injured (Luke 17:3, 4). But this does not remove the latter's obligation to do all in his power to open wide the gate toward reconciliation. If in that case there is no co-operation from the other side, the blame will rest not on the offended person but on the offender, who originally inflicted the injury. Of the three manifestations of righteousness here reviewed two have been discussed: charitable giving and prayer. There remains Fasting Prayer and fasting are often combined (I Sam. 7:5, 6; II Sam. 12:16, 21 23; II Chron. 20:3, 5ff.; Ezra 8:21 23; Neh. 1:4; 9:1ff.; Isa. 58:6, 9; Jer. 14:12; Dan. 9:3; Luke 2:37; Acts 13:2, 3; 14:23). 16. And whenever you fast, do not be like the hypocrites, looking glum, for they make their faces unsightly in order that (other) people may see that they are fasting. Fasting, as here meant, refers not to a condition that is forced upon a person (II Cor. 6:5; 11:27), but to voluntary abstinence from food as a religious exercise. It served various purposes, either singly or in any combination. Thus, it might be an expression of humiliation, that is, sorrow for, and in connection with confession of, sin (Lev. 16:29–34; 23:26–32; Num. 29:7–11; Deut. 9:18; I Kings 21:27; Neh. 9:1ff.; Dan. 9:3, 4; Jonah 3:5), or of lamentation over ill, either already experienced defeat in battle (Judg. 20:26), bereavement (I Sam. 31:13; I Chron. 10:11, 12; II Sam. 1:12), the arrival of sad tidings (Neh. 1:4), a plague (Joel 1:14; 2:12–15) or threatened (II Chron. 20:3, 5ff.; Esther 4:3; 9:31). In the case of David, when the threatening death of the child becomes a reality he ceases to fast (II Sam. 12:16, 21 23). There was a natural basis for the fasts mentioned so far, since overwhelming grief or distress produces loss of appetite (I Sam. 1:7). Sometimes a fast was ordered and/or observed in order to promote concentration on an important religious act or event, such as the commissioning of missionaries (Acts 13:2, 3), or the appointment of elders (Acts 14:23). See also (Exod. 34:2, 28; Deut. 9:9, 18. In this connection, what is perhaps the most beautiful chapter on fasting in the entire BibleIsa. 58) deserves special mention (especially verses 6 12). It may well be that here in (Matt. 6:16 18Jesus had that chapter in mind, as a comparison will show. In both cases the wrong kind of fastI Kings 21:9, 11; Zech. 7:3–5) is condemned and the right kind commended. The law of God suggests only one fast in an entire year, namely, on the day of atonement (Lev. 16:29–34; 23:26–32; Num. 29:7–11; cf. Acts 27:9). In course of time, however, fasts (not always total; see the text in each instance) began to multiply, so that we read about their occurrence at other times also: from sunrise to sunset (Judg. 20:26; I Sam. 14:24; II Sam. 1:12, 3:35); for seven days (I Sam. 31:13); three weeks (Dan. 10:3); forty days (Exod. 34:2, 28; Deut. 9:9, 18; I Kings 19:8); in the fifth and seventh month (Zech. 7:3–5); and even in the fourth, fifth, seventh, and tenth month (Zech. 8:19). The climax was the observance of a fast twice a week, ^[329] the boast of the Pharisee (Luke 18:12). As an expression of lamentation over sorrowful circumstances Jesus did not encourage fasting on the part of his disciples. On the contrary, he wanted them to rejoice because of his own presence among them (Matt. 9:14–17; Mark 2:18 20; Luke 5:33 35). He himself, as has been indicated, observed a fast of lengthy duration, probably for the purpose of concentration on the work which the Father had given him to do, and which he, Jesus himself, had voluntarily taken upon himself (Matt. 4:2). Here in (Matt. 6:16–18, however, it is the fast as an expression of humiliation, whether feigned (verse 16) or genuine (verses 17 and 18), that is in view. The hypocrites, that is, the scribes and Pharisees (5:20; 15:1, 7; 23:13), put on a dismal look, making their faces unsightly, perhaps by covering them with ashesI Kings 20:38), in order that to the people round about them they might look O so sorry for their sins; hence, O so pious! They were putting on an act. Jesus continues, I solemnly declare to you, they have already received their reward in full. For explanation see on 6:1 and 2. They tried hard to look glum so as to impress the fickle crowd. Well, they attained their goal! As if to say, How utterly ridiculous, such a reward! ^[330] How absurd to prefer it to the real reward (6:1)! Continued: 17. But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face. Jesus does not say that his followers must fast, neither does he forbid them to fast if that is what they wish to do. In certain circumstances he seems to regard fasting as entirely proper. Did he not himself fast also, though, as has already been indicated, for an entirely different reason? The point Jesus stresses is that when his followers think they ought to fast they should, by anointing their head and washing their face, make this voluntary observance of a religious exercise as inconspicuous as possible. This admonition parallels that with respect to giving to charity (6:2–4) and praying (6:5, 6). All such practices should take place in secret, that is, away from the eyes of men. They should be sincere acts of devotion to God, to him alone. Concluded: 18. that not men but (only) your Father who is in secret may see that you are fasting. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you (for explanation see on 6:4). With the passing of the day of atonement, fasting is no longer a religious requirement (Col. 2:14). Are there, nevertheless, lessons here that hold today as well as they did yesterday? I suggest the following: 1. Intemperance in eating, as well as in everything else, is warned against in Scripture. See N.T.C. on I and II Timothy and Titus, p. 122. The lazy gluttons of Crete, sluggish and sensual gormandizers, do not remain unrebuked (Titus 1:12). A mark of the enemies of the cross is that their god is their belly (Phil. 3:19; cf. Rom. 16:18). Instead of striving to keep their physical appetites under control (Rom. 8:13; I Cor. 9:27), realizing that our bodies are the Holy Spirit's temple, in which God should be glorified (I Cor. 6:19, 20), these people surrendered themselves to gluttony and licentiousness. They worshiped their sensual nature. The Bible forbids this. In this connection it is interesting to note that the physical advantage in cutting down the intake of animal fats is not a modern medical discovery (Lev. 3:17; 7:22–25).^[331] 2. Nevertheless, in Scripture it is not the salutary effect which a moderate amount of fasting may have on a person's physical welfare that is especially in view. It is rather the spiritual benefit that is basic. As has already been indicated, often fasting was an expression of sorrow for sin or was observed in order that mind and heart might concentrate not on material matters but wholly on God and on the tasks which he assigns. That there is a close connection between fasting and spiritual meditation and contemplation is widely recognized. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ The Essence of This Righteousness with Respect to Man's Relation to Man Jesus begins this section by saying: 7:1. Do not pass judgment (on others) &As in 6:1, 19, 20; 7:7; etc., a principle is first stated, then explained. Just what did the Lord mean when he said, Judge not -2 _ftnref1 (A.V.)? Did he mean that all manner of judging is absolutely and without any qualification forbidden, so that with respect to the neighbor we are not allowed to form and/or express any opinion whatever, at least that with respect to him we must never voice an adverse or unfavorable opinion? In the light of what Jesus himself says in this very paragraph (verse 6), where he implies that we must regard certain individuals as being dogs and hogs, and of John 7:24; cf. I Cor. 5:12; 6:1–5; Gal. 1:8, 9; Phil. 3:2; I Thess. 2:14, 15; I Tim. 1:6, 7; Titus 3:2, 10; I John 4:1; II John 10; III John 9, and a good many other passages that could be added, it is clear that no such wholesale condemnation of forming an opinion about a person and expressing it can have been intended. Jesus himself had arrived at certain conclusions regarding scribes and Pharisees, and he did not hesitate to express themMatt. 5:20; 6:2, 5, 16; 15:1ff.; 23:1ff. . Though it is true that we, on our part, cannot read what is in our neighbor's heart, as Jesus was able to do (John 2:24, 25), so that ourjudgment must be more reserved and can never be final, there is nothing in the teaching either of Christ himself or of the apostles after him that relieves us of the obligation to form opinions about people and to act upon the basis of these opinions, which also implies that at times it will be our duty to express our judgments. Matt. 7:1has been used at times as an excuse for laxity in exercising church discipline, but in the light of its context, and also of 18:15–18 and John 20:23, such use of this passage is without any justification. What, then, did Jesus mean? He means (see verses 3 5) that it is wrong for anyone to concentrate his attention on the speck in his brother's eye and, while thus occupied, to ignore the beam in his own eye. The Lord is here condemning the spirit of censoriousness, judging harshly, self-righteously, without mercy, without love, as also the parallel passage (Luke 6:36, 37) clearly indicates. To be discriminating and critical is necessary; to be hypercritical is wrong. One should avoid saying what is untrue (Exod. 23:1), unnecessary (Prov. 11:13), and unkind (Prov. 18:8). One of the best, and also one of the most interesting, expositions of this truth I have come across is that by L. B. Flynn, in his book, Did I Say That?, Nashville, 1959; see especially chapter 3, which bears the title, A Keen Sense of Rumor. That the sin here condemned was very common is clear, for example, from the fact that David condemned to death the rich man who, so the king had been made to believe, had stolen and killed the poor man's little ewe lamb, not realizing that in thus condemning him he (David) was passing sentence on himself (II Sam. 12:1–7)! This inclination to discover and severely condemn the faults, real or imaginary, of others, while passing lightly over one's own frequently even more lamentable violations of God's holy law, was common among the JewsRom. 2:1f. , especially among the Pharisees (Luke 18:9; John 7:49), and is common always and everywhere. According to the words of Jesus here in 7:1, that you may not have judgment passed on yourselves,the habitual self-righteous faultfinder must remember that he himself can expect to be condemned, and this not only by men but also and especially by God, as 6:14, 15 has already indicated. Cf. 18:23–35. For the sake of emphasis the thought expressed in 7:1b is repeated in somewhat different phraseology: (2. For in accordance with the judgment whereby you pass judgment you yourselves will be judged; and in accordance with the measure whereby you measure it will be measured back to you.Meaning: The standard of judgment that you apply to others will be applied to you. If you judge without mercy, you will be judged without mercy. Similarly, if you judge kindly, you will be judged and treated kindly. There will then be poured into your lap good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over. You will be thus judged and rewarded by God, to be sureRom. 2:16, 3:6), but the human agents are not excluded (Luke 6:34, 38). A figurative description of, and a warning to, carping critics follows in verses 3 5. And why do you gaze [Greek] -2 _ftnref2 [Greek] the speck in your brother's eye, while the beam that is in your own eye you do not (even) observe? Or how can you say to your brother, Let me take the speck out of your eye, and look! a beam in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly (enough) to take the speck out of your brother's eye.The beam is a heavy piece of timber fit to be used for the rafter or joist of a building. The speck or mote is a small piece of straw or of wood, a tiny chip from a beam, perhaps. Now in the figure which Jesus uses he asks the average listener how it is that he is gazing at a mere speck in his brother's eye, and that he even requests permission to remove that speck, while at the same time he completely overlooks the incomparably larger beam in his own eye. Cf. John 8:7! The question is: Who is this would-be eye-doctor? Answer: he is called a hypocrite, a word which Jesus generally uses to characterize the scribes and Pharisees of his day (5:20, cf. 6:2, 5, 16; 15:1, 7; 23:13), a class of individuals whom the Lord describes as those who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and who despised all others (Luke 18:9). Any person with a Pharisaic disposition is meant, therefore. Since in the hearts of all, including even Christ's followers to the extent in which grace has not yet fully transformed them, there houses a Pharisee, the conclusion follows that this passage applies to all, in the sense that all need to examine themselves (I Cor. 11:28), lest without self-examination and self-discipline they find fault with and strive to correct someone else. A person may be ever so good in his own eyes (Luke 18:11, 12); yet, if he is not humble, then, as God sees him, there is a beam in his eye, the beam of self-righteousness. This makes him a blind eye-doctor who tries to perform an operation on someone else's eye! However grievous the other man's error may have seemed to the eye of the would-be corrector, was it not a mere speck compared with his own self-righteousness, a defect so glaring that in the sight of God it amounts to a beam in the critic's eye? When by sovereign grace this beam has been removed, the former fault-finder will be able to see clearly enough to take the speck out of his brother's eye; that is, he will then be able to restore such a person in the spirit of gentleness, and, examining himself in the light, let us say, of (I Cor. 13, will look to himself lest he also be temptedGal. 6:1). It is clear from the last clause, in which mention is made of removing the speck from the brother's eye, that it was not Christ's purpose in verses 3 5 to discourage mutual discipline. On the contrary, both self-discipline and mutual discipline are encouraged in this saying. Moreover, to prevent any notion from taking root that the hypercritical attitude denounced in verses 3 5 might mean that in dealing with errorists patience must be endless, the Lord now adds: 6. Do not give what is holy to the dogs, and do not fling your pearls before the hogs &Brothers (see verses 3 5) and dogs or hogs (verse 6) must not be treated alike. Believers must discriminate carefully. In order to understand this saying it is necessary, first of all, to discover what is meant by dogs and hogs. Among the Jews the dogs of the street were held in low esteem. The reference here is not to little pet dogs but to pariahs, large, savage, and ugly. One could see them almost everywhere, prowling about the garbage and the rubbish thrown into the streets. They were considered unclean and filthy (Prov. 26:11; cf. II Peter 2:22; Rev. 22:15). They threaten (Ps. 22:16, 20), howl and snarl (Ps. 59:6), are greedy and shameless (Isa. 56:11). In brief, they are contemptible (I Sam. 17:43; 24:14; II Sam. 9:8; 16:9; II Kings 8:13). To be eaten by dogs was a sign of God's special curse resting upon a person (I Kings 14:11; 16:4; 21:24; cf. I Kings 21:19; 22:38). As to hogs or pigsMatt. 8:30 32and parallel passages, the chosen refuge of demons , these are here viewed as being similarly contemptible and filthy. The Old Testament mentions swine among the unclean animals (Lev. 11:7; Deut. 14:8). In (Isa. 65:4; 66:3, 17the eating of swine's flesh is called an abomination. For the prodigal son to be sent into the fields to feed the pigs must have added to his miseryLuke 15:15, 16). Dogs and hogs are mentioned together not only here in Matt. 7:6but also essentially in II Peter 2:22: The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow has bathed herself, only to wallow in the mud again. It is clear that by Jesus the expression what is holy that is, set apart from the common sphere, standing in close relation to God and consecrated to [Greek] -2 _ftnref3 ([Greek] and pearls are here used synonymously. The Greek word for pearlis margarits, from which the given names Margaret and Reta (or Rita) have been derived. Pearls, obtained from the Persian Gulf or from the Indian Ocean, were fabulously priced, way beyond the purchasing power of the average person. In order to obtain a pearl of great value a merchant might have to sell all his possessionsMatt. 13:46; cf. I Tim. 2:9; Rev. 17:4; 18:12, 16; 21:21). Combining all this, we are now able to conclude that here in 7:6 Jesus is saying that whatever it is that stands in special relation to God and is accordingly very precious should be treated with reverence and not entrusted to those who, because of their utterly wicked, vicious, and despicable nature, can be compared to dogs (Phil. 3:2) and hogs. This means, for example, that Christ's disciples must not endlessly continue to bring the gospel message to those who scorn it. To be sure, patience must be exercised, but there is a limit. A moment arrives when constant resistance to the gracious invitation must be punished by the departure of the messengers of good tidings. Christ's further sayings and also his actions serve as a commentary on (Matt. 7:6. How patient he was with ThomasJohn 20:24 29) and with Peter (John 21:15 19), but for Herod Antipas, who often had been warned (Mark 6:20) but had disregarded all of these admonitions, Jesus had not a single word (Luke 23:9). He pronounced a curse upon Capernaum, which had failed to take his messages to heart and to apply to itself the lesson taught by his mighty works (Matt. 11:23). He instructed his disciples not to remain too long in those places that would reject their preaching (Matt. 10:14, 15, 23). In the parable of The Barren Fig Tree (Luke 13:6 9) he showed that God's patience, though prolonged, is not endless. Cf. Prov. 29:1. The apostles took this lesson to heart, as we see, for example, in the case of Paul (Acts 13:45, 46; 18:5, 6; cf. Rom. 16:17, 18; Titus 3:10). Staying on and on in the company of those who ridicule the Christian religion is not fair to other fields that are waiting to be served, especially in view of the fact that the harvest is plentiful but the laborers are few (Matt. 9:37; cf. John 4:35). Besides, the capacity of the disciples to endure persecution so that they will be sufficiently vigorous to continue the work elsewhere has its limits; note the words of the Lord (Do not fling your pearls before the hogs) lest they trample on them with their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.In the illustration Jesus pictures the hogs in the act of trampling on the pearls with their feet, thereby treating them with utter disdain. The suggestion may be [Greek] -2 _ftnref4 [Greek] that, since pearls resemble peas or acorns, these hogs, having greedily tasted a few and having discovered that they can do nothing with them, in anger trample the pearls underfoot and turn and tear to pieces those who had flung such non-edibles in front of them. Let this not happen to the pearl of gospel proclamation nor to yourselves, says Jesus as it were. As to specific reference, the terms what is holy and pearls are rather indefinite. They undoubtedly apply to other things besides the gospel message. The office of the ministry, the eldership, and the diaconate must not be entrusted to the unqualified. The Didacheor Teaching of the Twelve Apostles(IX.5) makes still another I believe legitimate application, as follows, But let no one eat or drink of your eucharist [Lord's Supper] except those who have been baptized in the Lord's name. For concerning this also did the Lord say, Do not give what is holy to the dogs. Jesus continues: 7, 8. Ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you. For whoever asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to him that knocks it shall be opened.Is there a connection between these verses and verses 1 6? There are those who see no connection at all. This, however, would be strange. In the entire sermon up to this point we have witnessed a very logical development of ideas, an easy thought transition from one paragraph to the next. Must we suppose that here at 7:7 we are face to face with a sudden break in continuity? I cannot believe it. In the preceding verses Christ has been speaking about man's relation to man. In verse 12 he again shall we say, he still? dwells on this. Is it not reasonable to assume that also the intervening lines (verses 7 11) refer to a phase of this same theme? The connection, as I see it, is not difficult to establish. The Lord has been admonishing his listeners to abstain from judging others (verses 1 5), yet also to judge (verse 6); not to be hypercritical, yet to be critical; to be humble and patient, yet not too patient; etc. After a detailed examination of the entire preceding paragraph (verses 1 6) the question cannot be suppressed, And who is sufficient for these things?II Cor. 2:16A.V. . This question Jesus answers by urging the necessity of persevering prayer accompanied by earnest effort. To be sure, the threefold exhortation is general. It pertains not only to asking for wisdom in the matter to which reference has just been made, but in all matters. In fact, it refers to asking for the fulfilment of every need, particularly every spiritualneed. Hence, the same threefold exhortation occurs also in a different contextLuke 11:9f. . And why not? It surely takes but little imagination to understand that an authoritative advice, so singularly precious and so thoroughly practical, would not be spoken just once and then forever laid at rest. Do present-day speakers (including ministers!) never repeat themselves? Accordingly, though the content of verses 7 11 is much broader than any link with the preceding would indicate, it is natural to assume that verses 1 6 occasionedthe present beautiful little paragraph. Certainly Christ's audience, having listened carefully to Jesus as he urged them to undo habits of long standing and to adopt a mode of life entirely different, and having noticed besides that what he asked of them seemed to be almost self-contradictory, was looking for a solution of this complicated problem. The Lord does not fail them. Let us, then, first of all examine the threefold exhortation;next the promise that accompanies the exhortation and that shows that our obedience to the command will not be in vain. The simplest form of the command is: Ask Note the rising scale of intensity, which may be presented thus: Ask, (seek,KNOCK. Asking implies humility and a consciousness of need. The verb is used with respect to a petition which by an inferior is addressed to a superior. The Pharisee of the parableLuke 18:10 13) asks nothing. He tellsthe Lord how good he is. The publican aks,that is, pleads,God be merciful to me, the sinner. Asking also presupposes belief in a personal God with whom man can have fellowship. When one asks, he expects an answer. Hence, this implies faith in a God who can, does, and will answer, that is, faith in God the Father. Having such a faith makes the prayer warm and personal. Such a supplicant would not be able to say, O God, if there be a God, save my soul if I have a soul. Seek Seeking is (asking plus acting. It impliesearnest petitioning, but that alone is not sufficient. A person must be active in endeavoring to obtain the fulfilment of his needs. For example, one should not only prayfor a deep knowledge of the Bible but should also diligently searchand examinethe ScripturesJohn 5:39; Acts 17:11), attend the services (Heb. 10:25), above all strive to (livein harmony with God's willMatt. 7:21, 24, 25; cf. John 7:17). Knock Knocking is (asking plus acting plus persevering. One knocks again and again until the door is opened. In reality, however, perseverance is probably already implied in all three imperatives, since all are in the present tense; hence, a possible rendering would be continue to ask, to seek, to knock. This all the more in view of Luke 18:1, 7; cf. Rom. 12:12; Eph. 5:20; 6:18; Col. 4:2; I Thess. 5:17. But what is probable for all three is a certainty with respect to the last, the very idea of biblical knocking already implying perseverance. One continues to knock at the door of the kingdom-palace until the King, who is at the same time the Father, opens the door and supplies whatever is neededLuke 11:5 8). As to the promisethat is fulfilled when the command is obeyed, in each instance the correspondence between command and promise is exact: hence, askis followed by given; seekby find;and knockby opened. Note that in verses 6 and 7 this promise, in one form or another, occurs no less than six times. The first three promises, those of verse 7, are virtually repeated in verse 8, and even strengthened by the introductory word whoever,the inclusiveness of which is re-emphasized by the one whoand to him that,as if to say, of those who obey the command not a single one will be disappointed. An answer to the kind of prayer that is accompanied by seeking and knocking is promised to every sincere follower of the Lord. The certainty that persevering prayer accompanied by the activity of faith will be rewarded is strengthened by an argument from the less to the greater, verses (9 11. Or what man is there among you, who, when his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or also (if the son) asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If, therefore, you, evil though you are, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!Meaning: If even an earthly father note the words what man; the supposition is very general though evilPs. 51:1–5; 130:3; Isa. 1:6; Jer. 17:9; John 3:3, 5; Rom. 3:10; Eph. 2:1), will satisfy the reasonable desires of his son, then surely your heavenly Father, who is the source of all goodness, will give good things to those who address to him their humble petitions. Details of the interpretation: 1. If the son asks for bread (the staff of life, the main dish), his father will not give him a stone, perhaps resembling a cake of bread. He will not deceive his child. Similarly, if the son will ask him for a fish, as a side-dish, which would be very natural in thisregion where fish was abundant, the father will not give him a serpent. Was Jesus thinking of a snake as an ersatz eel? At any rate, for a real father such an act of base deception would be unthinkable. 2. All the more, then, the heavenlyFather will not disappoint his children. This, however, does not mean that he will always give them whatever they ask. It means that he will not give them anything that is bad for them. He will give good things to those who ask him. On the basis of Luke 11:13the conclusion is valid that the heavenly Father will give his children the Holy Spirit and all his benefits. He will supply whatever they need. 3. Note the importance of prayer in this connection. The Father loves his children and cares for them, but he wants them to askfor the things they need. Christ's followers may rest assured therefore that in answer to their prayers the Father will also day by day provide solutions for the problems with respect to man-to-man relationships, the difficulties arising from the earnest attempt to follow the instructions given in verses 1 6. As far as the succeedingcontext is concerned, could anything be more appropriate as an introduction to the command to treat our neighbors as we like to be treated by them than the admonition Ask &seek &knock? Is it not true that in matters such as these the Father's constant help is definitely needed? As a very appropriate conclusion not only of 7:1–11 but of the entire large division beginning at 5:17 (and see also 5:5, 7, 9, 13 16) Jesus now presents his own version of The Golden Rule 12. Therefore whatever you want (other) people to do for you, do so also for them.& In order that the believer may be ready for any emergency, that is, in order that he may know at any definite moment how to conduct himself toward his neighbor, the Lord here in verse 12 lays down a rule which, as it consists of measuring one's duty by one's self-love, is like a pocketknife or carpenter's rule, always ready to be used, even in a sudden emergency when there is no time to ask for the advice of a friend or to consult a book. How does this Golden Rule compare with similar rules outside of Christianity? Is it true, as some seem to believe, that Matt. 7:12furnishes common ground upon which the believer and the unbeliever can together rear their palace of peace, goodwill, and brotherhood? There are those who contend that the difference between Christ's rule and that of others, for example, the one laid down by Confucius, consists in this, that the latter rule is merely negative, while Christ's rule is positive. Jesus said, Whatever you want (other) people [literally: men] to do for you, do so also for them, but Confucius said, Do nothing to your neighbor which afterward you would not have your neighbor do to youMahabharataXIII.5571 . As I see it, however, the difference on this score has been exaggerated. To be sure, when the worst possible interpretation is given to the negative rule, as if it meant no more than, Do not kill your neighbor and do not steal his marriage partner or his property, for you would not like to have him do this to you either, so, leave your neighbor severely alone, then it must be admitted that in its positive form the rule is far better. However, even in its negative form this rule can be interpreted far more favorably. It can also mean, Do not treat your neighbor with anything less than genuine love, for you yourself would not want to have him treat you with anything less than genuine love. Thus construed, the negative implies the positive. And must we not in fairness to Confucius grant that he had at least something of this positive implication in mind? Are not his words that were quoted preceded by the line, This is the sum of all true righteousness, Treat others as you would yourself be treated? That surely is positive. Similarly, Jesus teaches that the law with its (negativecommandments ( You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery, etc.) is fulfilled in obedience to the positiverule, You shall love your neighbor as yourselfMatt. 5:21ff.; 19:19; 22:39). Rom. 13:9is conclusive on this point, For this, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet, and if (there be) any other commandment, is summed up in this one rule, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Now it is true that in Christ's teaching the emphasis on love for the neighbor, not merely kind treatment, a love, moreover, that is bestowed even upon the enemy, receives greater emphasis than it does outside of Christianity. But it will not do to declare that a rule expressed negatively is, because of that very fact, necessarily inferior to one stated positively. Nevertheless, there are important differences between Christ's truly Golden Rule and somewhat similar rules that have come to us from the non-Christian religions or are favored by religious liberals. That such rules have a (relativevalue must be admitted. There is a sense in which unbelievers do goodI Kings 21:27–29; Matt. 5:46; Luke 6:33; Acts 28:2; Rom. 2:14). Yet, there are important differences between Christ's Golden Rule and whatever may resemble it. These differences are as follows: 1. The non-Christian religious prophet views his rule as a requirement which man is able to fulfil in his own strength, or at best in the strength of someone or something other than the true God, who revealed himself in Jesus Christ. Scripture emphatically denies that he has this abilityJohn 3:3, 5; II Tim. 3:2; Titus 3:3; etc. . Apart from the operation of the Holy Spirit in the hearts and lives of God's children obedience (even in principle) upon which God's approval can fully rest is impossible (Rom. 7:24; 8:3–8; Phil. 2:12, 13; II Thess. 2:13). 2. The religious liberal has a tendency to separate the rule of love for (manfrom the commandment of love for God. He generally minimizes the latter's importance. According to his view the Golden Rule is the sum and substance of all ethics. The one important thing in life, as he sees it, is rendering service to fellowmen. It is in support of this contention that an appeal is made to Christ's Golden Rule. But such an appeal is unjustified, for in the sermon the Golden Rule is preceded by a lengthy discourse in which Jesus, by clear implicationMatt. 22:37), teaches us to love God above all. This, as has been shown, implies the inner devotion of the heart to God and undivided trust in him amid all circumstances of life. Now it is in the light of that attitude toward our heavenly Father that we, as his children, are exhorted to love our neighbor, whom God created as his image. To be sure, the rule of the modernist resembles Christ's Golden Rule. Its music is the same in pitch, but not in quality, just as a note played on the piano differs very much in quality from the same note played on an organ. The musical instrument behind the note that is, the background is different. 3. The same people who commit the error stated in point 2 generally also misconceive the purpose of the rule, as if it meant, Therefore whatever you want (other) people to do for you, do so also for them, (for in the end that will pay. Just like honesty, it is the best policy. In this way the rule's gold degenerates into the pyrite of utilitarianism. Christ's truly Golden Rule is different. It ends with the words for this is the law and the prophets.It is that, indeed, for the summary of the law and the prophets (that is, of the Old Testament; see p. 288, including footnote 279) is loveMatt. 22:37–40); and love, honest and true, implies self-denial and outgoingness, expressed so beautifully in such passages as Isa. 53:4–6, 12; Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; John 3:16; 10:11; Rom. 8:32; II Cor. 8:9; Gal. 2:20; Eph. 5:2; I Tim. 1:15, 16(climaxed by the doxology of verse 17); and I Peter 2:24. Notice again the word Therefore at the beginning of verse 12. Not only does it link the present passage with the entire large division introduced by 5:17, for through Christ's work in human hearts the law and the prophets, mentioned both in 5:17 and here in 7:12, attains fulfilment, but it also connects closely with the immediately preceding verses; as if to say, How much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him. Therefore that is, out of gratitude for the Father's continuing gifts you should love your neighbors even as you desire that they love you, in order that the stream of love toward the undeserving may flow on and on, not only toyour hearts, but also throughand fromyour hearts until it reaches even the most unworthy. Thus, indeed, you will be sons of your Father who is in heaven, who causes his sun to rise on evil (people) and good, and sends rain on righteous and unrighteous (5:45). This, indeed, and this alone, is The Golden Rule. Exhortation to Enter the Kingdom The final main division of the sermon begins at this point. First Jesus says something about The Beginning of the Way: The Narrow Gate and the Constricted Way versus the Wide Gate and the Broad Way Jesus has described the citizens of the kingdom, their blessedness and their relation to the world (5:1–16); and also the righteousness which the King grants to and demands of them (5:17 7:12). Hence, it is natural that now in this final division of the sermon he urges all who are reached by his message, whether at the time it was delivered or later, to enter into the kingdom (7:13–27). If they have already done so, then let them enter it more fully than ever before, or, to change the figure somewhat, let them make sure that they continue stedfastly on the way to which the gate has admitted them. In due order the Lord describes the beginning of the Christians path, urging his listeners to choose it rather than the unbelievers boulevard (verses 13, 14); tenders warnings with respect to his followers progress upon this way (verses 15 20); and last of all contrasts the two final destinations (verses 21 27). Accordingly, Jesus begins by saying: 13, 14. Enter by the narrow gate; for wide (is) the gate and broad the way that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For narrow (is) the gate and constricted the way that leads to life, and few are those who find it. It should be noted that Jesus has already, by way of implication, pictured entrance into his kingdom as being both inviting and difficult, that is, as attended by circumstances both favorable and unfavorable. Favorable, for those who enter are signally blessed. They are the possessors of the kingdom they have entered, are comforted, inherit the earth, shall be fully satisfied, etc. Unfavorable, in the sense that they will be persecuted, insulted, and slandered; and that they are burdened with heavy obligations; for example, they must practice a righteousness that excels that of the scribes and Pharisees; must love even their enemies and pray for their persecutors; must not be hypercritical but must nevertheless be discriminating, etc. Such things are unfavorable in the sense that they clash with men's natural tendencies. It is clear, therefore, that our Lord does not follow the method that is used by certain self-styled revivalists, who speak as if getting saved is one of the easiest things in the world. Jesus, on the contrary, pictures entrance into the kingdom as being, on the one hand, most desirable; yet, on the other, not at all easy. The entrance-gate is narrow. It must be found. And the road with which it is linked is constricted. J. M. Gibson's remark is to the point, [Christ's] appeal is made in such a way as shall commend it, not to the thoughtless, selfish crowd, but to those whose hearts have been drawn and whose consciences have been touched by his presentation of the blessedness they may expect and the righteousness expected of them. [Greek] -2 _ftnref5 [Greek] Is it not true that the really great evangelists think of Whitefield, Spurgeon, and their worthy present day followers stressed and are stressing this same truth? Was this not also the lesson that Joshua was trying to teach the IsraelitesJosh. 24:14–28; see especially verses 14 16; 19 ? Cf. Acts 14:22. The passage speaks of a.two gates and two ways, b.two kinds of travelers, and c.two destinations. First, then, the two gates and the two ways. (It is clear from the description that these gate and way should be combined: narrow gate and constricted way, wide gate and broad or roomy way. Which is first, the way or the gate?Does a person enter the gate in order to be admitted to the way, or does he follow the way in order to reach and go through the gate? If it be true that Jesus, in mentioning the gate, was thinking of what happens when a person dies or at the second coming, then obviously the way precedes the gate. This presentation has become rather popular; for example, on the basis of Scripture we speak of entering Jerusalem the Golden through its pearly gatesRev. 21:21; 22:14). In this connection one might also refer to Luke 13:23 30, where entrance through the narrow door brings one into the kingdom of God in its final or eschatological phase. On the other hand, however, Matt. 7:13, 14in each case mentions first the gate, then the way. The question is legitimate, therefore, Which is first, the [Greek] -2 _ftnref6 [Greek] or the gate? Among the commentators who have struggled with this question some apparently have not, for they ignore it the following positions have been taken: 1. Possibly Christ's precept was simply, enter through the narrow gate, all the rest being gloss. [Greek] -2 _ftnref7 [Greek] Objection:The available manuscript evidence does not warrant such a radical excision. 2. Each of the two ways leads up to and passes through a gate. According to this view the way is first. So R. V. G. [Greek] -2 _ftnref8 [Greek] So also J. Jeremias, who appeals to Luke 13:23f., which he regards as a parallel, and which, as he sees it, makes it plain that the image of the gates has an eschatological character. He, accordingly, views the sequence a. gateand b. wayas a popular hysteron-proteron (later-earlier), that is, a figure of speech in which the real order is reversed, like thunder and lightning. [Greek] -2 _ftnref9 [Greek] Objection.The context, and to a certain extent even the wording, of Luke 13:23f., is so different from what is found in Matt. 7:13, 14that it is questionable whether the problem can be solved by this appeal. Moreover, calling the figure used by Jesus in the Matthew passage a hysteron-proteron is begging the question. 3. Gateand waymean substantially the same thing, namely, the obedience demanded by Christ. Viewed as a unit this obedience can be called a gate;considered in its multiplicity, a way. Therefore one should not even ask, Which is first, the gate or the way? [Greek] -2 _ftnref10 [Greek] Comment.Inasfar as this solution stresses the very close relation between gate and way I agree with it, for the text is clear on this. Nevertheless, the text says gate andway, not gate orway, and this not once but twice. Unless this is hendiadys (gateway?), it would seem best to distinguish, however slightly, between the two. 4. The gate is first. It is followed by the way.& In these verses Jesus is not thinking of death but of the choice that must be made right now, and exhorts us to choose, since only by making a conscious choice does one arrive on the right way. [Greek] -2 _ftnref11 [Greek] Comment.If a selection should have to be made between theories 1, 2, and 3, I would, without hesitancy, select 3. Nevertheless, I personally prefer the very closely related 4 as being the most natural. The gate is mentioned first, then the way. Also, is it not true that in nearly every case a gate admits to a way, be it a highway or a byway, a street, avenue, boulevard, or path? A gate admitting to nothing is rare indeed. On the other hand, a way or road does not necessarily lead to a gate. The order gate followed by way is therefore very natural and makes good sense, especially in view of what is probably the intended meaning: right initial choice (conversion) followed by sanctification; or else, wrong initial choice followed by gradual hardening. The one gate is called narrow. It has, not unjustly I believe, been compared to a turnstilethat admits one person at a [Greek] -2 _ftnref12 [Greek] In the New Testament the word narrow,with reference to a gate, occurs only in Matt. 7:13, 14. In Luke 13:24the same adjective is used with reference to an eschatological door. Cf. Matt. 25:10. In order to enter by the narrow gate one must strip himself of many things, such as a consuming desire for earthly goods, the unforgiving spirit, selfishness, and especially self-righteousness. The narrow gate is therefore the gate of self-denialand obedience. On the other hand, the wide gate can be entered with bag and baggage. The old sinful nature all it contains and all its accessories can easily march right through. It is the gate of self-indulgence. So wide is that gate that an enormous, clamorous multitude can enter all at once, and there will be plenty room to spare. The gate, then, indicates the choice a person makes here in this life, whether good or bad. The way to which the narrow gate admits is constricted, or, as we might say today, It is so confining. [Greek] -2 _ftnref13 ([Greek] The path on which the believer is traveling resembles a difficult pass between two cliffs. It is hemmed in from both sides. So also even in the case of the person who has already spiritually entered through the narrow gate, whatever still remains of the old nature rebels against laying aside evil propensities and habits. This old nature is not completely conquered until the moment of death. So, a bitter struggle develops. Read about it in Rom. 7:14–25. But total victory is assured, for the narrow gatehas been found and entered, and the wayof sinners has been exchanged for the way of the righteousPs. 1); that is, a conscious choice has been made, a gooddecision. Basic conversion, in turn, has become daily conversion or, if one prefers, sanctification. On the other hand, the way to which the wide gate admits is broad and roomy. One might call it Broadway. The signs along this wide avenue read, Welcome to each of you and to all your friends, the more the merrier. Travel as you wish and as fast as you wish. There are no restrictions. However, The way of the wicked shall perish. The contrast is clearly between the way of life and the way of death. The first way was constructed according to the specifications of the Supreme Architect (Heb. 11:10). The building directions are found in his holy law. The other way was built by the devil. His followers travel on it. Secondly, the two kinds of travelers.Those who have chosen the wide gate and the spacious way are called many; those who have entered the narrow gate and are traveling on the constricted way are called few. This corresponds with Matt. 22:14, Many are called, few chosen, and with such remnant passages as Rom. 9:27; 11:5; [Greek] -2 _ftnref14 ([Greek] Nevertheless, the entire company of the chosen ones are spoken of as an innumerable hostRev. 7:9). From what has been said on the preceding pages the erroneous conclusion must not be drawn that the tremendous crowds streaming through the wide gate and now traveling on Broadway are free and happy; while, on the other hand, those individuals who have found the narrow gate and are now proceeding on the constricted way are to be pitied. Actually this freedom and happiness of the majority is of a very superficial nature. Everyone who is living in sin is a slave of sin (John 8:34). He is as truly chained as is the prisoner with the iron band around his leg, the band that is fastened to a chain which is cemented into the wall of a dungeon. Every sin he commits draws tighter that chain, until at last it crushes him completely. Since the wicked have no inner peace (Isa. 48:22), how can they be truly happy? On the other hand, Great peace have they that love thy law (Ps. 119:165; cf. Isa. 26:3; 43:2). Though, as has been pointed out, entering by the narrow gate and walking on the constricted way implies self-denial, difficulty and struggle, pain and hardship, this is especially true because the sinful nature has not yet been completely conquered. For the new man (the regenerated nature) there is joy unspeakable and full of gloryI Peter 1:8; cf. Rom. 7:22; Phil. 2:17; 3:1; 4:4; etc. . The few who have entered through the narrow gate are afflicted but not crushed, perplexed but not despairingII Cor. 4:8f. , sorrowful yet always rejoicing, poor yet making many rich, having nothing yet possessing all things (II Cor. 6:10). And in addition to the treasures which they possess even now, they know that riches greater by far await them, for Our light and momentary affliction is producing for us an everlasting weight of glory, far beyond all measure and proportion (II Cor. 4:17; cf. Rom. 8:18). Thirdly, the two destinations. (Those who have entered through the wide gate and are now walking upon Broadway are headed for destruction, that is, not for annihilation but for everlastingperditionDan. 12:2; Matt. 3:12; 18:8; 25:41, 46; Mark 9:43; Luke 3:17; II Thess. 1:9; Jude 6, 7; Rev. 14:9–11; 19:3; 20:10). On the contrary, The way of the cross leads home. It is the way of self-denial that leads to life in its full, eschatological sense: a.fellowship with God in Christ, first in heaven, subsequently in the new heaven and earth; plus b.all the blessings resulting from such fellowship. For a fuller description examine such passages as Ps. 16:11; 17:15; 23:6; 73:23–36; John 14:2, 3; 17:3, 24; II Cor. 3:17, 18; 4:6; Phil. 4:7, 9; I Peter 1:4, 8, 9; Rev. 7:15–17; 15:2–4; 20:4, 6; 21:1–7; [Greek] -2 _ftnref15 [Greek] A twofold [Greek] -2 _ftnref16 [Greek] is given for the exhortation Enter by the narrow gate. A twofold reason rather than two separate reasons, for basic to the entire argument of verses 13 and 14 is this unifying thought: men should choose the gate and the way that lead to life, that is, the narrow gate and constricted way, not the gate and the way that end in destruction, that is, not the wide gate and broad way. Constantly bearing this in mind note the two subordinate arguments: a.It is natural to prefer what is wide and broad, easy of access, to what is narrow and constricted; and b.It is also natural to follow the crowd rather than the few. Beware! The exhortation is an earnest plea, a very tender invitation issuing from the most loving heart of all. It is substantially the same as that found in 4:17, Be converted, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. It will be repeated in the words of 11:28–30, of (John 7:37; and of II Cor. 5:20, to mention but a few passages. It was anticipated or foreshadowed in Isa. 1:18; 55:1, 6, 7; Ezek. 33:11; Hos. 11:8; etc., and is climaxed in Rev. 22:17b. And the wooing heart from which it proceeds was laid bare in Matt. 23:37, on the cross, really throughout Christ's earthly sojourn, and even beforeII Cor. 8:9; cf. John 1:14). That heart is beating still! Warning with Respect to the Believers Progress on the Way This warning is found in verses 15 20. The principle, as usual, is stated first: 15. Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.Does entrance through the narrow gate and proceeding upon the path to which it admits mean that any further caution can now be thrown to the winds? Not at all. To be sure, God preserves his children, but he does this by means of their own God-given perseverance. The enemies are many and shrewd. They are called false prophets. A trueprophet is God's mouthpiece. He was commissioned by God and conveys God's message to men. For the present we may conceive of the false prophet as being self-appointed and as being a person who, though pretending to proclaim God's truth, actually proclaims his own lie. Such a tentative description, though incomplete, as verses 16 20 and especially verses 21 23 will show, fits the requirements of verses 15 20. The word used in the original for false prophets is (pseudo-prophetsMatt. 24:11, 24; Mark 13:22; Luke 6:26; Acts 13:6; II Peter 2:1; I John 4:1; Rev. 16:13; 19:20; 20:10). In formation it is similar to (pseudo-brothersII Cor. 11:26; Gal. 2:4), (pseudo-apostlesII Cor. 11:13), (pseudo-teachersII Peter 2:1), (pseudo-speakersI Tim. 4:2), (psuedo-witnessesMatt. 26:60; I Cor. 15:15), and (pseudo-ChristsMatt. 24:24; Mark 13:22). In each case pseudomeans falseor sham. Jesus warns his hearers, Beware of literally, Hold (your minds) away from false prophets. Reason: although they come in sheep's clothing, dressed up in wool as if they were sheep, yet (on the insidethey are savage, rapacious wolvesLuke 10:3; John 10:12; Acts 20:29). They are evidently pretenders, hypocrites. That the scribes and Pharisees were included among those of whom Jesus was thinking is well-nigh certainMatt. 6:2, 5, 16; 15:7; ch. 23 . However, in view of 7:21 ff.; (John 10:8, 12, it is clear that the description fits many others besides. It applies, in fact, to all those whose influence tends to lead God's children astray, especially to those who selfishlyand maliciouslylead astray. The Gospels, book of Acts, epistles, the book of Revelation are full of examples of false prophetsMatt. 27:20; 28:12–15; John 7:41, 42; 9:29; Acts 2:13; 8:18, 19; 15:1; Rom. 6:1; 16:17, 18; I Cor. 15:12; II Cor. 10:10; Gal. 1:6, 9; 3:1; 4:17; 5:2–4; Eph. 5:3–14; Phil. 3:2, 17 19; Col. 2:4, 8, 16 23; II Thess. 2:1, 2; 3:6, 14; I Tim. 1:3–7, 18 20; 4:1–5, 7; 6:20, 21; II Tim. 2:14–18; 3:1–9; 4:3, 4; Titus 1:10 16; 3:9, 10; Heb. 6:4–8; 10:26–28; James 2:17; II Peter 2:1ff.; 3:3, 4; I John 2:18; 4:1; II John 10; III John 9, 10; Jude 4ff.; Rev. 2:9, 14, 15, 20 24; 3:9). In fact, one of the dragon's (Satan's) allies is the beast out of the earth (Rev. 13:11), who is also called the false prophet (16:13; 19:20; 20:10). It is worthy of note that Christ's description of the false prophet, the one who comes in sheep's clothing but inwardly is a ravenous wolf, and the picture presented in (Rev. 13:11, the beast with two horns like a lamb but speech like a dragon, closely resemble each other. In both cases inner essence is in conflict with outward manifestation. False prophets are the representatives of the power of darknessCol. 1:13; cf. Luke 22:53; Acts 26:18; Eph. 6:12) masquerading as an angel of (lightII Cor. 11:14). The characterization of the false prophet as the man who lacks divine authorization and brings his own message, generally telling people what they like to hear, is rooted in the Old Testament (Isa. 30:10; Jer. 6:13; 8:10; 23:21). This is the kind of prophet who, when defeat is actually imminent, will say, Go up and triumph (II Chron. 18:11). He will shout, Peace, peace! when there is no peace (Jer. 6:14; 8:11; Ezek. 13:10). His words are softer than oil (Ps. 55:21; cf. John 10:1, 8). The warning of Jesus against false prophets is relevant now as well as when it was first spoken. Today the following are among the slogans used by the modern representatives of this cult of deceit: Heaven and hell are myths. The God of love will not permit anyone to be punished everlastingly. Satan is a myth. Sin is sickness. It has nothing to do with guilt. Get rid of your guilt-complex. An individual is not responsible for his own so-called sins. The blame, if there is any, rests on the parents or on society. In many situations what used to be considered sinis not really that at all. Is this what is meant by situation ethics? Is it a handy device for condoning extramarital sexuality and other evils? The destructive intention of the operations of these workers of evil is indicated by the term Jesus uses to describe them: ravenous wolves. Wolves, with their strong jaws, sharp fangs, and fiendish cunning, mercilessly attack, seize, and kill their prey. The adjective ravenousstresses their greed and cruelty. It is related to the verb to snatchor seizeJohn 10:12: And the wolf snatches them . This word ravenous or greedy, now used as a noun to describe grasping individuals, also occurs in Luke 18:11; I Cor. 5:10, 11; and 6:10. The church of Jesus Christ, in every age, should be on its guard against those who distort the Word of God for their own selfish purpose. Though their speech may be ever so smooth and oily, they constitute a real peril against which believers must arm themselvesEph. 6:10ff. . In order to do so it is necessary to know who they are. Accordingly, Jesus continues: 16 20. By their fruits you will recognize them. Grapes are not picked from thorns, or figs from thistles, are they? So every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the sickly tree bears worthless fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear worthless fruit, neither can a sickly tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not yield good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will recognize them.As true as it is that grapes (noble fruit) are not picked from thorns (weeds) nor figs (very precious) from thistles (a nuisance), so true it is also that what is God-glorifying does not issue from a false prophet. Good fruit proves that the tree from which it came is healthy. Worthless fruit shows that the tree from which it fell is sickly. This cannot be otherwise. What a man is in his inner being comes to expression outwardly, especially in words and deeds. Says Luke (6:45) in a similar context (see 6:44), The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil (treasure) produces evil; for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks. Character reveals itself.To be sure, the false prophet may be able for a little whileto deceive people, and to hide his real face behind a mask of seemingly pious words and deeds. This cannot last. Nothing is more difficult than to counterfeit virtue (Calvin). The fruit will show the true character of the tree. The question is asked, however, Just what is meant by this (fruit?Does it refer to what a person teaches or to how he conducts himself? That the former is included is clear from the passage just quoted, as well as from such other passages as Matt. 15:9(see on that passage); Isa. 8:20; Titus 1:9 12; Heb. 13:9; I John 4:1 3; II John 9 11. Calvin may well be right when he says that among the fruits the manner of teaching holds the first place. By diligently comparing with Scripture the teachings of the man who presents himself as a prophet it will generally not be difficult to detect whether he is a servant of God or of the devil. Cf. Deut. 13:1–5. Nevertheless, the term fruit generally includes more than teachings. As used by John the Baptist, by Jesus himself, by Paul, etc., it also indicates a person's life or behavior, as a careful examination of the following passages will showLuke 3:8 14; John 15:8 10; Gal. 5:22–24; Eph. 5:9–12; Phil. 1:11; Col. 1:10; and James 3:17, [Greek] -2 _ftnref17 [Greek] From ever so many passages we learn that every tree that does not yield good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire, a text that occurs also in the teaching of John the Baptist. For explanation see on Matt. 3:10. Cf. Ps. 1; 37:20; 73:18–20; Prov. 29:1; Isa. 66:24; John 15:6. For the sake of emphasis Jesus repeats the important statement, By their fruits you will recognize them, (verses 16 and 20), as if to say, On your way to glory take careful note of these fruits, whatever they be, that you may not be deceived, and your progress may be assured. The End of the Way: Sayers versus Doers That the sermon is tending toward the conclusion is clear from the fact that Jesus begins to speak about that day (verse 22), a term which in the present connection (note verses 25, 27) is an obvious reference to the great day of the final judgment. Cf. Isa. 2:11, 17; Zeph. 1:15–18; Zech. 14:6; Mal. 3:17; Matt. 24:36; Mark 13:32; Luke 10:12; 21:34; I Thess. 5:4; II Thess. 2:3; II Tim. 1:12, 18; 4:8. The section, verses 21 27, consists of two brief paragraphs. The first of these (verses 21 23) draws a contrast between a.mere talkersor sayers,and b. doers. The talkers (implied in verse 21a) are those who say,Lord, Lord, without putting the Father's will into practice. The doers (verse 21b) are those who both say and do what is pleasing to God. The emphasis is clearly on the merely nominal confessors (described again in verses 22 23). The second paragraph (verses 24 27) fixes the attention on the same two groups, this time treating them in reversed order, and describing them as doersversus hearers. The reward that awaits the doers and the ruin in store for the mere hearers are pictured under the vivid symbolism of the house built on rock versus the one built on sand. The first paragraph begins as follows: 21 23. Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who puts into practice the will of my Father who (is) in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, in thy name did we not prophesy, and in thy name did we not cast out demons, and in thy name did we not perform many mighty works?That there is a connection between these words and the immediately preceding warning against false prophets (verses 15 20) is clear. Jesus had told his audience to be on guard against false prophets, those who, while telling lies, pretended to be speaking the truth. Did this mean that if a man proclaims the truth he thereby proves himself to be a true prophet? Not necessarily, says Jesus as it were. A man who speaks the truth but acts the lie is also in a sense a false prophet. Let every person therefore examine not only his neighbor but also himself. As has already been shown, the fruit that indicates whether a man is reliable or untrustworthy relates not only to doctrine but also to life. Thus with tremendous force the message is driven home to every heart. The people whom Jesus condemns are branded as false because in their case life and lip had not been in harmony. Their exclamation Lord, Lord had been deceitful. By means of it they also now, on this day of the Great Assize, present themselves as Christ's loyal servants; yet in their previous life they by their actions had constantly been claiming lordship for themselves (Mal. 1:6ff.; Luke 6:46). But on this day of the last judgment they discover that, whatever may have been their previous success in deceiving others, and perhaps while on earth even themselves,they cannot fool the Judge. From the kingdom in its final phase they are excluded. The lesson is clear: let everyone examine himself! What makes introspection important is that there will be many sayers who have not been doers. Jesus says they have not practiced the will of my Father.& See p. 215. As in Matt. 25:34 46so also here (7:22, 23) what happens on the judgment day is represented under the figure of a dialogue between those who have refused to carry out the will of the Father, on the one hand, and Jesus the Judge, on the other. Even before the verdict is pronounced those about to be doomed realize, as is clear from their words, that it is not going to be in their favor. In this connection it must be remembered that with respect to their souls the great majority of these people have already spent some time in hell. Cf. Ps. 73:12–19; Luke 16:23, 26; Acts [Greek] -2 _ftnref18 [Greek] So now that with soul and body they are arraigned before the Judge what else but further doom can they expect? Besides, the very manner in which theirranks, in sharp contrast with those of the righteous, have been arranged before the Great Tribunal confirms their fears (25:32, 33). Nevertheless they argue with the Judge. They address him as Lord, Lord. Trembling with fear they pronounce this title with awe and reverence, pouring into it far more meaning than they had ever done before the arrival of this crisis of deepest despair. Cf. Ps. 66:3; Mic. 7:17; Phil. 2:11. Three times, and in each case at the very beginning of the clause, as is clear from the original and from my translation, they appeal to the nameof Jesus, as if genuinely intimate union with Christ had been the conscious source both of their preaching and of their miracle-working power. Actuallythey had degraded that very name, having used it merely as a kind of magic formula. But now they appeal to their former use of it, desperately hoping that it may still prove the God-glorifying character of their former words and deeds and may even now secure for them a place in the kingdom of heaven. Cf. 25:11, 12. In their appeal these false prophets state that in the name of Jesus they had prophesied, driven out demons, and performed many mighty works. Jesus does not deny the claim that they had indeed represented themselves as his ambassadors and that in connection with the invocation of his name they had indeed performed astounding deeds. The question that divides commentators is, Were these deeds genuine products of supernatural power or were they fraudulent? (II Thess. 2:9, 10teaches that in connection with the coming of the lawless one there will be a mighty display of power, signs, and wonders, all of them false. <a href="/bible/parallel/ACT/19/13" class="green-link">Acts 19:13, 14shows that when the seven sons of Sceva, a Jew, tried to imitate Paul's exercise of miraculous power their attempt at exorcism failed miserably. There was also the similar failure of Egypt's magicians to reproduce the third plague, which failure, as many see it, sheds doubt on the genuine character of their earlier successesExod. 7:22, 8:7, 18, 19). Does not all this point to the possibility that also the demon expulsions and other mighty works of which the false prophets of Matt. 7:22boast had been nothing but sham? Have not investigations proved again and again that among false prophets illusions, trickery, sleight of hand, etc., abound, and that what is presented as genuine is very often nothing but deception? Populus vult decipi. All this, however, must not blind us to the fact that by God's permissionSatan at times exerts influence upon the physical (as well as upon the moral-spiritual) realm, as is clear from the book of Job (1:12; 2:6, 7). Is it not possible that, by God's power and/or permission, Egypt's magicians had been enabled to change rods into serpentsExod. 7:11, 12a ? Note, however, that in each case the one recorded in the book of Job and the one described in Exodus the end result was a victory for the Lord and for his people (Exod. 7:12b; Job 19:23 27; 42:5, 6). It is unnecessary to exclude the possibility that among the feats of which the false prophets are now boasting there had been some that were accomplished by the aid of supernatural power, whether divine or Satanic. Similarly, it is entirely possible (probableeven that the men whom Jesus condemns had actually spoken many a true word when they prophesied in the name of Jesus. Is it not true that the Lord at times makes use of the wicked to proclaim marvelous truthsNum. 23:8–10, 18 24; 24:5–9, 17; Rev. 2:14; Acts 16:16, 17)? Demas may have preached many a fine sermon (Col. 4:14; II Tim. 4:10). And was not even Judas Iscariot among those who were commissioned to heal the sick and to cast out demons (Matt. 10:1)? The reason why the men described here in Matt. 7:22are condemned is not that their preaching had been wrong and/or their miracles spurious but that they had not practiced what they preached! It is for that reason that the Lord continues: (And then will I say to them openly, Never have I known you; go away from me, you law despisers! Never, that is, not a single moment. Just what does Jesus mean when he says, Never have I known you? There is a knowledge of the mind. That according to his divine nature Jesus possessed this knowledge in unlimited degree is clear from John 1:47, 49; 2:24, 25; 21:17. It was exactly because he knew the false prophets so thoroughly that he was so completely justified in condemning them. There is, however, also a knowledge of the heart, that is, of electing love, acknowledgment, friendship, and fellowshipAmos 3:2; Nah. 1:7; John 10:14; I Cor. 8:3; Gal. 4:9; and II Tim. 2:19). The connection makes plain that it is this knowledge that is referred to in our passage. The false prophets speak as if Jesus had been their friend. Jesus replies, as it were, Not for a single moment have I acknowledged you as my own, or known you to be my friends. When he now forever expels the law-despisers, he is dooming them to eternal destruction, in body and soul, away from his loving presence (Matt. 25:46; Luke 13:27, 28; II Thess. 1:9). Before leaving this little paragraph (verses 21 23) attention should be called to the honors to which Jesus here lays claim. He is (Lordof the universe and all it contains, the sovereign ruler of all men and of all thingsPhil. 2:11; Rev. 17:14). Though, to be sure, it would be wrong to attach to the title Lord, Lord, uttered by the false prophets during the days of Christ's sojourn on earth (verse 21), the same exalted significance which they attach to it on the day of the final judgment (verse 22), nevertheless even in the former case it must have implied paying lip service to the fact that Jesus was their superior, the One to whom they owed honor and obedience. Again, though during Christ's sojourn on earth the term (kurios(Lord) with reference to him can hardly have attained to the fulness of meaning which it reached when applied by loyal disciples to the One exalted at the Father's right hand in gloryI Cor. 12:3), yet even when this appellative was used by the men described in 7:21 it must have meant more than simply SirJohn 12:21, with reference to Philip . When used by true disciples it meant no less than that Jesus was regarded, in an ever ascending measure, as the object of their faith, love, and [Greek] -2 _ftnref19 [Greek] Jesus also claims to be the One who is coming to judge all men. Note: Many will say to me in that day.& Then will I say to them. Cf. 25:31, 32; 26:64; 28:18; (John 5:22, 27; Philippians 2:9, 10. God through the Lamb, Jesus Christ, will be the JudgeRev. 20:11–15). Already here in 5:21, 22 hence, rather early in Christ's ministry we have a clear testimony to the effect that Jesus laid claim to nothing less than being the One to whom the entire world, believing and unbelieving, would be answerable. In a far more detailed manner this tremendous fact will be set forth in 25:31 ff. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTERS VIII IX Outline of Chapters 8 and 9 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him to Do 8:1 9:34 A Series of Early Miracles. Follow Me. Fasting versus Feasting 9:35–38 The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few 8:1 9:34 A Series of Early Miracles. Follow Me. Fasting versus Feasting 8 1 When he came down from the mountain large crowds accompanied him. 2 And, lo and behold, a leper came up to him, knelt before him, and said, Lord, if you will, you can cleanse me. 3 So he stretched out his hand, touched him, and said, I will; be cleansed; and immediately his leprosy was cleansed. 4 Jesus said to him, Be sure not to tell anybody, but go, show yourself to the priest, and, for a testimony to them, bring the offering Moses prescribed. 5 When he entered Capernaum a centurion came up to him asking for help, 6 saying, Lord, my servant-boy is at home, bed-ridden with paralysis, suffering terribly. 7 And he said to him, I will come and heal him. 8 But the centurion answered, Lord, I am not worthy for you to come under my roof, but simply speak the word and my boy will be cured. 9 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, Go, and he goes; to another, Come, and he comes; and to my slave, Do this, and he does it. 10 Now when Jesus heard this he was amazed and said to those accompanying him, I solemnly declare to you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith. 11 Many, I tell you, shall come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven, 12 but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into the most distant darkness. There shall be weeping and grinding of teeth. 13 And Jesus said to the centurion, Go home; as you believed, so let it be done for you. And his boy was cured that very moment. 14 And on coming into Peter's house Jesus saw Peter's mother-in-law laid up with fever. 15 So he touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she got up and began to wait on him. 16 And when evening had come they brought to him many who were demon-possessed, and he cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick; 17 in order that what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled: He has taken our infirmities upon himself, And carried our diseases. 18 Now when Jesus saw a crowd around him he gave orders to go over to the opposite side. 19 And a certain scribe came up and said, Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go. 20 Jesus said to him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air roosts, but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head. 21 Someone else, one of his disciples, said to him, Lord, allow me first to go home and bury my father. 22 But Jesus said to him, Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead. 23 When he stepped into the boat his disciples followed him. 24 Suddenly a violent storm shook the sea, so that the boat was being swamped by the waves; but he was sound asleep. 25 So they came and woke him up, saying, Lord, save (us), we're perishing. 26 He said to them, Why are you frightened, O men of little faith? Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a deep calm. 27 The men were amazed and said, What kind of person is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him? 28 And when he came to the opposite side, to the country of the Gadarenes, he was met by two demon-possessed men, coming out of the tombs. So violent were they that no one could pass by along that road. 29 All at once they started screaming, Why do you bother us, you Son of God? Did you come here to torture us before the appointed time? 30 Now at some distance away from them a large herd of pigs was feeding. 31 So the demons were begging him, saying, If you cast us out, allow us to enter that herd of pigs. 32 He said, Go ahead. So they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed headlong down the cliff into the sea and perished in the water. 33 The herdsmen fled, went away to the city, and reported everything, including what had happened to the demon-possessed. 34 Lo and behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus; and when they saw him they begged him to leave their district. 9 1 So he got into a boat, crossed over, and came to his own city. 2 And behold, they were bringing him a paralyzed man, lying on a bed. When Jesus saw their faith he said to the paralytic, Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven. 3 At this some of the scribes said within themselves, This fellow blasphemes. 4 Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, Why are you thinking evil in your hearts; 5 For, which is easier, to say, Your sins are forgiven, or to say, Get up and walk? 6 But in order that you may know that the Son of man has power on earth to forgive sins, (then he said to the paralytic) Get up, take up your bed, and go home. 7 And he got up and went home. 8 When the crowds saw this they were filled with awe, and glorified God for giving such power to men. 9 As he was passing on from there Jesus saw a man named Matthew, sitting at the tax office, and he said to him, Follow me. He got up and followed him. 10 In the house, as Jesus was reclining at table, what happens? Many tax collectors and (other) people of low reputation came and reclined at table with him and his disciples. 11 The Pharisees took notice of this, and said to his disciples, Why is it that your teacher is eating with tax collectors and sinners? 12 When he heard this he said, It is not those who are healthy that need a doctor but those who are ill. 13 Go and learn what is meant by: I desire mercy and not sacrifice. For I did not come to call righteous people but sinners. 14 Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, Why is it that we and the Pharisees fast often, but your disciples do not fast? 15 Jesus said to them, As long as the bridegroom is with them is it possible for the bridegroom's attendants to be mourning? But days will arrive when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them. Then they shall fast. 16 No one puts a patch, made of a piece of new cloth, on an old garment, for then the patch pulls away from the garment, and a worse tear results. 17 Nor is new wine poured into old wine-skins; otherwise the wine-skins burst, the wine is spilled, and the skins are ruined; but new wine is poured into fresh wine-skins, and both are preserved. 18 While he was still saying these things look, a ruler came, knelt before him, and said, My daughter has just died, but come, lay your hand upon her, and she will live. 19 At once Jesus began to follow him, and so did his disciples. 20 Immediately a woman who had suffered from hemorrhages for twelve years, having come from behind, touched the tassel of his garment; 21 for she said within herself, If I but touch his garment I shall get well. 22 But Jesus turned, saw her, and said, Take courage, daughter; your faith has made you well. Instantly the woman recovered. 23 And when Jesus came to the ruler's house and saw the flute-players and the noisy crowd 24 he said Go away, for the girl is not dead but asleep. But they were laughing in his face. 25 When the crowd had been expelled he entered and took her by the hand, and the girl got up. 26 The news about this spread throughout that entire region. 27 And as Jesus passed on from there, two blind men followed him, constantly crying out, Take pity on us, Son of David. 28 And when he had gone inside the house the blind men came up to him, and Jesus said to them, Do you believe that I am able to do this? They said to him, Yes, Lord. 29 Then he touched their eyes and said, According to your faith let it be done for you 30 And their eyes were opened. And Jesus sternly warned them saying, See that no one finds out! 31 But when they had departed they spread the news about him throughout that entire region. 32 As they were departing there was brought to him a demon-possessed man who was unable to speak. 33 When the demon had been cast out the dumb man spoke. The crowd was filled with amazement and said, Never has anything like this been seen in Israel. 34 The Pharisees, however, were saying, By the prince of the demons he casts out the demons. 8:1 9:34 A Series of Early Miracles. Follow Me. Fasting versus Feasting Cf. Matthew Mark Luke 8:1; cf. 7:29 8:2–4 1:40–45 5:12–16 8:5–13 7:1–10 8:14–17 1:29–34 4:38–41 8:18, 23 27 4:35–41 8:22–25 8:19–22 9:57–62 8:28–34; 9:1 5:1–20 8:26–39 9:2–26 2:1–22; 5:21–43 5:17–39; 8:40–56 subdivided: subdivided subdivided: 9:2–8 2:1–12 5:17–26 9:9–13 2:13–17 5:27–32 9:14–17 2:18–22 5:33–39 9:18–26 5:21–43 8:40–56 9:27–34 subdivided: 9:27–31 9:32–34 The arrangement of Matthew's material, so that a specimen of the preaching of Jesus (chaps. 5 7) is here followed by a group of miracle narratives, has already been examined. See pp. 26–28. Matthew's arrangement, accordingly, is topical rather than chronological. Room must be left for the possibility that while 8:2–4; 8:14–17; and 9:2–13 refer to events that preceded the Sermon on the Mount, 8:5–13; 8:18 19:1; and 9:14 ff. record what happened afterward. That 4:16 is indeed true, so that those who sat in darkness saw a great light, has been shown in the Sermon on the Mount; and cf. 4:23a. That this light shone also in deeds was indicated in 4:23b 25, and will now be proved in greater detail. A Leper Cleansed Matthew begins this section as follows: 8:1. When he came down from the mountain large crowds accompanied him. The state of astonishment recorded in the immediately preceding verses (7:28, 29) accounts for the fact that the people did not immediately forsake Jesus when the sermon was ended. When he descended from the mountain they continued to follow and surround him, and may well have been joined by others who had not heard him speak; note the plural: large crowds. He was now on his way to Capernaum (Luke 7:1). However, exactly when and where the miracle, about to be studied, occurred is not stated in the Gospels, not even in (Mark 1:40or in Luke 5:12. It is enough for us to know that this deed of sympathy and power was not done in a cornerJohn 11:47; Acts 4:16; 26:26). There were ever so many eye-witnesses. Continued: 2. And, lo and behold, a leper came up to him knelt before him, and said, Lord, if you will, you can cleanse me. The disease which we today call leprosy generally begins with pain in certain areas of the body. Numbness follows. Soon the skin in such spots loses its original color. It gets to be thick, glossy, and scaly. In fact, the affliction is called leprosy because it makes the skin scaly, the Greek word lepos or lepis meaning scale.^[365] As the sickness progresses, the thickened spots become dirty sores and ulcers, due to poor blood supply. The skin, especially around the eyes and ears, begins to bunch, with deep furrows between the swellings, so that the face of the afflicted individual begins to resemble that of a lion. Fingers drop off or are absorbed; toes are affected similarly. Eyebrows and eyelashes drop out. By this time one can see that the person in this pitiable condition is a leper. By a touch of the finger one can also feel it. One can even smell it, for the leper emits a very unpleasant odor. Moreover, in view of the fact that the disease-producing agent frequently also attacks the larynx, the leper's voice acquires a grating quality. His throat becomes hoarse, and you can now not only feel, see, and smell the leper, but you can hear his rasping voice. And if you stay with him for some time, you even imagine a peculiar taste in your mouth, probably due to the odor. All the senses of the well person are engaged in the detection of the leper. ^[366] The Old Testament references to leprosy can be summarized as follows: Exod. 4:6, 7: The hand of Moses, placed in his bosom, becomes leprous, as is evident when it is taken out. When the action is repeated, the leprosy has disappeared. This is a sign for the Egyptians. Lev. 13 (: Method described whereby the priest can detect leprosy. Ordinance for the isolation of the leperLev. 13:46; cf. Num. 5:1–4; II Kings 15:5; and II Chron. 26:21). Lev. 14: Offerings prescribed in connection with the cleansing of the leper. Num. 12:10: Miriam's effrontery punished with leprosy. See also 12:13–15. Deut. 24:8, 9: The previous commandments respecting leprosy reaffirmed, with reminder of Miriam's punishment. II Sam. 3:29: David's curse on the house of Joab, including the stipulation May it never be without a leper. II Kings 5(especially verses 14 and 27): Naaman cured of his leprosy; Gehazi punished with it. II Kings 7: The four lepers of Samaria: their peculiar situation, courageous resolution, surprising discovery, and exemplary response to duty. II Chron. 26:19–23 (II Kings 15:5): Uzziah follows Miriam's example, and is similarly punished. As some see it, the leprosy mentioned in the Old Testament is not equivalent to what today is called leprosy. Others disagree. Dr. Huizenga, basing his conclusion upon a detailed study of all the pertinent biblical material and on his own experience with lepers, states: I believe that Moses describes a definite disease a disease which corresponds to what we today call leprosy, although the symptoms may not be the same. ^[367] The New Testament references are as follows: The present passage, (Matt. 8:1 4Mark 1:40 45; Luke 5:12 16). Matt. 10:8: Cleanse the lepers. Matt. 11:5 (Luke 7:22): The lepers are cleansed. Luke 4:27: There were many lepers in Israel &none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian. Luke 17:11 19: The ten Samaritan lepers who were cleansed, only one of whom returned to give thanks. Matt. 26:6–13 (Mark 14:3 9): Jesus is anointed at the home of Simon the (former) leper. Is leprosy contageous? The authorities consulted agree that leprosy is not very contageous. Many missionaries have worked among lepers for years and have never been infected with this dread disease. There are exceptions, however. The contageous character of leprosy is confirmed by a. the fact that it frequently happens that the Japanese baby who is carried in a sling on its mother's back, in such a manner that his forehead is in habitual contact with the nape of its mother's neck, catches the disease from the infected parent, the first evidence of the transmission appearing on the infant's forehead; and b. the well attested gradual spread of the scourge once it has entered a region. As Dr. McMillen sees it, this infectuous character of leprosy shows the wisdom of the legislation found in Lev. 13, according to which the leper was to be isolated from the community.^[368] Nevertheless, it is not the contageous character of leprosy that is emphasized in Scripture but rather the fact that it renders the afflicted person ceremonially unclean and shuts him off from social and religious contact with his people. Can leprosy be cured? The fact that in ancient times it was regarded as virtually incurable is confirmed by the following incident: Syria's ruler sent a letter to Israel's king, in which he said, When this letter reaches you, know that I have sent to you Naaman my servant, that you may heal him of his leprosy. The result? Israel's king tore his clothes and exclaimed, Am I God, who can kill or restore to life, that this fellow has sent a man to me that I may cure him of his leprosy? (II Kings 5:7). Though today it is admitted by specialists in this field that there are sporadic cases in which persons afflicted with the dread disease recover without treatment, and though in modern times sulfone and even newer drugs have had favorable results, the fact remains that until recent times leprosy was generally regarded as an incurable affliction. The rabbis considered the healing of a leper as difficult as raising the dead. Yet, God is able to cleanse the leper, as Num. 12:13–15; II Kings 5:14; Matt. 8:2 4(and parallels); 11:5; Luke 7:22; and 17:11–19 clearly prove; but at the moment when Jesus was confronted with the leper mentioned in our passage, Matt. 8:2–4, the healings recorded in the New Testament had not yet occurred, and the Old Testament cures were known to have been very few indeed. All in all, therefore, from a purely human standpoint the prospects did not look at all favorable. Not only this, but a leper might well shrink from the very suggestion of even approaching someone for help, for leprosy was by most people regarded with superstitious horror, as it is also today. There is one fact that makes leprosy different from all other diseases, and that is the social stigma connected with it.& This mark of infamy or disgrace &sets its victims apart from all other people. I have found this to be universally true as I have traveled around the world ferretting out these unfortunates from their hiding places.& Everywhere the social stigma of leprosy is the same. ^[369] From (Job 4:7; 8:20; 11:6; 22:5–10; Luke 13:1 5; and John 9:2we gather that the erroneous but almost universal notionActs 28:4) according to which a bitterly afflicted person must be notoriously wicked, a superstition refuted by Jesus, was prevalent also among the Jews. We can well imagine, therefore, that if the leper, mentioned here in (Matt. 8:2–4, should have attempted to approach the average Jew, the latter, unwilling to become ceremonially unclean or to be seen near an individual upon whom the dreadful curse of the Almighty was thought to rest, would have rushed for shelter, meanwhile drawing the folds of his outer garment together in order not to become contaminated. Most lepers, accordingly, would have despaired of ever being cleansed. Even those few who dared to hope would have stood afar offLuke 17:12) as they cried out for help. But, lo and behold, ^[370] this leper steps right up to Jesus, drops to his knees right in front of him, and, even more humbly, falls on his face (Luke 5:12), putting his whole soul into this act of reverence and adoration.^[371] As he does this he says, Lord, if you will, you can cleanse me. He is sure of Christ's power to heal, to heal even a leper, in fact a man full of leprosy (Luke 5:12), that is, afflicted with leprosy in a very advanced stage! As to the Master's will to effect the cure, to this will the leper submits himself completely. After all, Jesus knows what is best. Naturally, he fervently hopes that the One before whom he is prostrating himself will indeed rid him of this dreadful illness. His statement, in the form of a confession of faith, implies an urgent request. Where did he get this trust in the Savior? Is it not altogether probable that he had heard about the earlier miracles performed in this general region (Matt. 4:23, 24; Mark 1:21 32, 39; Luke 4:31 41; and John 2:1 11; 4:46–54)? The Lord had applied this knowledge to his heart. Whether or not the leper already saw, however faintly, that by means of Christ's words and miracles Messianic prophecies were being fulfilled we do not know. It should suffice to honor his memory by stating that his touching confidence in the power of Jesus to heal even him, whose condition was probably by everybody else considered to be hopeless, should serve as a model for all. We may be sure that when this man called Jesus Lord (see on 7:21–23), he meant far more than Sir. Continued: 3. So he [Jesus] stretched out his hand, touched him, and said, I will; be cleansed. Repeatedly the Gospels speak about the healing touch of Christ's hand (Luke 7:14; 22:51). Sometimes the sick would themselves touch Jesus (Matt. 9:20–22; 14:36). Either way the afflicted ones were healed. Evidently in connection with such physical contact healing power issued from the Savior and was transmitted to the person in need of it (Mark 5:30; Luke 8:46). This, however, was no magic! The healing power did not originate in his fingers or his garment. It came straight from the divine and human Jesus, from his almighty will and infinitely sympathetic heart. There was healing power in that touch because he was, and is, touched with the feeling of our infirmities (Heb. 4:15). It should not escape the reader that according to Mark 1:41Jesus was moved with compassion when he stretched out his hand and touched the leper. The leper's need and faith found an immediate response in the Savior's eagerness to help. And this readiness was one in which his power and his love embraced each other. It is sometimes said that between the words of the leper and those of Jesus there is perfect correspondence. This is correct in the sense that the two statements do not clash but are in full harmony, revealing even a partial identity of phraseology. One could also say, however, that the words of the Lord excel mere correspondence. To be sure, the leper's you can cleanse me is answered by Christ's I can, indeed! implied in his act of healing. But the leper's if you will is superseded by the Master's swift and splendid I will. Here the will joins the power, and the subtraction of if conjoined with the addition of Be cleansed transforms a condition of hideous disease into one of hardy health. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. The restoration was immediate and complete. The forehead, the eyes with brows and lashes, the skin, the mucous membrane of nose and throat, the fingers and toes, whatever parts of the body had been infected and damaged by the leprosy bacillus (mycobacterium leprae) were in an instant completely restored! Better still: the door of thorough social, cultic, and religious restoration was opened wide for this man, as is shown by what follows, namely, verse. 4. Jesus said to him, Be sure not to tell anybody, but go, show yourself to the priest, and, for a testimony to them, bring the offering Moses prescribed. What was the reason for the restraint placed on this man? The context does not plainly state the reason. Wrede's very speculative Messianic secret idea, discussed and refuted earlier (see pp. 60, 61), can be dismissed without any further consideration. The following suggested reasons for commanding the cleansed leper to be silent deserve mention: a. The man is ordered to rush to the temple at Jerusalem, so that an examination by the priesthood, in accordance with the laws of MosesLev. 14, as noted above , can at once be conducted, and he can be pronounced cured of his leprosy and qualified to bring the required offerings. When it is subsequently discovered by the priests that it was Jesus who had healed this man, the clean bill of health already given to him will serve as a testimony regarding Christ's respect for the Mosaic law (Matt. 5:17) and regarding his love and power employed for the benefit of those in need. By means of this testimony the priests who nevertheless reject him will be condemning themselves, for such rejection will be in conflict with the evidence based on their own findings. This presupposes, of course, that as soon as the leper was healed by Jesus he must immediately go to Jerusalem. He must not delay, for in that case the news that it was Jesus who had restored him to health might reach the priests before the former leper himself did, with the result that the Jerusalem hierarchy, hating Jesus, would probably refuse to pronounce the applicant cleansed. Accordingly, the leper must not take any time to first tell the neighbors, etc., about the miracle.^[372] b. Jesus must not become known chiefly as a miracle-worker, a mere thaumaturgist, but rather as the Savior from sin.^[373] c. Too much publicity with reference to Christ's miracle-working power would have so fanned the flames of enthusiasm about him as a potential Deliverer from the Roman yoke that the opposition and envy roused by such widespread attention might have brought his public ministry to an untimely end.^[374] d. It would not have been proper for Jesus, during the days of his humiliation, to encourage widespread acclaim.^[375] The reason why it is so hard to choose between these possibilities is not that they are so bad or unreasonable, but rather the opposite. Theory a. looks like an ingenious attempt to honor the context. Theory b. is in line with the fact that again and again Jesus himself rebuked the yearning for signs and miraclesMatt. 16:1ff.; Luke 4:23ff., John 4:48; etc. . Theory c. agrees with the fact that Jesus was indeed very conscious of the fact that he had been appointed to carry out the work which his Father had given him to do, every detail of which task had been definitely marked off in the eternal decree, so that for each act there was a stipulated momentJohn 2:4; 7:6, 8; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23; 13:1; and 17:1 . And theory d. can and does appeal to Matt. 12:15–21. It is possible that any one of these considerations (whether a or b or c or d) may have been the one Jesus had in mind when he said, Be sure not to tell anybody, etc. Is it not also possible that a combination of two or more of the reasons given, and perhaps even others besides, prompted him to say it? The man's disobedience to the command, though understandable, cannot be condoned. Its results for Christ are noted. But this is Marcan material (Luke 5:15), and requires no discussion in the present connection. A Centurion's Servant Healed The record of this miracle is found in Matt. 8:5 13and Luke 7:1 10. It should not be confused with the event reported in John 4:46 54. That story has to do with a royal officer's son; this one with a centurion's servant. John 4:46 54places Jesus in Cana; in Matt. 8:5ff. he is entering Capernaum. The supplicant mentioned in the former could not immediately conceive of Jesus power to heal at a distance; the centurion himself took the initiative in declaring that Jesus had this power. There are also several important differences between the miracle recorded here in (Matt. 8:5 13and the one covered in the immediately preceding paragraph. The leper was able to come to Jesus, not so the paralytic. His master intercedes for him. In both cases the main interest centers in Jesus, in what he says and does. As to focus of interest, next in order in the former story is the afflicted one himself; in the latter, the afflicted person's master. The former was living under the regime of the JewsMatt. 8:4). The latter, that is the centurion, was a Gentile by race, an officer in the Roman army of occupation. The former was healed by Christ's word plus the touch of his hand; the centurion's servant, solely by the word of power. We cannot say that everything reported in the Gospels regarding the leper is favorable (Mark 1:45); the centurion, on the contrary, receives nothing but exuberant praise. Finally, verses 2 4 end with a command addressed to the healed leper; verses 5 13, with a prediction regarding the salvation of many Gentiles versus the rejection of a host of Jews, and with the mention of Christ's word and act of healing. The present paragraph opens as follows: 5, 6. When he entered Capernaum a centurion came up to him asking for help, saying, Lord, my servant-boy is at home, bed-ridden with paralysis, suffering terribly. The centurion was an officer in the pay of Herod Antipas, whom we have met before (see pp. 189, 240). This officer had heard what Jesus had done for others (Luke 7:3). So now he pleads that the same mercy be shown to his own slave (Luke 7:2), whom he affectionately calls my boy. ^[376] The latter's condition was indeed deplorable. Being bed-ridden with paralysis, he was suffering terribly, fearfully tortured. Was this a case of progressive paralysis with muscular spasms dangerously affecting his respiratory system, bringing him to the very portals of death, as Luke suggests? The centurion's heart was in his plea, for the boy was dear to him. The words of the officer amounted to a statement rather than a request. It was a statement describing the lad's condition, and trustfully leaving the disposition in the hands of Jesus. Nevertheless, implied was a request for help: He came up to him asking for help. ^[377] According to Matthew it was the centurion himself who informed Jesus about his need. Luke, on the other hand, says that the officer sent some elders of the Jews with this request. This involves no contradiction, for it was through these elders that the centurion's plea was made known to Jesus. When Matt. 27:26reports that Pilate scourged Jesus this does not mean that the governor applied the scourge with his own hand. Even today we frequently make use of abbreviated diction. See N.T.C. on the Gospel according to John, Vol. I, p. 206. However, according to Luke's account (7:4, 5) the elders were more than mere transmitters of a message. As, through them, the centurion was interceding for his boy, so the elders, in turn were interceding for the centurion. They said, He is worthy to receive this favor from you, for he loves our nation, and he built the synagogue for us. The Lord's answer was all that anyone could have wished, and far more than the centurion had dared to expect. It was not, Why did you wait so long? Nor, Since you represent the oppressor I can do nothing for you. Nor even, I will see what I can do. It was the thrilling, unequivocal, concise, and positive assurance found in the next verse: 7. And he said to him, I will come and heal him. According to the original that pronoun I is very emphatic, as if to say, I myself, I without any doubt. Continued: 8, 9. But the centurion answered, Lord, I am not worthy for you to come under my roof, but simply speak the word and my boy will be cured. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, Go, and he goes; to another, Come, and he comes; and to my slave, Do this, and he does it. He is worthy, the elders had said. But the centurion, on hearing Christ's answer, becomes overwhelmed with the sense of unworthiness. After all, who is he in comparison with this Exalted One, this personal embodiment of majestic authority, all-embrasive power, and condescending love, a love that bridges every chasm and overleaps every obstacle of race, nationality, class, and culture? Who is he to cause this kind Master to commit an act that would put him in conflict with the time-honored custom of his own people, according to which a Jew does not enter the house of a Gentile lest he be defiled (John 18:28; Acts 10:28; 11:2, 3)? Let Jesus therefore not enter the house nor even approach too closely but let him simply speak the word of healing. That is all that will be necessary to bring about a complete cure. The centurion reasons: If, though I am but a military officer with very limited authority and power, an officer who must himself obey his superiors, even my orders are immediately carried out by both soldier and slave, then certainly he, this Great One, exercising independent authority and holding the universe in his all-powerful grasp, can command, and whatever it is that he desires will be done. When he says Go, sickness will go, and when he says, Come, health will arrive. Here, again, the fact that according to Luke this message was not spoken to Jesus directly but was on the Lord's approach conveyed to him by the centurion's friends, can, with Augustine and many after him, be explained as in the previous instance; see above, on verses 5 and 6; compare Matt. 8:5with Luke 7:3, and then Matt. 8:8with Luke 7:6. We are justified, perhaps, in assuming that the centurion, having gone outside, and having seen Jesus approaching, hurriedly sent his friends to him. The message was in any case the centurion's own answer to Jesus, which is what both Matthew and Luke are saying.^[378] 10. Now when Jesus heard this he was amazed and said to those accompanying him, I solemnly declare to you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith. Jesus was astonished, and for a reason contrary to that mentioned in (Mark 6:6. The words I solemnly declare (see on 5:18) are a fitting introduction to the expression of this amazement. To the large crowds that accompanied him (see verse 1), including undoubtedly the centurion's friends just now arrivedLuke 7:6), he revealed that the faith of this man of Gentile origin surpassed in excellence anything he had found even among the Jews, in spite of the latter's special privileges. To be sure, also in Israel Jesus had found faith (Matt. 4:18–22; 5:1–16; 7:24, 25), but not a combination in one person of a love so affectionate, a considerateness so thoughtful, an insight so penetrating, a humility so outstanding, and a trust so unlimited. In many cases was not what Jesus had found little faith (6:30)? It had taken the court officer whose story is told in John 4:46 54a long time to grasp the fact that Jesus was able to heal even at a distance. The centurion of Matt. 8:5 13grasped this fact immediately! As Jesus sees it, this faith of the centurion affords a foreglimpse of events that are to occur in the world of the Gentiles as contrasted with that of Israel. He says, 11, 12. Many, I tell you, shall come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven, but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into the most distant darkness. As was pointed out earlier (see pp. 91, 92, 98, 191), the Gospel of Matthew has a braod missionary purpose. The evangelization of all the nations is one of its outstanding objectives. The passage now under discussion fits into this scheme. The fact that many shall come from east and west, that is, from everywhere, to share the blessings of salvation with the patriarchs, in other words that the church will be extended among the Gentiles, was predicted by the prophets. Again and again they dwelt on this theme (Isa. 2:2, 3; 11:10; 45:6; 49:6, 12; 54:1–3; 59:19; Jer. 3:18; 31:34; Hos. 1:9, 10; 2:23; Amos 9:11ff.; Mic. 4:1, 2; and Mal. 1:11). The blessings of salvation in which all the saved shall share are here pictured under the symbolism of together reclining (according to the prevailing custom) on couches at a table loaded with food, enjoying sweet fellowship with each other and with the host, in a spacious banqueting hall flooded with light. See also Ps. 23:5; Prov. 9:1–5; Isa. 25:6; Matt. 22:1ff; 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 14:15; Rev. 3:20; 19:9, 17. It is not surprising that here, as so often in Scripture, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are mentioned in one breath, for it was to them that the promises had been made. Cf. Gen. 28:13; 32:9; 48:16; 50:24; Exod. 3:16; 6:3; 32:13; Deut. 1:8; 9:5, 27; 29:13; 30:20; I Chron. 29:18; Matt. 22:32, Mark 12:26; Acts 3:13; 7:32. This sharing of the Gentiles in the blessings of the Jews started to happen already during the old dispensation (I Kings 8:41–43; 10:9; Jer. 38:7–12; 39:16–18), has been taking place on a much larger scale during the entire new dispensation, and will become evident especially when the countless multitude gathered out of every nation will be standing before the throne (Rev. 7:9). On the other hand, the sons of the kingdom, that is, the Jews, called thus because of the many kingdom privileges they had enjoyed (Ps. 147:20; Isa. 63:8, 9; Amos 3:2; Rom. 9:4; Eph. 2:12), shall be cast into the most distant darkness, that is, symbolically speaking, far away from the banqueting hall flooded with light. Reason: see (Luke 12:47, 48. O(pportunity) plus A(bility) = R(esponsibility). The large scale rejection of Christ by the Jews is clear from ScriptureMatt. 27:25; John 1:11; I Thess. 2:14–16; and Rev. 2:9). This does not mean that God is finished with the Jews. Was not this very prediction (Matt. 8:11, 12) intended to win also them? The Lord has his elect remnant among them as well as among other nations and peoples (Rom. 11:1–5). Salvation is for all those who accept the Lord Jesus Christ by personal, living faith. It has nothing to do with nationality or race. In line with (Matt. 8:11, 12are the following passages: John 3:16; Rom. 10:12, 13; I Cor. 7:19; Gal. 3:9, 29; Eph. 2:14, 18; Col. 3:11; and I Peter 2:9. Abraham is the father of all believers. National origin makes no differenceRom. 4:11, 12).^[379] The punishment for the highly privileged rejectors of the King who had a special claim on them is further emphasized by the words: There shall be weeping and grinding of teeth. As to this weeping: it is not here a shedding of tears because of true sorrow for the sins one has committed (Matt. 26:75; Mark 14:72; Luke 7:38; cf. II Chron. 34:27), or for transgressions by means of which others have dishonored God (Ps. 119:136; II Cor. 2:4; Phil. 3:18). Nor does it occur because of impending separation from dear ones (Acts 20:37, 38), or because of being the object of unjust treatment by other people (I Sam. 1:7, 8). It is not a result of wounded pride because of not getting one's way (I Kings 21:5–7). The present weeping is not brought about by temporal calamity (Gen. 27:38; Lam. 1:16), by bereavement (Deut. 34:8; II Sam. 1:17ff.; Matt. 2:18), or by deep yearning and sympathy (Gen. 21:16, 17; 43:30). As far as God's people are concerned, there will come a day when every tear will have been wiped away (Isa. 65:19; Rev. 7:17; 18:15, 19). The tears of which Jesus speaks here in Matt. 8:12are those of inconsolable, never-ending wretchedness, and utter, everlasting hopelessness. The accompanying grinding or gnashing of teethLuke 13:28; occurring, however, in a different context denotes excruciating pain and frenzied anger. This grinding of teeth, too, will never come to an end or cease (Dan. 12:2; Matt. 3:12; 18:8; 25:46; Mark 9:43, 48; Luke 3:17; Jude 6, 7; and Rev. 14:9–11).^[380] The words of verses 10 12 were meant not only for the centurion but for all centurion, his friends, the entire accompanying multitude in order that all might rivet their main attention on a matter far more important than physical healing, namely, on being saved and living lives to the glory of God. What now follows is meant specifically for the centurion: 13. And Jesus said to the centurion, Go home; as you believed, so let it be done for you. The officer had said that it would not be necessary for Jesus to enter his home. As he believed, so it is done, that is, Jesus does not enter his home. The centurion himself, who, let us assume, from outside his home had seen Jesus approaching, is told to re-enter, and the friends, too, must return. And his boy was cured that very moment. Literally, from that hour, but, as is clearly evident from Luke 7:6, 10, it did not take the friends an hour to return to the nearby home, and upon their arrival they found the dear servant-boy already recovered! Such a context justifies the rendering from that very moment. The Healing of Peter's Mother-in-law and of Many Others Not only the centurion but Peter too was now living in Capernaum (see on 4:18–20). The miracle that was performed in his home occurred on a sabbath, after a synagogue service (Mark 1:21, 29). One receives the impression that what is recorded here in Matt. 8:14–17; Mark 1:29 34; and Luke 4:38 41(the healing of Peter's mother-in-law, etc.) and what is related in the immediately preceding paragraph, namely, in Matt. 8:5–13; and Luke 7:1 10(the healing of the centurion's servant) took place not very far apart in time, but see also p. 387. Matthew writes: 14. And on coming into Peter's house Jesus saw Peter's mother-in-law laid up with fever. Peter was a married man. At a later period his wife accompanied him on his evangelistic journeys (I Cor. 9:5). During Christ's earthly ministry Peter's wife's mother was living with her daughter and son-in-law. Peter's brother Andrew was also living in that same house, as Mark informs us. That same evangelist also tells us that James and John were with Jesus when he now entered that home. Had the three been invited for dinner?^[381] This is possible, though not stated in the text. Besides, is it not also possible that the three had come to make a sick-call (Luke 4:38) and/or a customary social call on friends with whom they were closely associated? Matt. 8:15b does not rule out these possibilities, for the hospitality practiced in this region and the great blessing of healing about to be bestowed upon this home would certainly explain such cordial attention, even apart from any definite dinner invitation. However this may have been, Jesus saw that Peter's mother-in-law was laid up with fever. Though Peter was a disciple, and we may well assume that all the others who dwelt in this home were also among the Lord's friends (Andrew, too, being one of The Twelve), affliction had been allowed to enter. Yes, in God's providence believers, too, become ill (II Kings 13:14; Hezekiah, II Kings 20:1; Dorcas, Acts 9:36, 37; Paul, Gal. 4:13; Epaphroditus, Phil. 2:25–27; Timothy, I Tim. 5:23; Trophimus, II Tim. 4:20). They even die! The passage, With his stripes we are healed, does not mean that they have been exempted from the infirmities of the flesh. Often, to be sure, it pleases God to heal them, a blessing which frequently arrives in answer to prayer (James 5:14, 15). But even if God's will be otherwise, theirs is ever the comfort of such passages as Ps. 23; 27; 42; John 14:1 3; Rom. 8:35–39; Phil. 4:4–7; II Tim. 4:6–8; Heb. 4:16; 12:6, to mention only a few among many references. In view of the many sacrifices and acts of self-denial implied in Christian service, as Peter himself states (Matt. 19:27), it must have been a real comfort for Peter's wife that her mother was living with her. But now mother is sick, very sick, indeed. Luke, the physician, informs us that she was suffering with a severe attack of fever. Jesus saw her thus laid up, for his help had been called in (Mark 1:30; Luke 4:38). Continued: 15. So he touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she got up and began to wait on him. A mere touch of the hand was all that was necessary, but what a power and what a sympathy there was in that touch (see on 8:3)! So immediate and complete was her recovery that she not only got up but started to wait on the Healer. What a blessing and what a joy, not only for her, but for all concerned! Sabbath over, and the news of healing, both in the synagogue (Mark 1:21 28) and in the house, having spread, people came from all around to see Jesus: 16. And when evening had come they brought to him many who were demon-possessed, and he cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick. This reminds us of 4:23, 24. The demon-possessed were cleansed, the evil spirits that were in control over them being driven out by Christ's word of power. Was not this a sign that the kingdom of God was asserting its claims in a very special way, that Satan's power was being curtailed now as never before, that is, that the strong man was being bound? See Matt. 12:29; Luke 10:18; Rev. 20:2, 3. Note also: all the sick. No matter what the sickness and no matter how severe or, humanly speaking, incurable or terminal, all were healed. In this work of casting out demons and healing the sick, Matthew, by divine inspiration, sees a fulfilment of Isaiah 53:4, which he quotes not according to the Septuagint ( He bears our sins, etc.) but more faithfully according to the sense of the Hebrew original: 17. in order that what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled: He has taken our infirmities upon himself, And carried our diseases. Isaiah had been lifted to the very top of the mountain of prophetic vision, and uttered things which transcended his own understanding. He stood, as it were on Calvary, and pictured the substitutionary suffering of Christ as if it had already occurred. It was voluntary suffering. Apart from this voluntary character it would have had no atoning value. So Isaiah said: Surely, our diseases he has borne, and our pains [or: sorrows] he has carried. On the surface it might seem as if Isaiah and Matthew were talking about two different matters, for the New Testament evangelist has just been speaking about Christ as the One who delivered people from their sicknesses and sorrows; whereas, on the other hand, the royal prophet of the Old Testament describes the Suffering Servant as the One who takes these burdens upon himself. Actually, however, there is no difference, because it is exactly by means of the latter that the former is accomplished. The question might be asked, however, In what sense is it true that Jesus took the infirmities and diseases upon himself, and thus off the shoulders of those whom he befriended? Certainly not in the sense that when, for example, he healed a sick person he himself became afflicted with that very sickness. The true answer can be reached only by examining what Scripture itself says about this. Two things stand out: a. He did so by means of his deep sympathy or compassion, thus entering fully and personally into the sorrows of those whom he came to rescue. Again and again this fact is mentioned. Jesus healed because he pitied. See the following passages: (Matt. 9:36; 14:14; 20:34; Mark 1:41; 5:19; cf. 6:34; Luke 7:13. This note of compassion enters even into his parablesMatt. 18:27; Luke 10:33; 15:20–24, 31, 32). At least just as important is b. He did it by means of his vicarious suffering for sin, which and this, too, he felt very deeply was the root of every ill, and dishonored his Father. Thus whenever he saw sickness or distress he experienced Calvary, his own Calvary, his own bitter, vicarious suffering throughout his life on earth but especially on the cross. That is why it was not easy for him to heal (Mark 2:9; Matt. 9:5). That also accounts for the fact that at the tomb of Lazarus he was deeply moved and agitated in the spirit. It was in this twofold sense that the Lord took our infirmities upon himself and carried our diseases. Our physical afflictions must never be separated from that without which they never would have occurred, namely, our sins. Note how very closely the Isa. 53:4, 5context connects these two; for verse 4 Surely, our diseases he has borne.& is immediately followed by: He was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities. Implications of Discipleship At this point there is an interruption in the series of miracles which Matthew is recording. It is, however, hardly comparable to the brief, charming interlude between two dramatic acts in a play, a kind of pleasant intermezzo to relieve tenseness. On the contrary, the theme of suffering and self-denial, clearly implied in verse 17 as has been shown, is underscored here in verses 18 22. Although Jesus himself is the only one who suffers vicariously, his disciples must also suffer, and this for the very reason that they identify themselves with him and his cause (John 15:20). Their path is not a bed of roses, and this must be well understood. It is clear therefore that there is a rather close material connection between the little paragraph about to be studied and the immediately preceding passage. There is also a connection between verses 18 22, on the one hand, and verse 23, on the other, a chronological link, for a comparison between verse 18 and verse 23 shows that the events with reference to the scribe (verse 19) and the disciple of Jesus (verse 21) immediately precede the story of the violent storm (verses 24 ff.). 18. Now when Jesus saw a crowd around him he gave orders to go over to the opposite side. Again a large crowd surrounds Jesus. It is evening, though, as the context of Mark 4:35makes clear, not the evening mentioned in Matt. 8:16. Chronologically Matt. 8:18 22links with the following, not with the immediately preceding context. Jesus was often surrounded by crowds. Often, too, he would after a while dismiss those multitudes. Why was this? Being not only thoroughly divine but also thoroughly human, he needed time for prayer, for rest, and for sleep. So did his disciples (Mark 6:31). Besides, the enthusiasm of the crowds must not reach too high a pitch too early (see above, on 8:4). The order to cross over has been given, namely, to the disciples (Mark 4:35). Just previous to departure, however, two men^[382] come up to Jesus. They desire to join the inner circle of his disciples, and to accompany the Master on all his journeys. As to the first of these two we read: 19. And a certain scribe came up and said, Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go. A remarkable declaration indeed, especially as coming from a scribe, a member of a group generally hostile to Jesus (5:20; 6:2, 5, 16; 15:1 ff.; chap. 23). Moreover, the scribes were themselves teachers; yet this teacher acknowledges Jesus as his teacher and so addresses him. Finally, of his sincerity there can be no doubt. At the particular moment when he uttered his promise he actually meant it: he wanted to be a constant follower of Jesus. There is something very attractive about the words, I will follow you wherever you go. Who can read them without being immediately reminded of Ruth's glorious resolution, Wherever you go, I will go& (Ruth 1:16, 17)? Nevertheless, as Christ's answer clearly indicates, this man's intentions were not altogether honorable. He saw crowds, miracles, enthusiasm, etc. It seemed so good to be closely associated with the One who was in the very center of all this action. So, he wanted to be Christ's disciple, but he failed to understand the implications of discipleship, namely, self-denial, sacrifice, service, suffering! 20. Jesus said to him, the foxes have holes, and the birds of the air roosts, but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head. Foxes were plentiful in the country of Christ's travels (Judg. 15:4; Neh. 4:3; Ps. 63:10; Song of Sol. 2:15; Lam. 5:18; Ezek. 13:4). Their holes, dens, or lairs were often burrows in the ground. From these they would make their nightly raids, not only hunting frogs, rabbits, mice, poultry, and birds, but also devouring eggs, fruits, etc., and devastating the fields, orchards, and vineyards. The point Jesus emphasizes is, however, that these animals have their definite dwelling-places, their homes to which they return again and again. The same is true also with respect to birds. Ecological conditions (weather, food supply) permitting, they have their definite roosts, temporary lodging places, the place where they, as it were, pitch their tents.^[383] if enemies try to intrude, they drive them away if they can at all do so. For the Son of man, things are entirely different, however. In his wandering from place to place he, for whom there was no room in the inn, has no place on which he can figure to spend the night. As the story develops, Judea rejects him (John 5:18), Galilee casts him out (John 6:66), Gadara begs him to leave its district (Matt. 8:34), Samaria refuses him lodging (Luke 9:53), earth will not have him (Matt. 27:23), and finally even heaven forsakes him (Matt. 27:46). Therefore let the scribe figure the cost before he builds the tower. Let him consider that permanent discipleship implies struggle and warfare. It is said that at the time of the Civil War (U.S.) there were many volunteers who eagerly joined the ranks, as if going to war meant nothing more than taking part in parades, drills, and reviews, and receiving medals and honors! To be sure, there are glorious rewards for all true followers of the Lord, but it is ever the way of the cross that leads home (Matt. 10:24; Luke 14:26; John 16:33; II Tim. 3:12; Heb. 13:13). Whether this scribe ever became a steadfast follower is not recorded. After all, that is not nearly as important as is the lesson itself. This is the first place in the Gospels where the term Son of man occurs. The literature on this subject is enormous.^[384] The first question that is generally asked is, What is the origin of this expression? In this connection the following points deserve comment: 1. In Ps. 8:4the term son of man simply means man, as the parallelism indicates: What is man that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man that thou visitest [or: thinkest of, carest for] him? The reference is to man in all his weakness and dependence. To stress these same qualities of frailty, powerlessness, lowliness, and utter dependence on God, Ezekiel is repeatedly addressed as son of manEzek. 2:1, 3, 6, 8; 3:1, 3, 4, 10, 17, 25; etc. . Somewhat similarly, the expression sons of wickedness (II Sam. 3:34) means wicked people; son of a foreigner (Exod. 12:43), foreigner; and sons of thunder (Mark 3:17), thunderites, that is, men characterized by fiery zeal. Even the word daughters must at times be interpreted similarly. Thus, as some see it, daughters of music (Eccl. 12:4) indicates musical notes. Based on such examples the opinion might arise that when Jesus calls himself Son of man he means no more than that he is simply a man, that is, that he is thoroughly human; or even, if one prefers, that he is the ideal man, man as the Creator intended him to be. Evaluation: Examination of the passages in which the term occurs immediately indicates that this view will never do. It surely is unreasonable to suppose that Jesus meant that either mere man or even the ideal man is Lord of the sabbath, gives his life as a ransom in exchange for many, is going to rise again from the dead, will send forth his angels, etc. From the more than eighty instances in which the New Testament uses the term Son of man it is clear that the reference is never to man in general but always to one particular, unique person, namely, Jesus Christ. 2. Can Christ's use of the term Son of man be traced to pseudepigraphal literature; for example, to the earlier part of the Book of Enoch? It must be admitted that there the term is indeed used with reference to the Messiah. This usage is not original, however, but is based on Dan. 7:9ff. Besides, all evidence that at the time when Jesus began his ministry the term Son of man was a then current designation of the Messiah, thus understood by the people in general, is lacking.^[385] And as to the possibility that Jesus might have derived his use of the designation from Qumran literature, according to Millar Burrows the term Son of man does not occur at all in that literature and the idea has not been found in the Qumran texts.^[386] Nor can it be traced to Ugaritic texts about Baal. 3. The true origin of the term is undoubtedly Dan. 7:13. Note the resemblances, here underscored: Dan. 7:13: I continued to watch in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there was one coming like a son of man; and he advanced toward the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. Matt. 26:64: But I tell you, from now on you shall see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven. In addition to the resemblances that are immediately evident note also the similarity between he advanced toward the Ancient of Days and was presented before him and seated at the right hand of Power [some prefer: of the Almighty]. The idea of heavenly dominion, glory, and power, implied in seated at the right hand of Power (Matt. 26:64), is also clearly derived from Dan. 7:14: And there were given to him dominion and glory and royal power, that all peoples, nations, and tongues should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingdom [or: kingship] one that shall never be destroyed. It is not true that the designation one like a son of man in Daniel represents the Hebrew people, and that the transference of the title from a collective body to an individual was mediated through extra-canonical literature (e.g., the book of Enoch). The one like a son of man appears on the clouds of heaven, but the saints of the Most High (Dan. 7:18, 21, 22, 25, 27) are found on earth. Also, in Daniel's vision the former does not make his appearance until the day of judgment, but the saints are contemporaneous with the little horn (verses 21 and 25).^[387] Also in the book of Revelation (1:13; 14:14), which employs the same expression the reference is very distinctly to one person, namely, the exalted Christ. Too much is often made of the fact that we read one like (unto), as if this meant that the designated individual is not really the Son of man himself but some vague, symbolic, representative figure. The truth is that the figure, as it appears in the vision, resembles the man for the simple reason that it designates and describes him. The description in Daniel becomes the title in the Gospels (Acts 7:56), but the same person is indicated in both. In order to arrive at the meaning of the title Son of man as found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke (the Synoptics) each passage in which it occurs must be studied in its own individual context. When this is done it appears that in several of these passages the term indicates the Savior's humiliation. He has no permanent abode on earth (Matt. 8:20), is going to be subjected to bitter suffering (17:12), shall be betrayed and put to death (26:24), shall be buried (12:40). Other passages just as clearly predict his exaltation. He shall rise again (17:9); having left the earth he shall return, in the glory of his Father and accompanied by angels (16:27), and shall sit on the throne of his glory as judge (25:31; cf. several references in 24:27–44, adding 26:64). In the following columns the letter H indicates that the reference to which it belongs clearly speaks of Christ's humiliation. Similarly, E indicates exaltation, and HE: humiliation followed by exaltation (the latter at times in the immediately following context of the designated verse). Similarly EH means exaltation preceded by humiliation. When neither humiliation nor exaltation is clearly and immediately indicated, the reference is left unmarked. It is true, of course, that although for the sake of clarity and ease of reference the passages are listed in the order in which they occur in the three separate Gospels, in several cases a passage in one Gospel has a parallel in another; for example, Matt. 8:20, cf. Luke 9:58; Matt. 9:6, cf. Mark 2:10and Luke 5:24; Matt. 12:8, cf. Mark 2:28and Luke 6:5; Matt. 20:28, cf. Mark 10:45; Matt. 26:64, cf. Mark 14:62; etc. MATTHEW MARK LUKE H 8:20 E 19:28 E 2:10 5:24 HE 18:31 9:6 H 20:28 2:28 6:5 19:10 E 10:23 E 24:27 HE 8:31 6:22 E 21:27 11:19 E 24:30a E 8:38 7:34 E 21:36 12:8 E 24:30b E 9:9 HE 9:22H 22:22 12:32 E 24:37 H 9:12 E 9:26 H 22:48 H 12:40 E 24:39 HE 9:31 H 9:44 E 22:69 13:37 E 24:44 HE 10:33H 9:58 HE 24:7 E 13:41 E 25:31 H 10:45 11:30 *** 16:13 H 26:2 E 13:26 E 12:8 E 16:27 H 26:24a H 14:21a 12:10 E 16:28 H 26:24b H 14:21b E 12:40 E 17:9 H 26:45 H 14:41 E 17:22 H 17:12 E 26:64 E 14:62 EH 17:24 HE 17:22 E 17:26 18:11 an interpolation from (Luke 19:10) E 18:8 Humiliation is probably basic in most unmarked references. The matter is, however, not quite as simple as this. Several of the passages are difficult to classify, for they indicate that even during his humiliation the Son of man was definitely not an ordinary man. On the contrary, he was Lord of the sabbathMatt. 12:8and parallels , had authority to forgive sinsMatt. 9:6and parallels , came into this world with a definite purpose, namely to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45); and, in line with this purpose, came to seek and to save the lost (Luke 19:10). Woe to the man by whom this Son of man is betrayed (Luke 22:22)! The Son of man is therefore at one and the same time a man of sorrows and the Lord of glory! That Jesus, in using the term Son of man, and never declaring (predicatively) I am the Son of man, is, nevertheless, always referring to himself, is clear from (Matt. 16:13–15, where Son of man is obviously equal to I; from 26:62–64, where the charge of blasphemy would otherwise have been impossible; and from the fact that the title Son of man in Mark 8:31Luke 9:22) is in Matt. 16:21replaced by the simple he, with Jesus as antecedent. In fact, in every passage the context clearly shows that when Jesus employs this title he is referring to himself. By using this title in speaking to the Jews, Jesus was able to reveal himself gradually, not all at once. Had he, in his work among them, immediately called himself the Messiah, would not his ministry have been brought to an untimely end? Besides, would not the carnal, materialistic, and political interpretation of the Messianic office, the type of conception accepted by the masses, have compounded the error? It is entirely possible that at first many of those who were in Christ's audience took the designation to mean no more than man, as in Ezekiel. Gradually, however, as Jesus continued to describe what he was doing, facing, and planning as Son of man, they began to wonder and to ask the question, Who is this Son of man?John 12:34, in the Gospels the only passage in which anyone other than Jesus himself uses this term . Thus gradually the minds of the listeners were being enlightened. The climax came when, without any qualification whatever, Jesus identified himself (Matt. 26:62–64) in his coming glory, with the august Person who in Daniel's prophecy (7:13, 14) was introduced to the Ancient of Days! Use of the self-designation Son of man emphasized the fact that the bearer of this title was not the nationalistic Messiah of Jewish expectation but (in a sense) the Savior of the world (John 4:42; cf. I Tim. 4:10). His well-meant invitation of salvation by grace through faith goes out to all men. He himself is unique among men. He is the Son of man. He is the man of sorrows, but this very path of suffering leads to the crown, to glory. Moreover, this glory is revealed not only eschatologically, when he comes with the clouds, but reaches back, as it were, through his entire life on earth and through every redemptive act. He is always the glorious Son of man!^[388] As has been shown, the scribe mentioned in verses 19 and 20 was too ready to become a steady follower of Jesus. The next individual who comes up to Jesus before the latter's embarkation and departure was, it would seem, too unready. We read: 21. Someone else, one of his disciples,^[389] said to him, Lord, allow me first to go home and bury my father. This man evidently belongs to that large group of people that had been impressed by the words and works of Jesus. Frequently this aspirant was to be found in Christ's audience. When he reported his experiences to others he spoke favorably and enthusiastically about Jesus. In the wider sense of the term he was therefore a disciple of Jesus. His desire is to become a disciple in the more narrow sense, a steady follower, one who belongs to the inner circle. However, he does not seem to be quite ready to take this step immediately. If he does not exactly impose his own terms for joining the group, he at least enquires about the possibility of making a time reservation. His father has just died. So this aspirant asks Jesus to allow him first to go home and bury his father.^[390] This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ 9:1. So he got into a boat, crossed over, and came to his own city(Capernaum; see p. 241). But, as Mark and Luke report, the Lord's helpfulness triumphed over the people's heartlessness. He did not completely cast them aside. Just before leaving he gave them a missionary! See Mark 5:18 20; Luke 8:38, 39. The Healing of a Paralytic The story of the cleansing of the leper (Matt. 8:1–4) is in Mark's Gospel, and also in Luke's, immediately followed by that of the healing of the lame man who by four companions was lowered through the roof of the house where Jesus was teaching. Cf. Mark 1:40 45with 2:1–12; and cf. Luke 5:12 16with 5:17–26. There follows the call of Levi (=Matthew). From Mark and Luke one certainly receives the impression that this cure of the paralyzed man and this call of Levi occurred previous to the preaching of the Sermon on the Mount and the calling of the twelve disciplesMark 3:13 19; Luke 6:12ff. . Now Matthew, here in 9:2 ff., parallels Mark 2:1ff. and Luke 5:17ff., but the place which this material has in his Gospel, namely, the ninthchapter, so far removed from the fifth to the seventhchapters, in which the Sermon on the Mount is recorded, might cause the unwary reader to think that this miracle and this call took place long after the preaching of the sermon. However, since Matthew's arrangement is topical rather than chronological, and since a call of Matthew subsequent to the calling and commissioning of The Twelve in which he was included would make little sense, it is surely reasonable in broad outline to follow Mark's historical sequence. Doing this involves no contradiction, since Matthew's account here in 9:2 ff. is not introduced by any specific time reference. He simply states, And behold they were bringing.& Mark and Luke, though leaving no doubt as to the question which occurred earlier, a.the selection of The Twelve and preaching of the sermon, or b.the healing of the paralytic and call of Levi, do not satisfy our curiosity as to exactlywhen this healing, etc. occurred. Mark has, after some days; Luke, on one of those days. Does this mean now that Matthew, in departing from the historical order of events, presents his material in a haphazard manner, without rhyme or reason? Not at all. In recording the miracles Matthew shows that he loves variety and a kind of climactic arrangement. By a touch of the hand Jesus cleanses the leper. Without so much as a touch he heals the centurion's servant. He banishes a fever, but, as if such miracles of healing are not sufficient to show his power and glory, he even stills the winds and the waves. Moreover, not only over the physical universe does he sway his scepter; also over demons. They too must obey his will. Nevertheless, all these benefits bestowed upon the children of men are largely of a physical nature. As described, they do not, at least not primarily and emphatically, go down to the root of misery: human guilt and pollution, the evil that separates man from his Maker. Sin unforgiven is Satan's best friend, man's chief enemy. The section about to be studied proves that the Great Physician is a Healer also in this respect. While ridding man of physical illness, he also wields the power to deliver him from sin, the greatest of all evils: 2. And behold, they were bringing him a paralyzed man lying on a bed. When Jesus saw their faith he said to the paralytic, Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven. Before attempting to explain Matt. 9:2 8it may be well first of all to furnish a brief harmonized story, one that with a minimum of comment includes all the main features of the three reports: Matt. 9:2–8; Mark 2:1 12; and Luke 5:17 26. Jesus has entered a private home in Capernaum. The news spreads quickly, so that the place where he is becomes overcrowded. Included in the throng are Pharisees and scribes (doctors of the law) from every village of Galilee and Judea. Some have even come all the way from Jerusalem. The Master begins to bring the message. Now toward this house four people (relatives, friends?) are carrying a paralyzed man. They desire to bring him to Jesus that he may heal him, but their search for a normal means of entrance is futile. So, on a bed or sleeping pad they carry the man to the roof, remove some of the tiles, and lower and deposit him in front of Jesus. The latter, seeing their faith, says to the paralytic, Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven. In their hearts the scribes are now saying, This is blasphemy! Who but God alone can forgive sin? When Jesus perceives in the spirit what is happening he says to his opponents, Why are you thinking evil in your hearts? For, which is easier, to say, Your sins are forgiven, or to say, Get up and walk? But in order that you may know that the Son of man has power on earth to forgive sins, (then he says to the paralytic) Get up, take up your bed, and go home. The man gets up, takes up that on which he had been lying, and goes home. Everybody is seized with amazement. All including the man who has been cured glorify God. On every side exclamations such as the following are heard, We have seen strange things today. Never have we seen anything like this. Turning now to Matthew's own account, the shortest of the three, we note first of all that he merely mentions that a paralytic was being brought to Jesus. Just how he got to the place in front of Jesus is not here indicated. The degree of severity of the illness is not specified in any of the three accounts; contrast (Matt. 8:6; Luke 7:2. That the case must have been rather serious is however implied in the circumstance that the afflicted one was unable to move about and had to be carried. He is pictured as lying on a pallet or a sleeping pad. Jesus, on the basis of what he could observe with his eyes, namely, that this man was being brought to him,and also because of his power to read the secrets of men's heartsJohn 2:25), saw the faith of the entire little company, that is, of the paralytic himself and of those who had brought him. The friends or relatives had carried him to Jesus. The sick man himself had consented (perhaps even suggested?) to be thus conveyed. There had been a mutual agreement, and this had been carried out. Did the faith of these men consist only in their belief that Jesus was willing and able to bestow physical healing? Or did it include also the confidence that the Master would relieve the paralytic from the burden of his guilt? Though the latter cannot be definitely proved, does it not seem probable in the light of the fact that before Jesus does anything else he assures him of pardon? A peculiar thing happens. Generally when Jesus is confronted with a sick or handicapped person it is the latter who opens the conversation, or else his friends or relatives do, with a request for healingMark 1:30; etc. . In the present case, however, nothing of the kind is reported. The audience is hushed. The men who have carried the paralytic to this house and have deposited him in front of Jesus are silent, and so is also the afflicted one himself. But not a word from any of them is necessary. The Master fully understands. It is he who loves and cares and now addresses the afflicted one. The very first thing Jesus says to him is Take courage, son. As to son or child (somewhat more literal), either way this is a term of endearment. Combined with take courage we witness here the warmheartedness and tenderness of the Good Shepherd. He dispels the sick man's embarrassment and gloom and as it were embraces him with the arms of his protecting love and care. As far as the record is concerned, in the New Testament, with a single exception, the only one who says Take courage or Be of good cheer -2 _ftnref1 (A.V.) is Jesus. In addition to 9:2 see verse 22; 14:27; Mark 6:50; 10:49(the one [Greek] -2 _ftnref2 [Greek]; John 16:33; and Acts 23:11. And the reason for the cheer? It is this: Your sins are forgiven. They are blotted out, completely and [Greek] -2 _ftnref3 [Greek] For this comforting truth see also Ps. 103:12; Isa. 1:18; 55:6, 7; Jer. 31:34; Mic. 7:19; and I John 1:9. The inference seems altogether justified that the matter about which the paralytic was concerned more than about anything else was not the paralysis of his body but the perilous state of his soul. Hence, before making any other pronouncement Jesus absolves him from guilt. Is the further conclusion also justified, namely, that in this man's case sin and sickness stood to each other in the relation of cause and effect, in the sense that loose living had brought this illness upon him? That there was this relation is generally assumed. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the text or in the context that proves it. All we know is that the afflicted one was a paralytic deeply concerned about his sin. That this sin had resulted in his sickness is not stated and probably not even implied. See also Luke 13:1 5; John 9:1 [Greek] -2 _ftnref4 [Greek] Continued: (3. At this some of the scribes said within themselves, This fellow blasphemes.Who can forgive sins but God alone? they reasonMark 2:7; Luke 5:21). Only he knows what is going on in the heart of man, whether or not he has truly repented. Basically, therefore, no one else has the right and the power to grant absolution. The scribes were right in considering the remission of sins to be a divine prerogative (Ps. 103:12; Isa. 1:18; 43:25; 55:6, 7; Jer. 31:34; Mic. 7:19). To be sure, there is a sense in which we, too, forgive, namely, when we earnestly resolve not to take revenge but instead to love the one who has injured us, to promote his welfare, and never again to bring up the past (Matt. 6:12, 15; 18:21; Luke 6:37; Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13). But basically,as described, it is God alone who forgives. It is he alone who is able to remove guilt and to declare that it has actually been removed. Hence, as the scribes see it, Jesus by saying to the paralytic, Your sins are forgiven, is claiming for himself a prerogative that belongs to God alone. Here again the scribes were right. But now their thinking arrives at the fork in the road, and they make the wrong turn. Either: a.Jesus is what by implication he claims to be, namely, God; or b.he blasphemes, in the sense that he unjustly claims the attributes and prerogatives of deity. The scribes accept b. Not only do they commit this tragic error, but, as the following context indicates, they compound it by reasoning somewhat as follows, It is an easy thing for him to say, Your sins are forgiven, for no one is able to disprove it, since no one can look into his neighbor's heart or enter the throne-room of the Almighty and discover his judicial decisions as to who is, and who is not, forgiven. As they see it, therefore, Jesus is both blasphemous and flippant. In what Jesus now says and does he annihilates both of these false conclusions: 4 6. Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, Why are you thinking evil in your hearts? For, which is easier, to say, Your sins are forgiven, or to say, Get up and walk? But in order that you may know that the Son of man has power on earth to forgive sins, (then he said to the paralytic) Get up, take up your bed, and go home. He knew their thoughts (John 2:25; 21:17). Had he not been God he would not have known them (Ps. 139). By questioning the scribes he sharply reprimands them. Their cogitations were wicked, for (elucidary) they were (falselyaccusing him. Jesus asks why they are doing this. Let them examine their own hearts. Was it not in order to find fault with them that they had come here today, with the ultimate purpose that they might destroy himMark 3:6)? As to which was easier, to say, Your sins are forgiven, or to say, Get up.&, do not both in an equal measure require omnipotent power? Therefore, if Jesus can do the one, then can he not also perform the other? In order that they may know that he, the humble yet all-glorious Son of man (see on 8:20), has the divine right and power on earth hence, before the door of grace is closed (25:10) to forgive sins &here parenthetically Matthew adds, then he said to the paralytic, the words addressed to the latter being, Get up, take up your bed, and go home. The first two actions indicated in the command are in the nature of the case performed in a moment, the third (going home) is pictured as taking a little while, proceeding step by [Greek] -2 _ftnref5 [Greek] Continued: 7. And he got up and went home.By means of the power and love of Jesus a complete cure was immediately brought about, for, because of the operation of these attributes, the man believed that he was able to do what he was told to do. So he acted on the basis of this faith, was healed, and started on his way, finally reaching home. Thus, in the realm of the visible Jesus performed a miracle which simultaneously proved that also in the universe of the invisible he had exercised his divine power and love. He had given this man a healthy body but also, and this first of all, a healthy soul. He had thoroughly refuted the accusations of his enemies. Moreover, as to the charge that it was easy for him to pronounce absolution, well, he was ableindeed to do it and he actually did it, as he here proved; but as to it being easy,was it not exactly this granting of pardon that required all the suffering he endured during his earthly sojourn, climaxed by the bloody sweat of Gethsemane, the scourging of Gabbatha, and the cross of Golgotha? And similarly, as to the granting of physical recovery, does not 8:17 apply here also? See on that passage. Did the scribes admit their defeat? Did they at least acknowledge that Jesus had justified his claim? On this point Matthew is silent. So are also Mark and Luke. The sequel would seem to indicate that they admitted nothing and became more and more hostile (Matt. 9:11, 34; 12:2, 14, 24; Mark 2:16, 24; 3:2, 5; 3:22; 7:1ff.; Luke 5:30; 6:2, 7, 11). As to the people in general, their reaction is described as follows: (8. When the crowds saw this they were filled with awe, and glorified God for giving such power to men.According to Matthew (the best reading) the people were filled with awe, or awe-struck; Mark has astonished or astounded; Luke, seized with astonishment &and filled with awe. All report that the people glorified God. Matthew adds, for giving such power to men. It will hardly do to interpret this to mean that the people in general now understood that in a unique sense Jesus was divine, and that they, filled with a sense of their own sinfulness and unworthiness in hispresence, now did what on one occasion Peter is reported to have doneLuke 5:8). The true interpretation is probably that they ascribed glory and honor to God because, as they saw it, he had imparted such power to a member of the human race, the very race to which they themselves also belonged. It is very well possible that we have here an echo of the words that had just now been uttered by Jesus himself, namely, But in order that you may know that the Son of man has power, etc. Note the word power in both cases; also compare Son of man with men. If this be correct, they were equating Son of man with man (as in Ezekiel), and by doing this they missed the term's deeper meaning. To be sure, for a moment the glory of Jesus flashed before their consciousness, but they caught only a glimpse of it. They missed seeing him as the effulgence of God's glory and the very image of his substance (Heb. 1:3, ) -2 _ftnref6 (A.R.V.). The Call of Matthew In all three Gospels the story of Matthew's call is related next (Matt. 9:9–13; Mark 2:13 17; and Luke 5:27 32). Moreover, in a rather general way a time and place connection is established between the healing of the paralytic and this call. Both obviously took place in Capernaum and, as Matthew remembered it, the two events followed each other closely in time, for the author says, 9. As he was passing on from there Jesus saw a man named Matthew, sitting at the tax office, and he said to him, Follow me.Much of the material relating to Matthew his occupation, place of residence, call to discipleship, qualifications, style, etc. has already been presented; see pp. 92–97; 241; 315, 316. According to Mark 2:13it was in the vicinity of the seashore that Matthew received his call to become one of the disciples of Jesus. The future evangelist was sitting at the tax collector's booth or customhouse, the place where the tariff was collected on the traffic in goods passing along the international highway between Syria and Egypt. Jesus said to Matthew, Follow me. He got up and followed him.Thus soberly and without taking any credit for himself the man who was most deeply concerned records this unforgettable experience. For more detail, with emphasis on the greatness of the sacrifice, we must turn to Luke's Gospel, which informs us that in getting up to follow Jesus, the publican forsook all. It is well-nigh certain that Matthew, who lived and worked in Capernaum, the very place which Jesus had chosen as his headquarters, had had frequent previous contacts with the Master and that when the call came he had already surrendered his heart to him and the cause he represented. Nevertheless, when he now not only makes a clean break with his occupational past and joins the One who called him, declaring to the whole world that it is to Jesus that he has unreservedly dedicated himself, he performs an act of devotion whose sacrificial character must not be minimized. In passing, it should be observed that since Matthew was a minor official, not the chief tax collector and certainly not the tax farmer or lease holder, the business of collecting the tariff at Capernaum did not cease when he left all to follow Jesus. Was it at this time that the man whom Mark (2:14) and Luke (5:27) call (LeviGen. 29:34) received and/or adopted the name (Matthew,meaning gift of Jehovah? If so, Jesus himself may have given him this nameMark 3:16; John 1:42). It is also possible that from the very beginning the one who now joined the little group of closest followers had two names. Double names were not uncommon among the Jews: Thomas was called Didymus (John 11:16); and in all probability Bartholomew (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14; and Acts 1:13) is Nathanael (John 1:45 49; 21:2). The identity of Levi and Matthew can hardly be questioned, as a comparison of the three Synoptic accounts of this call immediately proves. Moreover, Luke calls Levi a publican (5:27), and in the list of The Twelve as recorded in what in our Bibles is the first Gospel there is mention of a Matthew the publican (10:3). In all the lists of the twelve the name Matthew has replaced Levi (Matt. 10:2–4; Mark 3:14 19; Luke 6:13 16; Acts 1:13). It has already been pointed out that as a tax collector, experienced in writing and in keeping records, and of necessity versed in more than one language, the services of Matthew would be very valuable to Jesus and to the cause of the gospel. To the Mediator this man was indeed a gift of God. He was destined to write and preserve for his contemporaries and for posterity a record of Christ's words and deeds. Moreover we receive the impression from the very brevity with which Matthew records his call, omitting any mention of the cost to himself, that he was modest and humble. He may well have been a man of few spokenwords. Nowhere in the four Gospels is he ever introduced as sayinganything. In this respect he ranks with two other obscure disciples: James the [Greek] -2 _ftnref7 [Greek] and Simon the Zealot. Peter speaks with great frequencyMatt. 14:28; 15:15; 16:16, 22; 17:4; etc. . Andrew, at times (Mark 13:3; John 1:41; 6:8, 9; 12:22). So also do the brothers James (Mark 10:35 39; Luke 9:54) and John (Luke 9:54; John 13:23 25). So do Philip (John 1:45; 12:22), Thomas (John 11:16; 14:5; 20:24–29) and Judas the Traitor (Matt. 26:14–16, 25; 27:3, 4; John 12:4, 5). Even Nathanael is not completely silent (John 1:46 49), nor is Judas the Greater (John 14:22). But from the lips of Matthew we hear never a word. All the more brilliantly does he let his light shine in this glorious Gospel! Nevertheless, to think of Matthew as being only a writer would be doing him an injustice. We see in him a (rare?) combination of writing ability and hospitality, in his case both of these being the product of deep spirituality. Matthew had caught the Master's spirit. He knew that it was to seek and to save sinners, definitely including publicans!, that Jesus had come to dwell among men. So, as Luke records but Matthew modestly refrains from saying, it was this same publican, now disciple, who made a great banquet (for him[that is, for Jesus!] in his [Matthew's] house, a banquet to which Matthew's friends, the publicans, were welcomedLuke 5:29). Matthew merely says, 10. In the house, as [Greek] -2 _ftnref8 [Greek] was reclining at [Greek] -2 _ftnref9 [Greek] what [Greek] -2 _ftnref10 [Greek] Many tax collectors and (other) people of low reputation came and reclined at table with him and his disciples.This may be considered a kind of farewell banquet, arranged by Matthew and at his house, in honor of Jesus, bidding farewell to the old life, ringing in the new, and beckoning all to become spiritual followers of the Lord. Many tax-collectors and sinners (thus literally) attended and were reclining at table with Jesus and those disciples who by this time had become his steady followers. The tax-collectors have been described earlier (see on 5:46). The reasons why they were held in low esteem, as being dishonest, greedy, and unpatriotic, have been discussed. However, these publicans had company. See John 7:49; cf. 9:24. Publicans and sinnershad at least this in common that none of them paid much attention to the rules and regulations which by the rabbis had been superimposed upon the law of God. Of these traditions Pharisees and scribes made everything. It remains true, however, that even the law of God itself was often grossly violated or at least disregarded by publicans and their friends. The low reputation which they had acquired in the eyes of the Jewish religious leaders and their followers was partly undeserved, partly deserved. The main point is this, that Jesus had come to deliver them from their sins and miseries. Matthew understood this. The Pharisees did not. They were too proud and too self-righteous to understand. But they did take cognizance of the fact that Jesus was associating familiarly with such bad characters: 11. The Pharisees took notice of this, and said to his disciples, Why is it that your teacher is eating with tax-collectors and sinners?In all probability it was when the banquet had ended and the guests were departing that the Pharisees, ever ready and eager to find fault with Jesus (12:2, 24; 15:1; 19:3; etc.), but at times lacking courage to criticize him directly, vent their bitterness upon the disciples who had chosen sucha person to be their teacher. The real and final object of their disgust was, of course, Jesus himself. The words, Why is it that your teacher.& are full of stinging reproof, as if to say, Shame on you for having accepted such a man as your teacher! Was there merit in this thinly veiled accusation, a charge in the form of a question? Is it not true that eating with a person implies friendship and fellowship? See on 8:11. How then was it possible for Jesus to recline at table in the company of such disreputable people? What the Pharisees, because of their legalistic and unsympathetic hearts, fail to understand is that there are times and occasions when such fellowship is entirely proper and justified. Jesus, by means of this close association, is meeting a need, as he himself now declares: 12. When he heard this he said, It is not those who are healthy that need a doctor but those who are ill. The slur of the Pharisees and the resulting embarrassment of the disciples had been duly noted by Jesus. He himself, by means of what may have been a current proverb, flings back a clinching answer. When he associates on intimate terms with people of low reputation he does not do this as a hobnobber, a comrade in evil, birds of a feather flocking together, but as a physician, one who, without in any way becoming contaminated with the diseases of his patients, must get very close to them (in order that he may heal them!Moreover, it is especially the Pharisees who should be able to understand this. Are not they the very people who place their trust in their own righteousness while they despise all othersLuke 18:9)? If, then, in the eyes of the Pharisees, publicans and sinners are so very sick, should they not be healed? Is it the business of the healer to heal the healthy or the sick? The sick, of course. We see, therefore, that it is on the basis of their own reasoning that Jesus is condemning the attitude of the Pharisees and justifying his own. Implication: could it be that the Pharisees are neglecting their duty? Are these carping critics extending to those in need the hand of healing and kindness? We now understand why Jesus continues: 13. Go and learn what is meant by: I desire mercy and not sacrifice. Here, as once before (see on 2:15), we have a quotation from the prophecies of Hosea. This time, however, it is Jesus himself, not the evangelist, who quotes. The background and general outline of this Old Testament book have been presented in connection with the earlier quotation. Among the sins committed by the adulterous nation were, besides the transgressions against the first table of the lawHos. 6:7; 7:10, 11, 14; 8:1–7, 14; etc. , such abominations as robbery and murder (6:9; 7:1, 7). It is easily understood that in such a context of iniquity bringing sacrifices amounted to sheer mockery. The manifestation of goodness with respect to both God and [Greek] -2 _ftnref11 [Greek] was what God desired, rather than merely burnt-offerings. That is the essence of the Hosea passage (6:6) quoted here in Matt. 9:12. When without a genuine change of heart and conduct sacrifices were nevertheless brought, this amounted to dead ritualism, loathsome to the Lord (8:13, 14). Religion without goodness or kindness is worthless. Jesus tells the Pharisees to go and learn that lesson, that is, to reflect on it and take it to heart. Let them ponder and apply to themselves the lesson taught in Hos. 6:6; Amos 5:21 24; Mic. 6:8; cf. Matt. 23:23–26. A religion that tithes mint, dill, and cummin but leaves undone the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and fidelity, is nothing but a sad distortion of the genuine article. To this quotation from Hosea Jesus adds, (For I did not come to call righteous people but sinners.Substantially this is the reading also in Mark and Luke, though for is found only in Matthew, and Luke ends the sentence with to repentance. The for may be called explanatory or continuative. In the present context it means something like: In line withthis fact that as a physician I came to answer need and to show mercy, the kind of mercy which you, Pharisees, should also show, is the fact that I did not come to call righteous people but sinners. The fact that the calling is to repentance, though expressed only in Luke, is implied also in Matthew and MarkMatt. 3:2; 4:17; Mark 1:4, 15). The (callingto which there is reference in these Gospel passagesMatt. 5:13; Mark 2:17; Luke 5:32) is the earnest invitation extended to sinners to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. That this calling is not always effectual is clear from (Matt. 22:14, For many are called, but few chosen. In the epistles, on the other hand, calling is that act of the Holy Spirit whereby he savingly applies the gospel invitation to certain definite individuals among all those to whom, in the course of history, that invitation is extendedRom. 4:17; 8:30; 9:11, 24; Gal. 1:6, 15; Eph. 1:18; 4:1, 4; Phil. 3:14; I Thess. 2:12; 4:7; II Thess. 1:11; II Tim. 1:9). Does this mean that the way of salvation proclaimed in the Gospels differs from that set forth in the epistles, so that, for example, in the former, salvation ultimately depends on the will of man, but in the latter on the grace of God? Not at all, the difference is only one of terminology. The doctrine is the same in both. According to the Gospels too it is only by the grace and power of God that sinners are able to accept the invitation and along with it the salvation held out to them by God; as is clear from Matt. 7:7; 19:25, 26; Luke 11:13; 12:32; 22:31, 32; John 3:3, 5; 6:44; 12:32; 15:5. With all this compare James 1:17, 18; I Cor. 4:7; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 2:12, 13; and II Thess. 2:13, 14. Here in (Matt. 9:13the glorious purpose of Christ's incarnation and mission receives beautiful expression. The passage makes clear that not to those who consider themselves worthy but rather to those who are in desperate need the invitation to salvation, full and free, is extended. It was sinners, the lost, the straying, the beggars, the burdened ones, the hungry and thirsty, whom Jesus came to save. See also Matt. 5:6; 11:28–30; 22:9, 10; Luke 14:21 23; ch. 15; 19:10; John 7:37, 38. This is in line with all of special revelation, both the Old Testament and the NewIsa. 1:18; 45:22; 55:1, 6, 7; Jer. 35:15; Ezek. 18:23; 33:11; Hos. 6:1; 11:8; Rom. 8:23, 24; II Cor. 5:20; I Tim. 1:15; Rev. 3:20; 22:17). It is a message full of comfort and relevant to every age! The Question about Fasting It is held by [Greek] -2 _ftnref12 [Greek] that the incident reported here in 9:14 Mark 2:18 22 (; Luke 5:33 39) occurred in very close chronological connection with the one just discussed (Matt. 9:9–13). This opinion is based not so much on the word then or thereupon at the beginning of Matt. 9:14this word is very indefinite, and can mean in those days as well as at that very time or shortly afterward as on the parallel passage in Mark 2:18, Now John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting, and they come and say to him, Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast [or: Why are &fasting] but your disciples do not fast [or: are not fasting]? When this close temporal connection between the two incidents is accepted, the dramatic character of the account is heightened: at the very time when Jesus, his disciples, and many publicans are feastingat Matthew's house, the Baptist's disciples and the Pharisees with their followers are fasting,with the immediate result: the question of Matt. 9:14. By no means is it true, however, that this exegesis has found favor with all commentators. Even among those who do favor it reservations in stating this position are not uncommon. Several interpreters do not even touch the question at [Greek] -2 _ftnref13 [Greek] The simple fact is that none of the evangelists definitely indicate when this questioning about fasting [Greek] -2 _ftnref14 [Greek] Besides, those who nevertheless accept the chronological concurrence of the feast and the inquiry about fasting may run into difficulty when they arrive at Matt. 9:18. See on that verse; especially footnote 413 on p. 429. But though there may not have been a close (chronologicalconnection between the two events, there may very well have been a logicalrelationship. Fellowshipping with publicans and sinners, and this on more than one occasionLuke 7:34; 15:1, 2; cf. 19:1–10), while the disciples of John and the Pharisees abstained from such convivialities and even practiced a measure of austerity, was sooner or later bound to lead to what is reported in verse 14. Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, Why is it that we and the Pharisees fast [Greek] -2 _ftnref15 [Greek] but your disciples do not fast? It is clear from this question that even after John's imprisonment (see on 4:12) some of his disciples continued as a distinct group. In view of (John 3:25, 26this is not very surprising. It appears from John 3:30that he who had been their leader gave no encouragement to this separatistic movement and would not have supported Disciples of John the Baptist outgrowths that persisted for centuries. Encouraged, perhaps, by the fact that in spite of the Baptist's witness to Jesus as the ChristMatt. 3:11; John 1:29 36) and the many things which Jesus and John had in common, there were also some sharp differences (Matt. 11:18, 19), these disciples of John inquire why it is that while they and the Pharisees fast often, Jesus disciples do not fast. In favor of these inquirers it must be said that they do not bypass Jesus but approach him directly and frankly (contrast the Pharisees, verse 11), and also that their question, though perhaps not entirely free from a tinge of criticism, is probably rather an honest request for information than a veiled but bitter accusation. In reality, however, there was no justification for this question. Had these men been better students of Scripture they would have known (a.that the only fast that could by any stretch of the imagination be derived from the law of God was the one on the day of atonementLev. 23:27), and b.that according to the teaching of Isa. 58:6, 7and Zech. 7:1 10it was not a literal fast but love, both vertical and horizontal, which God demanded. There was an important reason why for the disciples of Jesus the kind of fasting in question would have been inappropriate: (15. Jesus said to them, As long as the bridegroom is with them, is it possible for the bridegroom's attendants to be mourning?The question is so phrased that the answer must be, No. Jesus here compares his blessed presence on earth with a wedding-feast. Again and again Scripture compares the relationship between Jehovah and his people, or between Christ and his church, with the bond of love between bridegroom and brideIsa. 50:1ff.; 54:1ff.; 62:5; Jer. 2:32; 31:32; Hos. 2:1ff.; Matt. 25:1ff.; John 3:29; II Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:32; Rev. 19:7; [Greek] -2 _ftnref16 [Greek] Verse 15 speaks about the sons of the bridal chamber (thus literally), meaning the bridegroom's attendants. These were friends of the groom. They stood close to him. They had been invited to the wedding, were in charge of arrangements, and were expected to do everything possible to promote the success of the [Greek] -2 _ftnref17 [Greek] Bridegroom's attendants fasting while the feast is in progress! How absurd, says Jesus as it were. Disciples of the Lord mourning while their Master is performing works of mercy and while words of life and beauty are dropping from his lips, how utterly incongruous! Jesus adds, however, But days will arrive when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them. Then they shall fast.This, of course, is an early prediction of Christ's death on the cross. That the mourning in connection with it would not be of long duration is pointed out in John 16:16 22. By means of Christ's resurrection it was going to be replaced by joy. By two illustrations taken from daily life Jesus makes clear how inappropriate it would be for the disciples nowto be fasting, as if with the coming of Christ a great calamity had descended upon them. The main lesson conveyed is that the new order of things which Jesus by his coming has ushered in, bringing healing to the sick, liberation to the demon-possessed, freedom from care to the care-ridden, cleansing to lepers, food to the hungry, restoration to the handicapped, and above all salvation to those lost in sin, does not fit into the old mold of man-ordained fasting. The first figure is as follows: 16. No one puts a patch, made of a piece of new cloth, on an old garment, for then the patch pulls away from the garment, and a worse tear results.If a patch of unfulled wool is placed on a garment that has seen better days, the result will be that when this unshrunk piece becomes wet and shrinks, it will pull to pieces the bordering cloth of the badly worn garment. The patch which was supposed to take care of the original tear will now produce an even bigger tear. The second figure reinforces the first: 17. Nor is new wine poured into old wine-skins; otherwise the wine-skins burst, the wine is spilled, and the skins are ruined.The wine-skin was usually made of the skin of a goat or a sheep. After being removed from the animal it was tanned, and after the hair had been cut close the skin was turned inside out. The neck opening became the mouth of the bottle. The other openings, at the feet and the tail, were closed with cords. Naturally an old wine-skin is no match for new, still fermenting wine, for such wine tends to stretch the container. A new wine-skin would be sufficiently elastic to stand the pressure, but under similar conditions an old one, stiff and rigid, would crack. The wine would spill out and the skin would be of no further use. Continued: but new wine is poured into fresh wine-skins and both are preserved. It is hardly correct to say that while the new wine represents salvation by grace, the old wine-skins symbolize salvation by the works of the law. What Jesus taught with reference to the law is found in such passages as 5:17–20 and 22:34–40. Not the law of God as such was in question here, for, as previously stated, the frequent fast was a purely human institution. What Jesus did show was that the salvation which he brought was out of line with fastings from which the note of joy was completely excluded, and that this was especially true with respect to his disciples, the men who stood in the closest relation to him. The new wine of rescue and riches for all who were willing to accept these blessings, even for publicans and sinners, must be poured into the fresh wine-skins of gratitude, freedom, and spontaneous service to the glory of God. The Restoration to Life of the Ruler's Daugher and The Healing of the Woman Who Touched Christ's Garment 18. While he was still saying these things.& Having explained the incident that is reported in verses 14 17 as belonging to a time later than the preaching of the Sermon on the Mount, we encounter no difficulty with this chronological note at the beginning of verse [Greek] -2 _ftnref18 [Greek] The obvious meaning is that while Jesus was still answering the question regarding fasting, [Greek] -2 _ftnref19 [Greek] -2 _ftnref20 [Greek] ruler came, knelt before him, and said, My daughter has just died, but come, lay your hand upon her, and she will live. The synagogue was ruled by a board of elders. One of its responsibilities was to maintain good order at the synagogue meetings. The man who came to Jesus and whom Matthew does not mention by name but whom Mark and Luke call Jairus was a member of such a board. Since he was probably living in Capernaum we may assume that he had heard about, and perhaps even witnessed, some of the miracles performed by Jesus. Matthew's report of the double miracle is very brief, nine verses; Luke's covers seventeen verses; Mark's twenty-three. We are perhaps justified in interpreting the ruler's behaviorMark 5:21ff. and Luke 8:40ff. as an expression of high respect for Jesus, of intense stress, and of great faith. According to Mark and Luke, Jairus had first asked Jesus to heal the child; then, when informed about her death, had been urged by the Lord not to despair but to believe. So he now renews his request in modified form, namely, that Jesus may lay his hand upon the dead girl, adding, and she will live. This conviction on the part of the ruler is all the more remarkable in view of the fact that the Gospels do not report a restoration-to-life miracle performed by Jesus previous to this time. As to lay your hand upon her see on 8:3. Continued: 19. At once Jesus began to follow him, and so did his disciples.The rendering, Jesus rose and followed him, though true to the basic meaning of the participle used in the [Greek] -2 _ftnref21 [Greek] is confusing. It might suggest that the Lord was either still reclining at table in Matthew's house when the grieving father of the dead child asked him to come along with him, or that he had been sitting by the roadside. In view of the preceding context in Matthew and of the accounts in the other Gospels neither of these ideas seems to be within the realm of probability. A far more reasonable interpretation is that at the ruler's request Jesus went into action at once. Compare such colloquial expressions as, He up and married, up and bought. Such a verbal up describes abrupt action. And so it is here. Without any delay Jesus as it were quickened his steps in following the ruler toward the latter's home. So did Christ's disciples. Cf. Mark 5:31. From Luke 8:51we learn that of the total number of these disciples Jesus suffered only Peter, James, and John to be with him when he performed his astounding miracle. Cf. Mark 5:37. Suddenly there is an interruption: 20, 21. [Greek] -2 _ftnref22 [Greek] a woman who had suffered from hemorrhages for twelve years, having come from behind, touched the tassel of his garment; for she said within herself, If I but touch his garment I shall get well.Again and again during his earthly ministry Jesus was interrupted; namely, in his speaking to a crowdMark 2:1ff. , conversing with his disciplesMatt. 16:21ff.; 26:31ff.; Luke 12:12ff. , travelingMatt. 20:29ff. , sleeping (Matt. 8:24, 25), and prayingMark 1:35ff. . The fact that none of these intrusions floor him, so that for the moment he would be at a loss what to do or what to say, shows that we are dealing here with the Son of man who is also the Son of God! What wewould call an interruption is for him a springboard or take-off point for the utterance of a great saying or, as here, for the performance of a marvelous deed, revealing his power, wisdom, and love. What for us would have been a painful exigency is to him a golden opportunity. A sermon based on Mark's or on Luke's account of the theme The woman who touched the border of Christ's garment might have the following points: Her Faith ConcealedMark 5:25 28; Luke 8:43, 44a , RewardedMark 5:29; Luke 8:44b , and Revealed (Mark 5:30 34; Luke 8:45 48). But, as already indicated, Matthew's account does not contain all of this material. It is very brief. We are given to understand that this woman was in great distress. No wonder, for she had suffered from hemorrhages for a period of twelve years. There are those who believe that the phrasing of verse 20, especially in light of (Mark 5:29and Luke 8:44, makes it certain that the drain of blood was constant, that is, without ever any intermission. Another view would be that throughout the twelve years an excessive loss of blood, occurring periodically, made it impossible for her ever to feel strong and healthy, and that at this particular moment she was again being afflicted by one of these hemorrhages. Mark reports that this woman had suffered much from many physicians, had spent all she had, and had not improved but rather grown worse. Without in any way contradicting Mark, it is certainly not surprising that Luke Dr.Luke, remember!Col. 4:14) informs us that she could notbe healed by any physician. The doctors did not cure her, for, humanly speaking, her sickness was incurable! Whether or not the drain of blood was constant, on either view her condition was now such that it would make her ceremonially unclean and would similarly affect anyone she touchedLev. 15:19ff. . It does not surprise us therefore that she is afraid to come out into the open. She is not going to come into physical contact with Jesus himself. She will merely touch his garment, and even then, only one of the four wool tassels which every Israelite was ordered to wear on the corners of his square, outer robe (Num. 15:38; cf. Deut. 22:12) to remind him of the law of God. See also the explanation of Matt. [Greek] -2 _ftnref23 [Greek] Naturally the quickest and easiest way to bring oneself into physical contact with a garment without being noticed was to come from behind and touch the tuft swinging freely from the back of the robe. The wearer, so this woman thought, would never even notice what was [Greek] -2 _ftnref24 [Greek] So, she came from behind and touched the tassel. The greatness of her faith consisted in this, that she believed that the power of Christ to heal was so amazing that the mere touch of his [Greek] -2 _ftnref25 ([Greek] would result in an immediate and instant cure. That this faith was nevertheless by no means perfect appears from the fact that she thought that such an actual touch was necessary and that Jesus would never notice it. But he did notice it, praised her for her faith, encouraged her, and healed her: 22. But Jesus turned, saw her, and said, Take courage, daughter; your faith has made you well. Instantly the woman recovered.So, she had not escaped Christ's notice after allJohn 1:48; 2:25; 21:17). Jesus now turns around and addresses her. Affectionately he calls her daughter, and tells her to take courage (see on 9:2, 3). When he adds, Your faith has made you well, we may perhaps detect a threefold purpose: a.to reward her for her conviction that he would cure her instantly and completely; b.to stress that it was his personalresponse to her personal faithin him that cured her, thereby removing from her mind any remnant, however small, of superstition, as if the garment as such had contributed in any way to the cure; and c.to open the way for her complete reinstatement in the social and religious life and fellowship of her people. The recovery was instant. In one brief moment the hemorrhage stopped completely. Health and vigor were surging through every part of her body. Mark and Luke report that, by inducing her to give a public testimony, Jesus provided also for her soul. In the process of testifying was she not also a blessing to others? After the interruption Jesus continues on his way to the ruler's house. The usual mourning ceremonies then prevailing were in full swing: (23, 24. And when Jesus came to the ruler's house and saw the flute-players and the noisy crowd he said, Go away.& Both Matthew and Mark picture the noisy, clamorous, disorderly crowd of people in the house of the ruler. As, according to custom, burial followed soon after death, this was the crowd's only opportunity, and everybody, especially the professional mournersJer. 9:17, 18), made the most of it, perhaps all the more because a ruler of the synagogue was a very important man! Here then was moaning and groaning at its loudest. Matthew makes mention of flute-players. Because flutes were very easy to make, and could be constructed of a variety of material reeds, cane, bone, etc. they were very popular. As ancient pictures have shown, such flute-playing was often accompanied by the clapping of hands. In the New Testament the word flute-player occurs only here and in Rev. 18:22, in the latter passage in connection with merriment. Jesus, realizing a.that much of this ostentatious display of grief was insincere and therefore improper, and b.that in this particular case death was not to have the last word, commanded the noise-makers to leave the room where the dead child lay. He added, for the girl is not dead but asleep.Those who heard him say this took this literally, as if Jesus meant that soul and body had not actually separated. Even today there are interpreters who make allowance for the possibility that the ruler's daughter was merely in a [Greek] -2 _ftnref26 ([Greek] But John 11:11 14presents a striking parallel. When Jesus told the disciples, Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, the disciples interpreted this saying literally. They should have paid more attention to what the Lord had told them a few moments earlier, This illness is not unto death.&, that is, Death will not be the final outcome of this illness. Again and again the New Testament exposes as error the tendency to interpret every word of Christ literallyJohn 2:20, 21; 3:3, 4; 4:14, 15, 32, 33; 6:51, 52; 7:34, 35; 8:51, 52; 11:11, 12, 23, 24; 14:4, 5). So also here in Matt. 9:24what Jesus says must not be interpreted literally but means that death would not have the final say. Matthew records the crowd's reaction as follows: But they were laughing in his face.Literally the Greek says, They were laughing him down. The reference is probably to repeated bursts of derisive laughter aimed at humiliating [Greek] -2 _ftnref27 [Greek] It seems that these mourners were endowed with the dubious gift of shifting (automatically?), in one sudden moment, from dismal moaning to uproarious mirth. 25. When the crowd had been expelled he entered and took her by the hand, and the girl got up.Jesus has entered the room in which the body is lying. The noise-makers have been expelled. In addition to the Lord himself and the dead child there are present the child's parents and, as already indicated, Peter, James, and John. The astounding happening is related in simple language. With the exception of the resurrection of Jesus himself (28:6) and of those who were raised in connection with his death and resurrection (27:52, 53), this is the only bringing back to life from the dead that is recorded by Matthew. The ruler has asked Jesus to lay his hand upon the child (verse 18). The Lord does even better: with authority, power, and tendernesshe takes the child by the hand. According to Mark, as he does this he says, Talitha cumiLuke 8:54; see p. 42 . Immediately her spirit returns and she gets up. 26. The news about this spread throughout that entire region. (It is clear that with the recording of this miracle Matthew has reached a climax. See above, p. 416. He has borne testimony to the manifestation of Christ's power at its zenith. It is not surprising that, in spite of the charge Jesus gave to the parentsLuke 8:56), the news of this miracle spread throughout that entire region or country. Combining the accounts in the three Gospels the entire story can be summarized under the following theme and headings: The restoration to life of Jairus daughter A word of encouragement: Fear not, only believe (Mark 5:36; Luke 8:50) A word of revelation: She is not dead but asleep (Matt. 9:24; Mark 5:39; Luke 8:52) A word of love and power: Little girl arise (Mark 5:41; Luke 8:54) A word of tender concern: Give her something to eat (Mark 5:43; Luke 8:55) The Healing of Three Handicapped Persons 27. And as Jesus passed on from there, two blind men followed him, constantly crying out, Take pity on us, Son of David.To the list of miracles reported in chapters 8 and 9 Matthew adds two more, probably because they happened on the same day as those described in 9:18–26. They round out that busy day. In the first of these two the Lord imparts sight to two blind men; in the second, the power of speech to one who lacked it. If it should seem as if Matthew's story thus descends from the climax of verses 25 and 26 to an anticlimax, the answer is that in reality he is preparing for a second climax. Next to the climax of Christ's wonder-working power he, in verse 34, is going to describe that of the hostility of the Pharisees. As Jesus is walking away from the ruler's house he is being followed by two blind men who are constantly yelling, Take pity [or: have mercy] on us, Son of David. As far as is known, in pre-Christian literature the designation Son of David, as a title for the Messiah, occurs only in the pseudepigraphical Psalms of Solomon [Greek] -2 _ftnref28 [Greek] Though there are those who deny that the two blind men in Matthew's story are using the term in the Messianic sense, the probability is that they did indeed so intend it, for on the basis of Matt. 21:9; 22:41 45(see on those verses) it is clear that during Christ's ministry on earth Son of David and Messiah had become synonyms. Otherwise how can one satisfactorily explain the indignation of the chief priests and scribes when the children were honoring Jesus with the title Son of David (21:15, 16)? Apparently Jesus paid no attention to the cries of the two blind men. His reaction, though not specifically recorded, seems not to have been one of unmixed elation. This is not surprising, for to the people in general the Messiah would be an earthly, political deliverer. It is not surprising, therefore, that Jesus does what Matthew describes him as doing: (28. And when he had gone inside the house &As some see it, this means his own house in Capernaum. Matt. 4:13is generally quoted in support of this view. To disprove this interpretation 8:20 is frequently cited. However, neither passage is entirely conclusive. The first passage does not necessarilymean that Jesus owned or even had rented a house in Capernaum; this may be implied, but it is not certain. Friends may have provided a home for him. The second passage may simply mean that during his travels from place to place Jesus had no fixed place of residence, no definite place to stay that he could figure on. So also here in 9:28 the reference may be to a house which some kind follower had invited him to use. Do we not perhaps have a parallel in the home of Mary and Martha at Bethany, sometimes referred to as Christ's Judean homeMatt. 21:17; Mark 11:11)? However this may be and of the various possibilities none should be aprioristically excluded when Jesus had gone inside the house the blind men came up to him, and Jesus said to them, Do you believe that I am able to do this?Among the inferences that must be avoided are the following: a. Faith is necessary before Jesus can perform a miracle. Answer:Matt. 8:28ff.; 11:20–24; and Luke 17:17prove that this is not true. b. Since the blindness of these men was self-induced they were blind because they believed that they were all they needed in order to have their sight restored was faith. Answer:There is nothing in the text to indicate that this blindness was without physical cause. Besides, Jesus does not merely demand faith, but distinctly faith in himselfas the Healer. It has been said at times that what Jesus demanded was faith in the Father, not faith in himself. It is clear from the present passage that this theory is contradicted by the facts. That Mark's Gospel does not so picture him has already been shown. See pp. 59, 60. But the same is true with respect to Matthew. As the present passage shows, Jesus does indeed fix the attention upon himself as the object of faith. See also 7:21 ff.; 10:37, 38, 40; 11:25–30; 16:13–20; 19:28; 26:64; 28:18 ff. When Jesus asks the blind men whether they believe that he is able to do this, that is, to cure them of their blindness, very respectfully They said to him, Yes, Lord.For the meaning of Lord see on 7:21 and 8:2. 29. Then he touched their eyes and said, According to your faith let it be done for you.For this marvelous and tender touch see on 8:3. The act of Jesus is in thorough correspondence with their faith; cf. 8:13. To bring about faith in himself and to preserve this faith is the very purpose of the miracles. 30. And their eyes were opened.At Christ's touch sight entered into their eyes, so that in one glorious moment they saw everything distinctly. And Jesus sternly warned them, saying, See that no one finds out.The original has only three words; cf. See none discover. For sternly warned see also Mark 1:43; 14:5; John 11:33, 38; especially Mark 14:5, They censured [or: scolded] her. In view of what has already been said (verse 27) it is not very surprising that Jesus issued this warning. To be sure, the miracle could not remain a secret. Relatives and friends could not be kept in the dark. But was it not altogether reasonable that Jesus, knowing that the people would draw wrong deductions from his miracle-working power, ordered these men not to give needless and dangerous further publicity to the matter? See further on 8:4. Did the men heed the warning? The answer is found in verse 31. But when they had departed they spread the news about him throughout that entire region.What they did was definitely wrong, yet understandable. Jesus, so it appears, could not remain hid. 32. As they were departing there was brought to him a demon-possessed man who was unable to speak.Jesus was being kept very busy. When one group leaves, another enters upon the scene. This time a demoniac deprived of the power of speech is brought to Jesus. [Greek] -2 _ftnref29 [Greek] What the New Testament teaches with respect to this subject may be briefly summarized as follows: 1. It is not true that the New Testament writers, in common with all primitive people, ascribed all (physicalillnesses and abnormalities to the presence and operation of evil spirits. It is clear, for example, that Matt. 4:24distinguishes between demoniacs and epileptics. Some afflicted persons are demon-possessed, blind and dumbMatt. 12:22); others lack the power of sight or of speech but are not demon-possessed (15:30). Other passages showing that the Gospel writers carefully distinguish between diseases caused by demons and diseases not so caused are Matt. 8:16; 10:8; Mark 1:32 34; 6:13; 16:17, 18; Luke 4:40, 41; 9:1; 13:32; and Acts 19:12. 2. It is not true that demon-possession is simply another name for (insanity. The fact is that in only two of the many reported cases of possession does the latter very definitely affect the mindMatt. 8:28ff. and parallels; and Acts 19:14 16). 3. Though there is resemblance, it is not true that demon-possession is simply another name for multiple personality or dissociation (for example, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde; or the young lady who was divided between three distinct personalities: the Saint, the Realist, and Sally). Differences between multiple personality and demon-possession: (a.demons are spiritual beings who are able to depart from a man and to enter the swine; b.they are always evil; and c.they are not driven out by psychological treatments applied over a longer or shorter period of time, but by the word and power of Christ, instantly. None of thisa., b.and c.) applies to multiple personality. 4. The term demon-possession describes a condition in which a distinct and evil personality, foreign to the person possessed, has taken control of an individual. This evil personality or demon is able to speak through the mouth of the possessed individual, and to answer when addressed (Mark 5:7 10; Luke 4:41; Acts 16:18; 19:13–15). 5. Demons are the agents of Satan. Jesus came on earth in order to crush the power of Satan. He came to bind the strong man (Matt. 12:29; Luke 11:21, 22; cf. Rev. 20:1–3) by means of his victory over him in the desert of temptation, and also by means of demon-expulsions and especially the cross (Col. 2:15). This binding of the devil points forward to the latter's ultimate and complete defeat in connection with Christ's second coming (Rev. 20:10; cf. Rom. 16:20). 6. Convincing evidence of present-day demon-possession has not been furnished. Demonic influence, yes; demon-possession, not necessarily. It is clear that in the case mentioned here in 9:32 demon-possession had resulted in a serious handicap: loss of the power of speech. 33. When the demon had been cast out the dumb man spoke.The manner in which the spectators were affected by this miracle is stated in these words: The crowd was filled with amazement and said, Never has anything like this been seen in Israel.Though this expression of astonishment is linked with this one miracle, and is also very appropriate in this connection for who would not be filled with wonder if, in his very presence, a person known to be without the power of speech suddenly starts to talk it may very well be viewed as the people's reaction to all the miracles that took place that day (verses 18 33). The words and the works of Jesus aroused surprise and wonderMatt. 7:28, 29; 9:8, 26; 15:31; Mark 7:37; 4:41; Luke 4:15, 36, 37; 5:26, etc. . That the reaction was not unanimously favorable is brought out in verse 34. The Pharisees, however, were saying, By the prince of the demons he casts out demons.It is to be observed that the Pharisees did not try to deny the reality of these mighty works. Cf. Acts 4:16. They did something even more wicked. It was to the enabling influence of Satan, the prince of the demons, that they ascribed Christ's power to perform miracles. The hostility revealed already in verses 3 and 11 reaches a very high point here in verse 34. Since 12:24 dwells in greater detail with this same Pharisaic accusation further discussion will be postponed until that passage is reached. The sin of the Pharisees was terrible indeed. They should have combined the evidence of the mighty works with the equally powerful testimony of the Messianic prophecies that were being fulfilled before their very eyes. In connection with the events recorded in Matt. 9:30, 33 they should have thought of Isa. 35:5, 6( Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened &and the tongue of the dumb shall sing ). 9:35–38 The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few Cf. Mark 6:6, 34; Luke 10:2 35 And Jesus went through all the cities and the villages, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every illness and every infinity. 36 Now when he saw the throngs he was moved with compassion for them, because they were fatigued and forlorn like sheep without a shepherd. 37 Then he said to his disciples, The harvest (is) plentiful, but the laborers (are) few. 38 Pray therefore the Lord of the harvest to thrust laborers into his harvest. 35. And Jesus went through all the cities and the villages, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every illness and every infirmity.Here Matthew pauses, as it were. He looks back and repeats, almost word for word, what he has previously written (cf. 9:35 with 4:23), but substitutes all the cities and the villages for the earlier all Galilee, by means of this substitution probably adding emphasis to the comprehensive scope of Christ's ministry. For the rest, see on 4:23. At this point, however, the character of the narrative changes somewhat. The terrain remains the same: the Great Galilean Ministry continues, and will continue until 15:20. But whereas until now the main interest has been centered in Christ's words of wisdom and his works of power, to which the crowds respond with enthusiasm but the scribes and Pharisees with growing antagonism, from this point on the deeply emotional forces motivating each of the leading actors in this drama of salvation become more sharply defined. Thus we are now told, for the first time specificallyimpliedin 8:17 , that Jesus helping and healing missions result from sympathy or compassion; that the base accusation of the Pharisees By the prince of the demons he casts out demons, 9:34 is not about to be dropped but is to be repeated (10:25; 12:24, 27), with murderous intent (12:14); and that the people's enthusiasm regarding the prophet of Nazareth is to a large extent of a carnal nature, so that when their earthly expectation is not satisfied they turn against him (11:20 ff.). So do his own brothers (Mark 3:21, 22), and his own townspeople (13:57). Consequently Christ's ministry becomes a bitter struggle. Gradually the cross comes into view; for him uniquely, but in a broader sense for his disciples also, because of their connection with him (10:25, 38). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER X Chapter 10 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him to Do The Charge to The Twelve The Second Great Discourse 10:1–42 The Charge to The Twelve Cf. Mark 3:13 19; 6:7–13; Luke 9:1 6 10 And he called to himself his twelve disciples, and gave them authority over unclean spirits to cast them out, and to heal every sickness and every infirmity. 2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are as follows: first, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed him. 5 These twelve Jesus sent out after giving them the following charge: Into any road of the Gentiles do not turn off, and into any city of the Samaritans do not enter, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as you go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. 8 Heal (the) sick, raise (the) dead, cleanse (the) lepers, cast out (the) demons; freely you received, freely give. 9 Don t supply yourselves with gold or silver or copper (money) to put into your belts, 10 nor with a traveler's bag, two tunics, or (extra) sandals, or a staff, for the worker is entitled to his support. 11 Whatever city or village you enter, look for someone there who is deserving, and stay at his house until you leave (the place). 12 When you enter a home pronounce your greeting upon it; 13 and if that home is deserving let your peace come upon it, but if it is not deserving let your peace return to you. 14 And if anyone will not receive you and listen to your words, in going out of that house or of that city shake the dust off your feet. 15 I solemnly declare to you, in the day of judgment it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that city. 16 Look, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be keen as the serpents, guileless as the doves. 17 And beware of men, for they will hand you over to councils, and in their synagogues they will flog you. 18 On my account you will be dragged before governors and kings for a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. 19 Now whenever they hand you over (to the authorities), do not worry as to how or what you should speak, since what you should say will be given to you in that hour; 20 for it is not you who speak, but it is your Father's Spirit (who is) speaking in you. 21 Brother will deliver up brother to death, (the) father (his) child, and children will rise up against (their) parents and will kill them. 22 And you will be hated by all for my name's sake; but he that endures to the end, he will be saved. 23 Now whenever they persecute you in this city, flee to the next one; for I solemnly declare to you, you will certainly not finish (going through) the cities of Israel before the Son of man comes. 24 A pupil does not outrank his teacher, nor a slave his master. 25 Let the pupil be satisfied to share his teacher's lot, and the slave to share his master's. If (even) the master of the house was called Beelzebul, how much more the members of his household! 26 Therefore do not be afraid of them; for there is nothing covered that will not be uncovered, or hidden that will not be made known. 27 What I say to you in the dark, tell it out in broad daylight; what is whispered into your ear, proclaim it on the housetops. 28 And do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not sparrows sold two for a cent? Yet not one of them shall fall to the ground without (the will of) your Father. 30 And as for yourselves, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 Therefore do not fear. You are worth more than many sparrows. 32 Whoever therefore shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven. 33 But whoever shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven. 34 Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 For I came to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 A man's enemies (will be) the members of his household. 37 He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38 and he who does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me. 39 He who finds his life shall lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake shall find it. 40 He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me. 41 He who receives a prophet because he is a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he who receives a righteous person because he is a righteous person shall receive a righteous person's reward. 42 And whoever gives to one of these little ones even so much as a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, I solemnly declare to you, he shall certainly not lose his reward. This chapter, from verse 5 to the end, contains one of the Lord's instructive discourses, the second of the six. For all six see pp. v, vi, 846. Here, as in the preceding chapters, Christ's prophetic, priestly, and royal offices are inextricably intertwined, as follows: In sending his disciples out on a mission tour Jesus shows them how they should conduct themselves. Accordingly, he appears here as teacher or prophet, revealer of the Father's will. But this title prophet applies to him also in the more restricted sense of predictor of coming events. A single reading of the charge shows that, especially from verse 16 to the end, the One who addresses The Twelve is predicting the future. He is describing what is going to happen when the church brings Christ's message to those lost in sin. The Lord's priestly office, with its implication of vicarious suffering, is also foreshadowed (see verse 38), though as yet very dimly. The disciples, in taking up their cross, must follow after their Master. They will be hated because he is hated (cf. verses 22, 24, 25). Finally, it is as king Lord of lords and King of kings (Rev. 17:14) that Jesus sends out his ambassadors. He arms them with authority (10:1) because he himself is clothed with supreme authority. Summary Matthew first gives the setting of the charge-discourse. In reality the background material begins at 9:35–38 (see on these verses). In 10:1 the evangelist makes mention of the summoning of the disciples and of the power Jesus delegates to them. Then (verses 2 4) the roll of The Twelve is called. The actual charge follows (verses 5 42). As was true in connection with the Sermon on the Mount so also here in this Charge to The Twelve there is no rambling but a very orderly progression of thought. The specifics of the charge are given in what may be considered the first part of the address (verses 5 15). The disciples, who may now properly be called apostles, are told where they should go, what they have to proclaim, what they must do, in what condition they are to set out on their tour, and with whom they must lodge. In what may be viewed as the second portion of the address (verses 16 42), where the charge, though continuing, begins to blend with prophetic discourse, Jesus describes what will be the people's sharply contrasted response to the apostle's mission: some will accept it; many will reject it. For the missionaries this rejection will mean bitter persecution, probably already implied in verses 13b 15. Jesus shows them how they should respond to this treatment, namely, with courage and with trust in the Lord who is going to reward them for their loyalty. The reading of verses 13 16 would seem to indicate, however, that what may be considered Part I of the address (verses 5 15) blends into Part II (verses 16 42) so gradually and exquisitely that the entire charge-discourse (verses 5 42) can be treated as a unit; hence verse by verse or paragraph by paragraph without any sub-topics. Result: a division of the chapter into two parts: a. the setting (verses 1 4); and b. the charge (verses 5 42). However, the gradual character of the transition from verses 5 15 to verses 16 42 is not universally admitted. As some see it, Christ's warning that the disciples would not be welcomed everywhere but would be rejected by many is not an adequate introduction to the predictions of the persecution in store for the church. Thus the conclusion is reached that what is found in 10:5–42 is not really a unit but is a combination. Jesus, so it is argued, did not at this time deliver the entire address. On the contrary, when, sometime after Christ's resurrection, persecution began to raise its head the Gospel composer combined an early address of Jesus with some of his later sayings, particularly with those found in his eschatological address (Matt. 10:17 22with Mark 13:9 13and with Luke 21:12 17). According to this view the result of the combination is what is found in (Matt. 10:5–42. To bolster this combination theory it is further pointed out that the dire prediction of martyrdom (verses 21, 28) was not fulfilled during the apostles first missionary tour; rather, the very opposite occurredLuke 22:35). But since the earliest readers of this Gospel knew very well that the predicted afflictions did not take place before Christ's resurrection but afterward, they would experience no difficulty in understanding the composite nature of that which is here presented as if it were one charge.^[430] Objections: a. The discourse is presented as if it was delivered as a unit. It is preceded by the words, These twelve Jesus sent out after giving them the following charge [literally, after commanding them, saying ] (10:5). It is followed by, Now when Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples he went on from there &(11:1). b. Jesus had already dimly referred to his own approaching death (9:15). Was it not natural, therefore, that he would even at this time begin to tell the disciples, and through them the church, what would happen after his departure? Though before Christ's resurrection, none of The Twelve was martyred, strong opposition must have arisen immediately (10:14, 15, 23 25), with martyrdom following later (John 21:18, 19; Acts 12:1, 2; cf. Rev. 6:9). It is not clear why both of these links in the chain of persecution could not have been predicted at the same time. c. Even in his eschatological discourse (Matt. 24, 25) Jesus himself (not merely the evangelist) blends into a single discourse a chronologically far removed event (the second coming), a closer and long continuing transaction (the preaching of the gospel to all the nations), and an imminent tragedy (the fall of Jerusalem). So why may he not have done something similar here in Matt. 10? d. As has been pointed out before, it is not at all unusual for speakers to repeat earlier important sayings or remarks. Why, for example, would it be unnatural for Jesus to allude to Mic. 7:6both here in Matt. 10:21, 35and also in Luke 21:16? Besides, the difference between the discourse found in Matt. 10and any of Christ's other discourses is far greater than the similarity. e. The fact that the phraseology, In their synagogues they will flog you (10:17; cf. 23:34) occurs only in Matthew's Gospel would seem to indicate an early, Palestinian origin for this expression, rather than a later time of persecution.^[431] I shall proceed on the assumption, therefore, that the address recorded in Matt. 10:5 42was delivered as a unit, as Matthew indicates. The Setting 10:1. And he called to himself his twelve disciples, and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every sickness and every infirmity. Matthew seems to take for granted that the readers of his Gospel already know that The Twelve, taken as a group, had been chosen earlier, though he himself does not record this call. According to (Luke 6:12, 13, 20this company of twelve had been called just previous to the preaching of the Sermon on the MountMark 3:13, 14). Now, perhaps somewhat later (during the same summer, namely, of the year a.d. 28?), Jesus sends these men out on a mission tour. They were to be his official ambassadors or apostles, clothed with authority to represent their Sender. That exactly twelve men, no more and no less, were chosen for this task must mean that the Lord designated them to be the nucleus of the new Israel, for the Israel of the old dispensation had been represented by the twelve patriarchs (Gen. 49:28). Very interesting and instructive surely is the fact that the very men who had been urged to pray that the Lord of the harvest might thrust out laborers into his harvest (9:38) are now placed in the forefront of these laborers (cf. 18:18). They are, moreover, given authority over unclean spirits (Rev. 6:13), probably designated by that name because not only are these spirits themselves filthy but among men they are also the instigators of filthy thoughts, words, and deeds.^[432] Exactly what does Matthew mean when he says that Jesus gave to The Twelve authority [that is, power plus the right to exercise it] over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every sickness and every infirmity? Does he wish to say that by means of, and as a result of, casting out these demons the disciples acquired the authority to heal every sickness and every infirmity? If that is the sense it would almost seem as if every sickness and every infirmity is somehow caused by demons. Now in connection with 9:32 it has already been shown: a. that according to the Gospels in certain cases diseases were indeed associated with demon possession, but also b. that this was by no means always true. At times a physical affliction is ascribed to Satanic influence rather than specifically to demon-possession (Luke 13:16; cf. Job 2:7). Often neither Satan nor his underlings are even mentioned in connection with human illnesses. It is true that in a very general and indirect way every manifestation of human distress, whether physical or spiritual, can be ascribed to Satan, for had Adam as head of the race resisted the temptation these evils would not now be in evidence (Gen. 2:16, 17; 3:3, 6, 19; Rom. 5:17). All this hardly suffices to justify the conclusion: Matt. 10:1means a. that every sickness and every infirmity is directly caused by demons, and b. that the disciples by receiving authority to drive them out acquired the power to heal every disease. Grammatically it is entirely legitimate to interpret 10:1 differently, namely, that Jesus gave to The Twelve authority over unclean spirits, so that these men were able and were instructed to cast them out, and he gave them authority to heal every sickness and every infirmity. The shortened manner in which this is expressed in 10:1 may be considered one of the many instances of abbreviated discourse.^[433] The similarity of 10:1 to 4:23 and 9:35 shows that in faithfully carrying out their assignment The Twelve are truly representing their Master, for they are doing what he himself is doing and what they have been ordered to do. In the same manner Jesus himself represents the Father (John 5:19). 2. Now the names of the twelve apostles are as follows: first, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3. Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4. Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed him. In the New Testament the names of The Twelve are listed four times (Matt. 10:2–4; Mark 3:16 19; Luke 6:14 16; Acts 1:13, 26). Acts 1:15 26records the manner in which Judas Iscariot was replaced by Matthias. As to the Gospel lists, each begins with Peter (so does Acts) and ends with Judas Iscariot. Even the arrangement within the four references shows but little variation. When theoretically the twelve names are viewed in each case as consisting of three groups of four, the following result is obtained: In Matthew's summary Andrew's name is listed immediately after that of his brother Peter; the brothers James and John are mentioned next. This completes the first group of four. These four may well have been Christ's first disciples (John 1:35 42; and see above on Matt. 4:18–22). The second group of four begins with Philip and Bartholomew (=Nathanael), called to be Christ's disciples immediately after the first group of four (John 1:43 51); and concludes with Thomas and Matthew. In the final group the first three names are those of obscure disciples, that is, men about whom little (Thaddaeus) or next to nothing (James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Cananaean) is known; the last name is that of the traitor Judas. Does this obscurity and (in one case) perversity account for the fact that these four are mentioned last? Or are they mentioned last because they were the last to be called? We do not know. In Mark's list the sequence for the first group of four is the same as in Matthew's with the exception that Andrew is now placed last. In Mark's second four we find Matthew and Thomas instead of Thomas and Matthew. With respect to his last four, Matthew's and Mark's lists are identical. Luke's Gospel list follows Matthew's for the first four names, Mark's for the second four. With respect to the last four names Luke goes his own way, reversing the order of the two middle names as listed in both Matthew and Mark. Besides, he substitutes the name Judas the son [or: the brother] of James for Thaddaeus, undoubtedly having in mind one and the same person. Hence, here Luke has the sequence: James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the one called the Zealot, and Judas the son [or: the brother] of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor. Luke's list in the book of Acts has the sequence Peter and John and James and Andrew, for the first four; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, for the second four; and ends with James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. The name of Matthias is added in verse 26. Therefore, not only do the four lists contain the same twelve namesActs 1Matthias instead of Judas Iscariot ; they even (again, with exception as noted) have the same names in each group of four. According to Mark 6:7Jesus sent out the twelve two by two. In Matthew, as the and within each pair and the omission of and between each pair indicates, the grouping is in pairs: Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew, etc. Exception: and also occurs between the first two pairs, perhaps because these are two sets of brothers. The possibility that on the journey Philip and Bartholomew actually traveled together, and so also Thomas and Matthew, Peter and Andrew, etc., must be allowed. Yet, there can be no absolute certainty about this, all the less so because the grouping varies somewhat in the four lists, as has been indicated. At any rate the old rhyme makes it easy to remember the names, and also reminds one of the fact that the men were actually sent out in pairs. Peter and Andrew, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, Matthew next and Thomas too [or: Thomas next and Matthew too], James the Less and Judas the Greater, Simon the Zealot and Judas the Traitor. As to the individuals that composed this group of twelve, no one is mentioned more often than colorful, impetuous Peter. His original name was Simon (or Simeon). He was the son of Jonas (or John). By trade he was a fisherman, with his brother Andrew dwelling first in Bethsaida, afterward in Capernaum. Jesus, by whose grace and influence he was to be gradually transformed from a rather unstable person to a faithful, dependable witness, prophetically changed his name from Simon to Cephas (Aramaic), the same as Peter (Greek: Petros), meaning rock. For a description of Peter's character and personality see especially on 4:18–22; 26:58, 69 75; and N.T.C. on John 13:6 9; 18:15–18, 25 27; ch. 21. Two New Testament books are by tradition credited to Peter, namely, the epistles called I and II Peter. As was shown earlier (see pp. 41, 44, 53) the Gospel writer Mark has not unjustly been called Peter's interpreter. Here in Matt. 10:2to the name of this disciple, who is variously called Simon, Peter, Simon Peter, and Cephas, is prefixed the word first. He was indeed the leader of the group. In this connection see on 16:16–19. It is hard to overestimate Peter's meaning for the history of the early church. It was Andrew, also a fisherman, who brought his brother Peter to Jesus (John 1:41, 42). For other references to Andrew see above (on 4:18–22); also study Mark 1:16, 29; 13:3; John 6:8, 9; 12:22. See also below under Philip. James and John, too, were brothers, sons of Zebedee. Matthew mentions these two fishermen not only here and in 4:21, 22 (see on that passage), but also later on (17:1; and cf. 20:20, 21).^[434] There are also several references to them in the other Gospels. Because of their fiery nature Jesus called James and John sons of thunder (Mark 3:17; cf. Luke 9:54 56). James was the first of the apostles to wear the martyr's crown (Acts 12:2). While he was the first to arrive in heaven, his brother John was in all probability the last to remain on earth. On the life and character of John, considered by many (I believe correctly) as being the disciple whom Jesus loved (John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20) see N.T.C. on the Gospel according to John, Vol. I, pp. 18–21. Five New Testament books have by tradition been assigned to John: his Gospel, three epistles (I, II, and III John), and the book of Revelation. Philip was at least for a while a fellow townsman of Peter and Andrew, that is, he too was from Bethsaida. Having himself responded to the call of Jesus, he found Nathanael, and said to him, The one about whom Moses wrote in the law and about whom the prophets wrote, we have found, Jesus, son of Joseph, the one from Nazareth (John 1:45). When Jesus was about to feed the five thousand he asked Philip, How are we to buy bread-cakes that these (people) may eat? Philip answered, Bread-cakes for two hundred denarii would not be sufficient for them so that each might get a little something (John 6:5, 7). Philip apparently forgot that the power of Jesus surpassed any possibility of calculation. To deduce from this incident the conclusion that Philip was a coldly-calculating type of person, more so than the other apostles, would be basing too much on too little. In the Gospels Philip generally appears in a rather favorable light. Thus, when the Greeks approached him with the request, Sir, we would see Jesus, he went and told Andrew, and these two, Andrew and Philip, brought the enquirers to Jesus (John 12:21, 22). It must be admitted that Philip did not always immediately understand the meaning of Christ's profound utterances did the others? but to his credit it must be said that with perfect candor he would reveal his ignorance and ask for further information, as is also clear from (John 14:8, Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be content. He received the beautiful and comforting answer, &He who has seen me has seen the FatherJohn 14:9). Bartholomew (meaning: son of Tolmai) is clearly the Nathanael of John's Gospel (1:45–49; 21:2). It was he who said to Philip, Out of Nazareth can any good come? Philip answered, Come and see. When Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him he said, Look, truly an Israelite in whom deceit does not exist. This disciple-apostle was one of the seven persons to whom the resurrected Christ appeared at the Sea of Tiberias. Of the other six only Simon Peter, Thomas, and the sons of Zebedee are mentioned. The references to Thomas combine in indicating that despondency and devotion marked this man. He was ever afraid that he might lose his beloved Master. He expected evil, and it was hard for him to believe good tidings when they were brought to him. Yet when the risen Savior in all his tender, condescending love revealed himself to him it was he who exclaimed, My Lord and my God! For more information on Thomas see N.T.C. on John 11:16; 14:5; 20:24–28; 21:2. Matthew has already been discussed in some detail (see on 9:9). About James, the son of Alphaeus, by Mark (15:40) called James the Less, which by some is interpreted as meaning James the younger, but by others as James small in stature, we have no further positive information. It is probable, however, that he was the same disciple who is referred to in Matt. 27:56; Mark 16:1; and Luke 24:10. If this be correct, his mother's name was Mary, one of the women who accompanied Jesus and stood near the cross. See N.T.C. on John 19:25. It has already been shown that the Alphaeus who was the father of Matthew should probably not be identified with Alphaeus the father of James the Less. See above, footnote 113 on p. 95. Thaddaeus (Matt. 10:3and Mark 3:18) is in all probability the Judas not Iscariot of John 14:22(see on that passage); cf. Acts 1:13. From what is said about him in John 14it would seem that he wanted Jesus to show himself to the world, probably meaning: to get into the limelight. The second Simon is called the Cananaean, the latter being an Aramaic surname meaning enthusiast or zealot. In fact Luke calls him Simon the Zealot (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). In all probability this name is here given him because formerly he had belonged to the party of the Zealots, which party in its hatred for the foreign ruler, who demanded tribute, did not shrink from fomenting rebellion against the Roman government. See Josephus Jewish War II.117, 118; Antiquities XVIII.1 10, 23. Cf. Acts 5:37. Finally, there was Judas Iscariot, generally interpreted as meaning Judas the man from Kerioth, a place in southern Judea. The Gospels refer to him again and again (Matt. 26:14, 25, 47; 27:3; Mark 14:10, 43; Luke 22:3, 47, 48; John 6:71; 12:4; 13:2, 26, 29; 18:2–5). He is at times described as Judas who betrayed him, Judas one of the twelve, the betrayer, Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, or simply Judas. It is probably useless to speculate about the reasons which induced Jesus to select this man as one of his disciples. The basic answer may well be embedded in such passages as (Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23; cf. 4:28. This man, though thoroughly responsible for his own wicked deeds, was an instrument of the devilJohn 6:70, 71). While other people, when they felt that they could no longer agree with or even tolerate Christ's teachings, would simply disassociate themselves from him (John 6:66), Judas remained, as if he were in full accord with him. Being a very selfish person he was unable or shall we say unwilling? to understand the unselfish and beautiful deed of Mary of Bethany, who anointed JesusJohn 12:1ff. . He was unable and unwilling to see that the native language of love is lavishness. It was the devil who instigated Judas to betray Jesus, that is, to deliver him into the hands of the enemy. He was a thief; yet it was he who had been entrusted with the treasuryship of the little company, with the predictable result (John 12:6). When, in connection with the institution of the Lord's Supper, the dramatic moment arrived forever commemorated in Scripture (Matt. 26:20–25; John 13:21 30) and emblazoned in art (Leonardo da Vinci, etc.) in which Jesus startled The Twelve by saying, One of you will betray me, Judas, though having already received from the chief priests the thirty pieces of silver as a reward for his promised deed (Matt. 26:14–16), had the incredible audacity to say, Surely not I, Rabbi? Judas served as guide for the detachment of soldiers and the posse of temple police that arrested Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane. It was by means of perfidiously kissing his Master, as if he were still a loyal disciple, that this traitor pointed out Jesus to those who had come to seize him (Matt. 26:49, 50; Luke 22:47, 48). As to the manner of Judas self-inflicted demise, see on (Matt. 27:3–5; cf. Acts 1:18. What caused this privileged disciple to become Christ's betrayer? Was it injured pride, disappointed ambition, deeply intrenched greed, fear of being put out of the synagogueJohn 9:22)? No doubt all of these were involved, but could not the most basic reason have been this, that between the utterly selfish heart of Judas and the infinitely unselfish and outgoing heart of Jesus there was a chasm so immense that either Judas must implore the Lord to bestow upon him the grace of regeneration and complete renewal, a request which the traitor wickedly refused to make, or else he must offer his help to get rid of Jesus? One thing is certain: The shocking tragedy of Judas life is proof not of Christ's impotence but of the traitor's impenitence! Woe to that man! What points up the greatness of Jesus is that he took such men as these, and welded them into an amazingly influential community that would prove to be not only a worthy link with Israel's past but also a solid foundation for the church's future. Yes, he accomplished this multiple miracle with such men as these, with all their faults and foibles, as described on pp. 246, 247. Even when we leave out Judas Iscariot and concentrate only on the others, we cannot fail to be impressed with the majesty of the Savior, whose drawing power, incomparable wisdom, and matchless love were so astounding that he was able to gather round himself and to unite into one family men of entirely different, at times even opposite, backgrounds and temperaments. Included in this little band was Peter the optimist (Matt. 14:28; 26:33, 35), but also Thomas the pessimist (John 11:16; 20:24, 25); Simon the one-time Zealot, hating taxes and eager to overthrow the Roman government, but also Matthew, who had voluntarily offered his tax collecting services to that same Roman government; Peter, John, and Matthew, destined to become renowned through their writings, but also James the Less, who remains obscure but must have fulfilled his mission. Jesus drew them to himself with the cords of his tender, never-failing compassion. He loved them to the uttermost (John 13:1), and in the night before he was betrayed and crucified commended them to his Father, saying: I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world; thine they were, and thou gavest them to me, and they have kept thy word.& Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, in order that they may be one, even as we are one.& I do not make request that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Consecrate them in the truth; thy word is truth. Just as thou didst send me into the world, so have I also sent them into the world. And for thy sake I consecrate myself, in order that they also may be truly consecratedJohn 17:6 19, in part . The Charge 5, 6. These twelve Jesus sent out after giving them the following charge: Into any road of the Gentiles do not turn off, and into any city of the Samaritans do not enter, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Though, as just indicated, this group of twelve was to be sent into the world, that did not happen immediately. Initially these men were told to limit their activity to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Jer. 50:6; Ezek. 34:5, 6). With some important exceptions Jesus himself also followed the rule, To the Jew first, and also to the Greek (Rom. 1:16; 2:9, 10). Though his teaching was not confined to temple and synagogue, yet for him and his work these retained their basic importance (Matt. 4:23; 13:53; John 18:20). Nevertheless, that the Lord was by no means forgetting the Gentiles has already been made clear (John 10:16). But in God's plan it was from Jerusalem that the gospel must spread out among the nations (Gen. 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4, cf. Acts 3:25; also Isa. 49:6, cf. Acts 13:47; then Isa. 54:1–3, cf. Gal. 4:27; and Amos 9:11, 12, cf. Acts 15:16 18). All this does not subtract one iota from the fact that in principle the nationalism of the Old Testament (with internationalism shining through frequently) is destroyed by the cross, so that today There is no distinction between Jew and Greek (Rom. 10:12; cf. John 3:16; I Cor. 7:19; Gal. 3:9, 29; Eph. 2:14, 18; Col. 3:11; and I Peter 2:9). The command given in 10:5, 6 was a temporary restriction which later on would be lifted, as is clearly implied in Matt. 28:19, 20. That the apostles actually obeyed the command regarding the proper sequence in spreading the gospel is clear from Acts 3:26; 13:46. So then, for the time being the apostles are told not to go outside of Jewish territory nor even to the Samaritans, people of mixed descent and religion (II Kings 17:24; John 4:22), and living between Galilee and Judea. Matthew's recording of this temporary restriction adds force to one of the main purposes of his book, namely, fully to win the Jews for Christ (see above, p. 97). It is as if the evangelist (and God through him) were saying to the Jews: Think of all the privileges you have enjoyed, the work that was bestowed upon you by prophets and priests. Besides, when Messiah arrived, in fulfilment of the predictions and symbols, he saw to it that you were the first to receive the glad tidings. Intensive work to make known salvation through him was carried on first among yourselves. Therefore accept him today as your Lord and Savior! Jesus continues: 7. And as you go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. This kingdom theme, proclaimed first by John the Baptist, then by Jesus, and now also by his disciples, has already been explained (see on 3:2; 4:17, 23). Briefly stated it means that the apostles must keep on proclaiming that the dispensation, when through the fulfilment of Messianic prophecy heaven's (i.e., God's) reign in the hearts and lives of men would assert itself more powerfully than ever before, was about to begin, in a sense had even now arrived. The charge continues: 8. Heal (the) sick, raise (the) dead, cleanse (the) lepers, cast out (the) demons; freely you received, freely give. A comparison of 10:8 with 4:23; 9:35 shows that what Jesus means is, Do and continue to do what I am doing and have been doing. The authority to do this had already been imparted to them (10:1). By God's grace they themselves must now apply that power. There is abundant evidence to show that what is here ordered and predicted actually took place, some of it at once, on this journey or soon afterward, some at a later time, after Christ's resurrection; some through the agency of The Twelve, through their leader Peter, or Peter and John, and some through Paul, who must certainly also be reckoned among the apostles. See the following passages: (Mark 6:13, 30; Luke 9:6 10; Acts 3:1 10; 5:12–16; 9:32–43; 14:8–10; 19:11, 12; 20:7–12; 28:7–10. Jesus, moreover, directs The Twelve that they must give their services freely. What they have received freely they must give freely and gladly. There must be no simony of any kindActs 8:18 24). Jesus has told the apostles where to go, what to proclaim, and what to do. He now tells them in what condition they are to set out on their tour: 9, 10. Don t supply yourselves with gold or silver or copper (money) to put into your belts, nor with a traveler's bag, two tunics or (extra) sandals, or a staff.& Only that which is strictly necessary must be taken along on this trip. Accordingly The Twelve must not supply themselves with money, for they will not need it. They must not attempt to acquire such coins as, for example, the gold aureus, the silver denarius, or even the copper assarion. They must not burden their belts with these. Some have suggested that money was put into a belt by placing it in a little bag or wallet, which, like a sword, could then be attached to the belt. Others point out that the belt was not always or necessarily made of leather (3:4) but often of linen or wool, as was the tunic. By winding or wrapping such a belt around the body a few times its folds would serve admirably as pockets for money or other valuables.^[435] A knapsack or traveling bag (literally: bag for the road or for traveling) to carry supplies, such as food and clothing, must also be left behind.^[436] Moreover, one tunic will suffice. An extra one, whether simply for reserve or for extra protection against inclement weather (Mark 6:9) will not be necessary. This warning against taking along extras probably carries over to the next item. If so, Don t supply yourselves with &sandals would mean, Do not take along an extra pair of sandals. The ones you are wearing will suffice. Not only does this interpretation seem to fit the context, it also brings the passage into harmony with (Mark 6:9. Besides, barefootedness is in Scripture associated with other ideas, such as reverence in the divine presenceExod. 3:5), extreme poverty (Isa. 15:2–5), and grief (II Sam. 15:30; cf. Ezek. 24:17). The acquisition of a new staff to replace the old will also not be necessary and here is not even allowed (Mark 6:8). The question will be asked, Why all these restrictions? The answer that immediately suggests itself might well be, Because God will provide. The apostles must place their trust entirely in him. No doubt this is indeed the basic answer. See on 6:19–34, to which add Luke 22:35. Nevertheless, in the present context another thought (not unrelated, to be sure) is added; namely, for the worker is entitled to his support.^[437] To be sure, from the side of the apostles there should be no greed, no desire for enrichment: what they have received freely must be given away freely (verse 8). This, however, by no means cancels the obligation resting upon those who receive the good tidings. Upon them rests the obligation to supply the needs of these twelve men. This is in line with Scripture everywhere. See especially the following passages: Deut. 25:4; I Cor. 9:7, 14; and N.T.C. on I Tim. 5:18. To every worker God has given the right to partake of the fruits of his work. This includes also physical provision. Very interesting in this connection is Paul's stand on this question. See the ten point summary in N.T.C. on I Thess. 2:9. It has become clear, therefore, that God is going to provide for these men on their journey, both now and later on, and that he will use the friends of the gospel to carry out his plan. This implies that the apostles, on their part, must carefully select the families that will lodge them. Therefore, it is not surprising that Jesus now adds: 11. Whatever city or village you enter, look for someone there who is deserving, and stay at his house until you leave (the place). It is probably legitimate to suppose that, arrived in any town of whatever size, the missionaries would first of all preach out in the open, at this or that street corner, in the market-place or square (Jonah 3:4); or, if invited to do so, in the synagogue. From the response they receive it would not be difficult to determine who, among the listeners, were worthy or deserving to provide hospitality to the bringers of good tidings. They might be the kind of people who were waiting for the consolation of Israel (Luke 2:25) or the redemption of Jerusalem (Luke 2:38). Such people could be expected to rejoice in the opportunity to lodge God's messengers. Having found such a home, let the disciples consider it their headquarters until they leave this town for another place. Since The Twelve were traveling two by two, the privilege of helping the cause of the gospel in this manner might be extended to several people. In the time and region where all this was happening there was a long tradition of hospitality. Social conditions were such that this practice was almost a necessity, due to the fact that travel was not as yet easy, and inns few and far between. Also, the family that offered shelter today might be in need of receiving the same courtesy the following week. In addition to this it should be noted that those among the listeners who were versed in Israelitish tradition and in view of verses 5 and 6 there were many of them knew that the Scriptures by means of a long list of noble examples in no uncertain way encouraged the practice of entertaining guests. Among those who had in former years extended hospitality were Abraham (Gen. 18:1–8), Rebekah (Gen. 24:25), Reuel (Exod. 2:20), Manoah (Judg. 13:15), the Shunnamite woman (II Kings 4:8–10), and Job (Job 31:34). This practice continued into the next dispensation. Hence, for the New Testament period add the names of such generous persons as Levi (Matt. 9:10; Luke 5:29), Zacchaeus (Luke 19:5, 10), Martha and Mary (John 12:1, 2), Lydia (Acts 16:14, 15), Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:26; Rom. 16:3, 4), Phoebe (Rom. 16:1, 2), Philemon (Philem. 7, 22), Onesiphorus (II Tim. 1:16), and Gaius (III John 5, 6). The Bible regards the spirit and practice of hospitality to be one of the indispensable qualities of the Christian life (Rom. 12:13; I Tim. 3:2; 5:10; Titus 1:8; Heb. 13:2).^[438] Continued: 12, 13. When you enter a home pronounce your greeting upon it; and if that home is deserving let your peace come upon it, but if it is not deserving let your peace return to you. Having established themselves in the homes of those who were worthy, the apostles must now go from home to home, bringing the gospel. When they enter any home they must pronounce their greeting upon it. Accordingly, they will use the familiar formula, Peace to you. At that time, as also even today, this was and is a customary greeting (Gen. 43:23; Judg. 6:23; 19:20; I Sam. 25:6; I Chron. 12:18; Ps. 122:8; Dan. 4:1; 6:25; 10:19; Luke 10:5; 24:36; John 20:19, 21, 26). Nevertheless, it makes a great difference who says it. In the mouth of the unthinking person it may be no more than a conventional phrase. Among friends it was and is undoubtedly the expression of a sincere wish. In the present instance, however and so also in such passages as (Luke 24:36; John 20:19, etc. it is far more than a wish. In the name of their Sender these apostles not only wish peace, they actually bring it. Just as in the Aaronitic benedictionNum. 6:24–26) the name of Jehovah was put upon the children of Israel, so that his blessing would actually result, so it is here.^[439] Yet, there was nothing magical about this. The special blessing was for those who by grace were worthy to receive it through faith, not for the others. If the home is undeserving let your peace return to you, says Jesus, that is, in that case no blessing will be bestowed. In this connection see the explanation of the fourth beatitude (5:6). Continued: 14, 15. And if anyone will not receive you and listen to your words, in going out of that house or of that city shake the dust off your feet. I solemnly declare to you, in the day of judgment it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that city. After traveling through heathen territory Jews had the custom of shaking the dust off their sandals and clothes before re-entering the Holy Land.^[440] They were afraid that otherwise in their own country levitically clean objects might be rendered unclean. What Jesus is saying, therefore, is that even an Israelitish place, be it a house or a city, that refuses to accept the gospel must be considered unclean, as if it were pagan soil. Therefore such a center of unbelief must be treated similarly. Paul and Barnabas did exactly that when a persecution was organized against them in the Jewish district of Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:50, 51). A colossal responsibility, a heavy load of guilt, rests on such a place. Jesus says that in the day of judgment the punishment awaiting the land^[441] of Sodom and Gomorrah, classical examples of wickedness (Gen. 13:13; 18:20; Jude 7), will be lighter than that which is in store for the city that rejects the gospel. The reason why this is true is clearly stated in Luke 12:47, 48. It is difficult, if not impossible, to read verses 14 and 15 and not feel that the Lord is already suggesting that the proclamation of the kingdom message will meet with severe opposition. In what now follows, the nature of this opposition and the forms in which it will express itself is more sharply defined, and the apostles are shown how they must cope with it. 16. Look,^[442] I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Cf. (Luke 10:3. Sending them out as sheepJohn 10:11, 14, 27, 28) is wonderful, but in the midst of or among wolves, vicious and destructive, spells danger. See on 9:36; cf. Ezek. 22:27; Zeph. 3:3; and Acts 20:29. There is comfort, however, in the announcement that he, Jesus himself, is sending them. He must have his wise purpose: a. that they may there proclaim the gospel of the kingdom; b. that by doing so sheep may be gathered from among those very people who are now still called wolves; c. that thus the faith of the apostles may be strengthened; and d. that all of this may redound to the glory of God. Besides, the fact that he himself is sending them means that he is very deeply involved in their ministry, for the phrase, I am sending you, means, I myself am commissioning you to be my apostles, that is, my official representatives,^[443] so that I will be working through you. This certainly implies protection. Come what may, they are under his loving care. If it were not for this they would be helpless, for what can sheep do when they are in the midst of wolves? In extending this wonderful care Jesus does not, however, exempt them from personal responsibility. So he continues: Therefore be keen as the serpents, guileless as the doves. As to the first (Luke 16:8), the serpent is here viewed as the very embodiment of intellectual acumen or shrewdness (Gen. 3:1). The cautiousness and wariness of serpents had become proverbial. The keenness here recommended as a human quality involves insight into the nature of one's surroundings, both personal and material, circumspection, sanctified common sense, wisdom to do the right thing at the right time and place and in the right manner, a serious attempt always to discover the best means to achieve the highest goal, an earnest and honest search for an answer to such questions as: How will this word or this action of mine look in the end? How will it affect my own future, that of my neighbor, God's glory? Is this the best way to handle the problem or is there a better way? See Eph. 5:15. This keenness never implies compromise with evil. Jesus teaches that it is man's duty to be not only keen as the serpents but also guileless or innocent (Phil. 2:15) as the doves. As to doves see on Matt. 3:16; cf. Song of Sol. 5:2, my dove, my undefiled. An excellent example of those by whom this combination of keenness and innocence is exhibited is the apostle Paul, as his epistles and the book of Acts abundantly indicate. He is, to be sure, all things to all men (I Cor. 9:22), carefully selecting his approach to suit each distinct situation. See, for example, (Acts 17:22 31as contrasted with Acts 13:16 41. He is keen indeed. What he does as reported in Acts 23:6 8might even be considered clever. Yet, he is guilelessActs 24:16), and exhorts his readers, too, to hold off from every form of evil (I Thess. 5:22) and to live lives that are filled with positive goodness (I Thess. 5:14, 15). Among others in whom these two characteristics keenness and guilelessness are combined are David in his relation to envious King Saul, who is persecuting himI Sam. 24and 26 ; Mordecai, in his reaction to arrogant Haman (Esther 3:2 4; 4:12–14); and Abigail, a woman of good understanding and discretion, in her dealings with her foolish husband Nabal (I Sam. 25:3). The connection between verses 16 and 17, far from being abrupt, as some have thought, is in reality natural. Jesus has been speaking about wolves, that is, evil men who would try to harm the sheep. So he now continues: 17. And beware of men.& Such evil men were certainly present already before Christ's death on the cross and his resurrection. See 8:3; 9:22, 34. Moreover, was not Judas Iscariot one of Christ's disciples, and was it not going to be his purpose to deliver Jesus over to the authorities? And were there not those who were constantly setting traps for the Savior, that they might have a reason to bring a charge against him? See Matt. 12:10; 22:15; cf. John 8:6. Does not hatred toward Jesus imply unfriendliness toward his disciples also? See 5:10–12; 10:24; John 15:20. The basis for Christ's warning is therefore the present, that is, the condition prevailing right now, during Christ's earthly ministry. In the case of Christ's followers the hatred would be continued and even intensified during the post-resurrection period. Between the persecution which was occurring already, and of which especially Jesus was himself the object, and that of which his disciples were and were to be the objects there was a very close connection, so that the prediction found here in Matt. 10:17is very natural. It is in this context that Jesus warns his disciples to beware of ^[444] men. He means, Be on your guard against them. Although there is no way of determining exactly what the Lord may have had in mind when he said this, he probably meant that the disciples, should watch out for men's evil intentions. Probably one or more of the following items could be arranged under this general idea: a. Do not naively entrust yourselves to men; b. Do not without good cause make them angry; c. Do not fall into the traps of their catch-questions, but pray for grace to give them the appropriate answer; and/or d. Do nothing that might enable them to bring a valid charge against you (I Peter 4:15, 16). Continued: for they will hand you over to councils, and in their synagogues they will flog you. These councils were probably the local Jewish courts, climaxed in the Jewish supreme court, the Sanhedrin (see on 2:4). It was in the synagogue that those who by the court were convicted of certain definite crimes were scourged.^[445] Jewish sources contain detailed regulations regarding such scourging. One judge would recite an appropriate passage from Deuteronomy or from the Psalms, a second would count the blows (Deut. 25:1–3), a third would issue a command before each blow, etc.^[446] From the book of Acts (22:19) we learn that Saul (=Paul) of Tarsus caused believers in Christ to receive this horrible punishment. After his conversion he himself was going to be similarly tortured. He was going to write, From the Jews five times I received forty lashes less one (II Cor. 11:24). It was the servant of the synagogue (Luke 4:20) who was charged with the responsibility of delivering the blows. The prediction broadens, as Jesus continues: 18. On my account you will be dragged before governors and kings for a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. As to governors, think of such procurators as Pontius Pilate, Felix, and Festus; as to kings, of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:1) and of Agrippa II (Acts 25:13, 24, 26). Even Herod Antipas, who technically was not a king, is also given that title at times (Matt. 14:9; Mark 6:14). It was Pontius Pilate who sentenced Jesus to die on the cross, after he had sent him to king Herod Antipas (Matt. 27:26; Luke 23:6 12). It was King Herod Agrippa I who killed James (son of Zebedee, and brother of the apostle John). See Acts 12:1. From Acts 25:13it appears that Paul was brought before King Agrippa II and the procurator Festus. He gave a wonderful testimony as he had also done previously before the procurator Felix. It is understandable that such testimonies were also given before other Gentiles, namely, those who were either present or subsequently heard what had been said. Cf. Phil. 1:12, 13; 4:22. Thus the good news would continue to spread. Thus, a. the initial fulfilment of this prophecy was a matter of the immediate future, as is clear from already existing conditions and attitudes; and b. details concerning its subsequent fulfilment are recorded in the book of Acts and in the epistles. See also Rev. 1:9; 2:8–11; 6:9–11; 12:6, 13 17; etc. What is all-important is the fact that Jesus says this will happen on my account. When anyone persecutes Christ's disciple he is persecuting Christ himself, a fact that was stamped so indelibly upon the mind and heart of Paul (and through him upon Luke's consciousness) that, however much the accounts of Paul's conversion may vary, the words, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? are found in all three (Acts 9:4, 5; 22:7, 8; 26:14, 15). That means that the persecuted one is never separated from Christ's love and from the strength and the comfort he imparts. This comfort is given beautiful expression in verses 19, 20. Now whenever they hand you over (to the authorities), do not worry as to how or what you should speak, since what you should say will be given to you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but it is your Father's Spirit (who is) speaking in you. Being haled to court is a serious matter. How to conduct oneself before judges, including even governors and kings, particularly how to address them, and what to say in defense, might well fill these men with apprehension and horror. Very strikingly Jesus says, Do not worry (see above, on 6:31); that is, Whenever worry raises its head knock it down at once. Here, as in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus forbids not only the habit of worrying but its very beginning. Reason: it will be given to you in that hour. This does not mean that the mind of the persecuted apostle is a tabula rasa (blank tablet) and that then in some mechanical fashion God will suddenly begin to write words upon that blank space. On the contrary, neither when these witnesses are brought to trial nor when they think, for example of Matthew, John, and Peter write books or epistles will their personality be suppressed, or will the previous apostolic training which they received from Jesus be nullified. All this will be enlivened and sharpened and raised to a higher plane of activity. It is in that organic sense that what they must speak will be given to them in that hour. The Father's Spirit will be speaking in them, and that very Spirit, namely, the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Holy Trinity, will remind them of everything that Jesus himself said to them (John 14:26). That Spirit was at work already long before Pentecost (Ps. 51:11). But on and after Pentecost he was going to be poured out in all his fulness. That this prophecy, too, was gloriously fulfilled is evident from the speeches of Peter, or Peter and JohnActs 4:8 12, 19, 20, with the effect upon the audience described in 4:13, 14 and from those of Paul (Acts 21:39 22:21; 23:1, 6; 24:10–21; 26:1–23). Confessing Jesus will create division not only between groups of people for example, between those, on the one hand, who welcome the disciples and their message, and those, on the other hand, who reject both but even within the family circle: 21. Brother will deliver up brother to death, (the) father (his) child, and children will rise up against (their) parents and will kill them. True, this last clause can be softened somewhat to mean and will hand them over to be killed (Mark 13:12; 14:55); basically, however, this makes little if any difference. The person who unjustly causes someone to be put to death is as guilty as if he had committed the act with his own hand. See II Sam. 11:15, cf. 12:9. As the wording indicates verse 21 bears some relation to Mic. 7:6. In that passage the prophet complains about the lack of loyalty prevailing among his people, the son dishonoring his father, the daughter rising up against her mother, etc. What Jesus says here, as reported by Matthew, can hardly be considered a quotation, however. It cuts more deeply. It is a prediction of actual slaughter which, on his account, will be occurring within families, one member being opposed to Christ, another in agreement with him. The Christ-hating son will hand over his own brother, to be put to death; the father his child, children their parents. Recently the terrible words were heard, I think kids should kill their parents. ^[447] Now if this means, because these parents are selfish, unwilling to listen to the cries of the hungry and to share their own substance with them, the sentiment thus expressed, though certainly to be condemned, is not nearly as altogether wicked as is the action predicted and described here in 10:21. As the context note, And you will be hated shows, here the meaning is, Children will rise up against (their) parents and will kill them because of the parents loyalty to Christ. Now it is true that Jesus also teaches what is found in 10:37, 38. But it is one thing to express preference and to do so decisively. It is another to kill the one on whose side we do not wish to be found. The killing here predicted and condemned results from hatred: 22. And you will be hated by all for my name's sake.& The meaning is, You will continue to be hated. ^[448] The form of the expression may well imply that Jesus was not thinking only of what would happen to The Twelve but also of the persecutions to be endured by their successors in future years, in fact until his return. See on verse 23b. The hatred of which Jesus makes mention here is also described by John (I John 3:13). The words by all must not be taken literally as if referring to every man, woman, and child on earth, or even to all those reached by the gospel. When the Lord accuses Israel of having played the harlot under every green tree (Jer. 3:6) we immediately understand that this is hyperbole, a perfectly legitimate figure of speech. The same applies to the passage, All night I make my bed to swim; with my tears I dissolve my couch (Ps. 6:6). The expression hated by all must mean, by men in general, regardless of rank, station, race, nationality, sex, or age. Is not the same true also with respect to the use of all in Mark 1:37; 5:20; 11:32; Luke 3:15; John 3:26; I Tim. 2:1; and Titus 2:11? The words, for my name's sake (cf. for my sake, verse 18) indicate, for the sake of myself, as I reveal myself in word and deed. Because the world hates Christ it also hates his representatives. There is comfort, however, in the assurance, But he that endures to the end, he will be saved. He who remains loyal to Christ throughout the period of persecution will enter into glory. For himself this period of persecution will last until death delivers him from this earthly scene (John 16:33; II Tim. 3:12). For the church in general it will last until Christ's return in glory (II Thess. 1:7; Rev. 11:10–12). The disciples need not despair therefore. Let them work while it is day, making the best possible use of their time. Hence Jesus continues, 23. Now whenever they persecute you in this city, flee to the next one.& The Lord lays down a principle here. This rule is to be put into practice by the disciples and by those who will follow them. What must the messengers of good tidings do when a city rejects them and their gospel? To be sure, they must be patient. See (Isa. 5:1 7and Luke 13:6 9. These same passages, however, also teach that there is a limit to God's patience and to that which, in imitation of him, his followers should exercise. Nowhere does the Bible teach that a kingdom worker who, while working in a certain village or town, is being constantly harassed and whose message is being persistently rejected must stay in that same place year after year until he dies. Would not his talents be wasted? Would it be fair to other communities that are crying for help? Let him move out! That the apostles adhered to this principle is clear from many passagesActs 12:17; 13:46, 51; 14:6, 20; 16:40; 17:10, 14). With respect to the words that follow there is a wide difference of opinion among commentators: for I solemnly declare to you, you will certainly not finish (going through) the cities of Israel before the Son of man comes. Among the many explanations of this passage there are a few that I would definitely reject: 1. Since we know that the second coming did not occur Jesus must have been mistaken. Answer: If Jesus was mistaken about this important point how do we know that he was not also mistaken about others? Both doctrine and ethics are thus undermined and destroyed. 2. Matthew misplaced this passage. Answer: Another easy way to get rid of a difficulty. There is no evidence to support this theory. 3. The meaning is: before the Son of man catches up with you. 4. The reference is to the terrible judgment upon the Jews in the years 66 70. Answer to Nos. 3 and 4: There is nothing in the context that in any way calls for or suggests this explanation. Something else must be borne in mind. These explanations ignore the fact that in the other Matthew passages in which the coming of the Son of man is mentioned and described the reference is linked with the second coming. It is a coming in the glory of his Father, with his angels, to render to every man according to his deeds (16:27, 28); a coming when Christ shall sit on the throne of his glory (19:28); a coming that will be visible (24:27); sudden and unexpected (24:37, 39, 44); a coming on clouds of heaven with power and great glory (24:30; cf. 25:31; 26:64). It would be strange therefore if from 10:23 any reference to Christ's exaltation which attains its climax in the second coming would be wholly excluded. Besides, as to theory No. 4, this is all the more questionable because here in 10:23 the context (see verses 22b, 28 32) is very definitely one of comfort, not one of terror. The destruction of Jerusalem is predicted not here in chapter 10 but in 22:7; 23:38; see also 24:2, 15 f. Even so, however, the question may well be asked, Granted that a reference to Christ's coming in glory cannot be excluded, does 10:23 refer a. to the beginning of that process, or b. to its culmination? In other words, a. was Jesus predicting the manner in which he, as risen Lord, would reveal himself to his immediate disciples (John 20:19 29; see also Matt. 28:16–20); and was he solemnly declaring that this return would occur before they would have finished going through the cities of Israel; or b. was he promising that until the very moment of his glorious return upon the clouds of heaven the good news of salvation would be spread not only among other nations but also among the Jews? Taken in either sense it is a comforting assurance, and this not only for the missionaries themselves, whether The Twelve or their successors, but even for the Jews. For Christ's ambassadors it would mean, Do not be afraid, I will return to you. For Israel it would signify, I am not through with you; your remnant, too, will be saved. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XI Outline of Chapter 11 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him to Do 11:1–19 The Doubt of John the Baptist and the Manner in Which Jesus Dealt with It 11:20–24 Woes Pronounced on Impenitent Cities 11:25–30 The Savior's Tender Invitation 11:1–19 The Doubt of John the Baptist and the Manner in Which Jesus Dealt with It Cf. Luke 7:18 35 11 1 Now when Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and to preach in their cities. 2 And when John in his prison heard about the activities of Christ he sent word by his disciples 3 and said to him, Are you the Coming One, or must we look for someone else? 4 Jesus answered and said to them, Go and report to John the things which you hear and see: 5 (the) blind are gaining their sight and (the) cripples are walking, (the) lepers are being cleansed and (the) deaf are hearing, (the) dead are being raised up and (the) poor are having good news preached to them. 6 And blessed is he who is not repelled by me. 7 When these (messengers) were going away Jesus began to say to the crowds concerning John, What was it that you went out into the wilderness to look at? A reed swaying in the wind? 8 But what did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft garments? Surely those who wear soft garments are (to be found) in kings palaces. 9 But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, even more than a prophet. 10 This is the one of whom it is written: Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way before thee. 11 I solemnly declare to you, Among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom is pressing forward vigorously, and vigorous men are eagerly taking possession of it. 13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John; 14 and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who was to come. 15 He who has ears let him hear. 16 But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and shouting to their playmates, 17 We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; We sang dirges, and you did not beat the breast. 18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He has a demon. 19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Look, a glutton and a drinker, a friend of tax-collectors and sinners. Yet wisdom is vindicated by her works. The account of the sending forth of The Twelve as kingdom ambassadors (chap. 10) is followed here in chapter 11 by a report of Christ's words of tribute to the herald of the kingdom, John the Baptist. Actually the chapter begins with the story of John's doubt as reported to Jesus by the Baptist's disciples (11:1–3). Christ's answer, a message to be conveyed to John, is next reported (verses 4 6). Then, to offset any wrong conclusion on the part of the people, as if John were merely a fickle person, a large section (verses 7 19) records the manner in which the Lord extolled the Baptist. The small paragraph in which woes are pronounced on the impenitent cities is basically an outgrowth of the preceding much larger one. Many of the people have not accepted John's testimony, at least have not truly repented. Some, in fact, have even called John demon-possessed. They have also rejected the testimony of the Son of man (verses 16 19). Accordingly, the cities which had been most highly favored but have nevertheless rejected the good tidings are now denounced (verses 20 24). This denunciation is however more sharply worded than the preceding rebuke. It is also more specific, mentioning certain centers of unbelief by name (Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum). In the unforgettably touching closing words of the chapter (verses 25 30) curse is replaced by blessing, accusation by invitation. It is clear therefore that the entire chapter forms a unit. It is as it were a pyramid whose large lower section could be labeled John the Baptist, herald of the kingdom, reassured and extolled. The two smaller units think of the higher portion tapering toward the pyramid's apex a.a natural transition (verses 20 24), and b.a striking contrast (verses 25 30) can hardly be forgotten. Essentially, however, the theme is far more exalted, for throughout the evangelist is showing his readers the majesty of the Christ. Even while the latter was uttering his remarkable saying, Among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist (verse 11), was he not proving his own infinitely superior greatness revealed in dealing so wisely and so tenderly with his faltering disciple? Matthew does not even report how the Baptist, when the answer reached him, reacted to it. This, too, confirms what was just stated, namely, that ultimately not John forms the subject of the story but Jesus Christ does, and God through him. The Work Which Thou Gavest Him to Do, is the theme throughout. The conclusion of the book of Jonah forms an interesting parallel. Have we not often wondered how Jonah reacted to Jehovah's searching question (Jonah 4:10, 11)? It is not recorded, for the emphasis must be placed on the love of God, not on Jonah. So it is also in Matthew's Gospel, and, in fact, in the Bible throughout. First, then, we turn to the account describing the manner in which Jesus dealt with the Baptist's doubt. 11:1–3. Now when Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and to preach in their cities. And when John in his prison heard about the activities of Christ he sent word by his disciples and said to him, Are you the Coming One, or must we look for someone else?At first glance we might feel inclined to criticize the division of the chapter. Would it not have been better to include verse 1 with the preceding paragraph? Does it not form a fitting conclusion to The Charge to The Twelve? It does indeed. But it also definitely introduces chapter 11, for it was exactly the report concerning Christ's activities, his teaching, preaching, etc. in the cities, that contributed toward John's doubt. Had Matthew been an uninspired author he would undoubtedly have given us a detailed account of The Experiences of The Twelve on Their First Mission Tour. He would have placed this interesting story immediately after The Charge. But the evangelist is far more interested in Jesus than in the latter's disciples, though, of course, he is also interested in the latter. However, as to them, he takes for granted that the readers will draw the correct conclusion. Even Mark and Luke, who share an equal degree of inspiration with Matthew, have but little to say about the experiences of the disciples. They do say something (Mark 6:12, 13; Luke 9:6), but then immediately continue with the story of Jesus and his love. Matthew, then, informs us that having finished his charge to the disciples, Jesus went on from there to teach and to preach. The distinction between teaching and preaching has already been explained (see on 4:23). In their cities: accordingly, the Great Galilean Ministry is continuing. Though only teaching and preaching are mentioned in 11:1, it is clear from verse 5 that a goodly number of mighty works were also being performed. It is for this reason that even though in verse 2 the rendering deeds or works would have been correct, yet in the light of the context activities is probably better. This includes teaching and preaching as well as miracles. According to 4:12 and 14:3, 4 (see on these verses) John the Baptist had been taken into custody by King Herod Antipas. He had been locked up in the gloomy fortress of Machaerus, modern Khirbet Muk�wer, located about five miles east of the Dead Sea and fifteen miles south of its northern tip. The prison was part of one of the Herodian [Greek] -2 _ftnref1 ([Greek] which explains the possibility of the action recorded in Mark 6:25 28. Though his imprisonment must have been a very grim ordeal, John was allowed to receive visitors. From these he had learned about the activities of Jesus, the very One about whom the Baptist had said so many wonderful thingsMatt. 3:11; John 1:15 18, 26, 27, 29 36; 3:28–30). As John saw it, the gracious words that fell from the lips of the Savior and the miracles of mercy he performed did not harmonize with the manner in which he, the Baptist, had pictured him before the public. He had presented him as One who had come to punish and destroy (Matt. 3:7, 10; Luke 3:7, 9). As was pointed out previously (see on 3:10) John's word had been true and inspired, the very word of God (Luke 1:76; 3:2). What Christ's herald missed, however, was this: he failed to discern that this prophecy of doom would go into fulfilment not now but at Christ's second coming. He had not seen the present and the future in true perspective. John made a very wise decision when, instead of keeping his difficulty regarding Jesus to himself, or talking it over with others but not with the right person, he took it to Jesus. Owing to the fact that the Baptist was himself in prison, so that he was unable to go and see Jesus in person, he sent word by his (the Baptist's) [Greek] -2 _ftnref2 [Greek] This does not mean however that the interpretation according to which it was not John himself who doubted but only his disciples who did, and that John now sends these men to Jesus so that the Savior may solve theirproblem, is correct. It is definitely incorrect. Why otherwise would Jesus have said, Go and report to John? (verse 4). There is no question about it: It was John himself who had a problem. It was he who wondered whether or not Jesus was the Coming One. [Greek] -2 _ftnref3 [Greek] 4 6. Jesus answered and said to them, Go and report to John the things which you hear and see: (the) blind are gaining their sight and (the) cripples are walking, (the) lepers are being cleansed and (the) deaf are hearing, (the) dead are being raised up and (the) poor are having good news preached to them. (In which sense was this answer reassuring? Is it not true that John already knew all this (verse 2), and that the very fact that he knew it had contributed substantially to his doubt? True indeed, but the wordingwas new.& Or was it? It was new in the sense that friends who had been reporting Christ's activities to John had not used this type of formulation. On the other hand, the message as phrased by Jesushad a familiar ring. It must have reminded John of certain prophetic predictions, namely, Isa. 35:5, 6and 61:1: Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then shall the cripple [or: lame] man leap like a hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall sing for joy.& The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is upon me, because Jehovah has anointed me to preach good news to the poor [or: meek]. It is as if Jesus were tenderly saying to John, Do you remember these prophecies? This, too, was predicted concerning Messiah. And all this is being fulfilled today, namely, in me. Jesus was going to use Isa. 61also on another occasion, and again as a prediction fulfilled in himselfLuke 4:16 21). In connection with these prophetic words and their fulfilment in Jesus two additional facts should be noted: a.Isaiah had referred both to miracles and preaching; Christ's message to John also contains a reference to both; and b.the fulfilment in Christ was even better than the prediction, for in the latter not a word had even been whispered with reference to raising the dead. The predictions had to do with healing, cleansing, and preaching good tidings. The fulfilment included all these and more,namely, raising the dead. It is interesting to notice that in Luke's Gospel the story of bringing back to life the son of the widow of Nain (7:11–17) immediately precedes the report of John's doubt and of the manner in which Jesus dealt with it (7:18–23). The message addressed to John the Baptist ends with the words: And blessed is he who is not repelled by me,that is, who does not allow anything I do or say to ensnare him, to lure him into sin. See on 5:29, 30. Though the view according to which by means of this admonition John was being rebuked may well be correct, yet if so it was a tender rebuke, one that did not in any respect eclipse the Master's love for his momentarily confused disciple. In fact, rightly considered, the admonition contains a blessing, Blessed is he.& The Lord treats John as tenderly as he did the man born blind, the woman caught in adultery, Peter, Thomas, etc. In view of the manner in which Jesus immediately proceeds to praise John publicly and to rebuke those who were finding fault both with this herald and with the One to whom he bore witness (verses 7 19), and also in view of such passages as Mal. 3:1, 4:5, 6; Luke 1:15 17, 76, 80; Phil. 1:6, it must be considered certain that the message of Jesus had the desired effect on John. But it is the wisdom and tenderness of Jesus that stand out, and this both in the message of reassurance addressed to John and in the words spoken about John and directed to the crowd that was present. The latter paragraph begins as follows: 7. When these (messengers) were going away, Jesus began to say to the crowds concerning John, What was it that you went out into the wilderness to look at? A reed swaying in, the wind?Here Jesus corrects the erroneous conclusion which some of the people were apt to draw with respect to John because of the question in which he had revealed his doubt concerning the very One whom he had formerly pointed out as the Messiah, that conclusion being that the Baptist was a fickle, vacillating person. In the paragraph taken as a whole the Master is saying that it is wrong to condemn a person on the basis of one deviation from the straight course. In order to form a true opinion about a man his entire life, past as well as present, must be taken into consideration. In the case of John that past had been glorious. The crowd should reflect on the tremendous impact the Baptist had made on them during his earlier appearance in the wilderness of Jordan. What was it, says Jesus as it were, that made, you travel all the way from Galilee to the Judean wilderness? Was it perhaps to look at a man who resembled a reed swaying in [literally: being swayed by] the wind on the banks of the Jordan? Of course, that could not have been the reason. The person about whom everybody had been talking was like a sturdy oak, not like a trembling reed. Jesus takes for granted that the answer to the question voiced in verse 7 is Indeed not. We definitely did not go out into the wilderness to look at a reed swaying in the wind. So he continues: 8. But what did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft garments?Again the answer is a firm negative, as Jesus makes clear by continuing, Surely those who wear soft garments are (to be found) in kings palaces.As to John's actual garments see on 3:4. Those who wear soft garments are the people without backbone, sycophants who readily kowtow to those in authority and are rewarded with a high office in the king's palace, a position that enables them to wear soft garments in harmony with the high station in life to which they have attained. The people whom Jesus here addresses know very well that John was a totally different individual. Instead of flattering the king he had even rebuked him. So now, instead of enjoying gay palace life he was locked up in a horrid dungeon. Moreover, at the time when the Baptist was still free and preaching in the wilderness the people, by and large, had not even thought of finding fault with his stern message and rustic appearance. At that time John had been a popular hero (3:5). No doubt even afterward many continued to hold him in high esteem (14:5). Yet opinions were beginning to change. What many formerly praised in John, his ascetic manner of life and unsparing warnings, they had now begun to criticize. It is for that reason that Jesus here takes them to task. Continued: 9, 10. But what did you go out to see? A prophet?The Lord answers his own question, and in doing so gives a true appraisal of John: Yes, I tell you more than a prophet;meaning, Yes, you went out to see a prophet, and I assure you that he is even more than a prophet. More than a prophet for John not only prophesied (Matt. 3:7–12) but was himself also an object of prophecy. He was himself the predicted forerunner of the Messiah. Therefore Jesus continues: This is the one of whom it is written: Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way before [Greek] -2 _ftnref4 [Greek] That Mal. 3:1refers indeed to John the Baptist as Messiah's herald is clear from the fact that this way-preparer is evidently Elijah the prophet of Mal. 4:5, who, in turn, is John the Baptist, according to Christ's own words as recorded in Matt. 11:14. We are justified in saying, therefore, that this is Christ's own interpretation of Mal. 3:1. Thus interpreted, the meaning, in brief, of Mal. 3:1must be: Take note, I Jehovah, send my messenger, John the Baptist, to be the forerunner of thee, the Messiah. The forerunner's task is to prepare everything especially the hearts of the people (Mal. 4:6) for thy coming. The meaning is to pave the way for Messiah's firstcoming, but in view of the fact that the first coming and the second coming are as it were two stages whereby God comes to his people in Immanuel, therefore also for his secondcoming. When applied in the latter sense the appellation my messenger attains a broader meaning, from which neither John the Baptist nor Christ's apostles nor their successors throughout the new dispensation can be excluded. Though it is true that the immediate context of Mal. 3:1reaches forward to the final judgment (see especially verses 2 and 3), Matthew very legitimately, as has already been explained, applies the prophecy especially to the first phase of the coming, or, to put it more simply, to the first coming. It was in a marvelous manner that John the Baptist had fulfilled his task as herald. Hence Jesus is able to continue as follows: (11. I solemnly declare to you, Among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist.& As already indicated, John was greater because he was not only a prophet but one whose arrival upon the scene of history had been prophesied. It may well be questioned however whether this is all that Jesus meant when he made the tremendous statement found here in 11:11, introducing it with the impressive formula, I solemnly declare to you, explained in connection with 5:18. Is it not very probable that the Lord was thinking not only of the simple fact that John the Baptist, the herald, arrived in fulfilment of prophecy, but also of the marvelous manner in which this forerunner had fulfilled his task? He had done exactly what a herald must do. First, he had very clearly announced the arrival of Messiah, directing the people's attention to that Great One: Look, the Lamb of God who is taking away the sin of the worldJohn 1:29). Secondly, he had emphasized the necessity of repentance as the only way for the sinner to enter Messiah's kingdom (Matt. 3:2and parallels; see also Luke 1:76, 77). And thirdly, since it is the duty of the herald to recede to the background when the One whom he has introduced has fully arrived upon the scene, so John had resisted the temptation to call attention to himself. Instead in humility of spirit he had said, He must increase, but I must decrease (John 3:30). Now in view of the fact that Jesus himself, in describing the nature of true greatness, always links it with humility (Matt. 8:8, 10, cf. Luke 7:6, 9; Matt. 18:1–5, cf. Mark 9:33 37and Luke 9:46 48; Matt. 20:26, 27, cf. Mark 10:43 45; Matt. 23:11; and see also Matt. 15:27, 28), is it not altogether probable that he does this also in the present case? This humility, in turn, must be viewed as a gift which John had received from the Holy Spirit. Thus the word of the angel addressed to Zechariah, He shall be great &and filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb (Luke 1:15) had been and was being fulfilled. Surely, allof this a.John not only the prophet of the Highest but himself the fulfilment of prophecy, b.as such one who in a most humble manner fulfilled his task, c.being filled with the Holy Spirit and this from his mother's womb must be taken into consideration in order to do justice to the full meaning of Matt. 11:11. When that is done it will be clear that the statement is not in any sense an exaggeration. To this Jesus adds: (yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.This cannot mean that John, after all, was not a saved man. Perish the very thought! Rather, the statement must be explained in the light of 13:16, 17, But blessed are your eyes, because they see, and your ears, because they hear. I solemnly declare to you, many prophets and righteous persons longed to see what you are seeing, yet did not see it, and to hear what you are hearing, yet did not hear it. The one least in the kingdom was greater than John in the sense that he was more highly privileged, for the Baptist in his prison was not in such close touch with Jesus as was this least one. And was it not this very circumstance which had also contributed to the herald's confusion with respect to whether or not Jesus was truly the Messiah? At the very moment when the messengers sent by John submitted his question to Jesus, the latter was busily engaged in the act of healing and restoringLuke 7:20, 21). Is it not true that actually seeing all this happening before one's very eyes would be more likely to ring memory's bell recalling to mind Isa. 35:5, 6; 61:1ff. than would a dismal prison atmosphere, with no opportunity even to see, much less to speak to the One about whom the prisoner was thinking? Yes, in a sense the kingdom had already arrived: the afflicted ones were being delivered from their ills, the dead were being raised up, and the words of life and beauty were proceeding from the heart and lips of the Master. But in his sovereign providence, which no one has a right to question, John was not an immediate participant or even a direct witness. Also, he was not to see Calvary nor to experience Pentecost. However, he was not being forgotten or neglected. The message Jesus sent him (11:4–6) was sufficient to reassure him. But even though John the Baptist was now far away from the scene of action, nevertheless through his earlier emphasis on the necessity of genuine repentance and his pointing to Jesus as the Savior from sin he had been used as an instrument of God in paving the way for blessings to happen, so that Jesus is able again to refer to him favorably as he now continues: 12. From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom is pressing forward vigorously, and vigorous men are eagerly taking possession of [Greek] -2 _ftnref5 ([Greek] Truly the work of John the Baptist had not been in vain. He had pointed away from himself toward Jesus, and the crowds had followed JesusJohn 3:26). Was it not an act of kindness and magnanimity on the part of the Lord to give credit to John for what he had formerly done, and especially to extol him thus at this very time when the Baptist had given expression to his uncertainty regarding Jesus? It is true that Christ's drawing power was not dependent on John, not in the least. Nevertheless, in the providence of God and in fulfilment of prophecy John's preaching had contributed toward the result of paving the way for Christ. The kingdom, says Jesus, ever since the days of John's first appearance upon the scene has been pressing forward vigorously, forcefully. It is doing so now, as is clear from the fact that sick are being healed, lepers cleansed, the dead raised, sinners converted to everlasting life, all this now as never before. Still, by no means everybody is entering. Many, very many, even now are refusing and resisting. But vigorous or forceful men, people who dare to break away from faulty human tradition and to return to the Word in all its purity, no matter what be the cost to themselves, such individuals are eagerly taking possession of the kingdom; that is, in their hearts and lives that kingship or reign of God and of Christ is being established. What Jesus here emphasizes is that one cannot sleep his way into the kingdom. On the contrary, entrance into the kingdom requires earnest endeavor, untiring energy, utmost exertion. See also Luke 13:24; 16:16; John 16:33; Acts 14:22. This is true because Satan is mighty, has a large army of helpers, the demons, has learned to use crafty methods -2 _ftnref6 (N.T.C.on Eph. 6:11), and receives aid and support from his fifth column established in man's very heart (I John 2:16). Therefore it takes vigorous men, men who are eager to fight and to conquer, to overcome Satan and thus to take possession of the kingdom, of all the blessings of salvation. The kingdom, then, is not for weaklings, waverers, or compromisers. It is not for Balaam (II Peter 2:15), the rich young ruler (Matt. 19:22), Pilate (John 19:12, 13), and Demas (II Tim. 4:10). It is not won by means of deferred prayers, unfulfilled promises, broken resolutions, and hesitant testimonies. It is for strong and sturdy men like Joseph (Gen. 39:9), Nathan (II Sam. 12:7), Elijah (I Kings 18:21), Daniel and his three friends (Dan. 1:8; 3:16–18), Mordecai (Esther 3:4), the Peter of (Acts 4:20, StephenActs 6:8; 7:51), and Paul (Phil. 3:13, 14). And here let us not forget such valiant women as Ruth (Ruth 1:16 18), Deborah (Judg. 4:9), Esther (Esther 4:16), and Lydia (Acts 16:15, 40). The words of Jesus recorded in verse 12 imply that with John a new period had begun, when the kingdom started to press forward vigorously. That thought is confirmed in verses (13, 14. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John; and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who was to come.All the prophets and the law indicates the entire Old Testament, as far as the prophets that wrote books are concerned ending with Malachi, in whose book the coming of Christ and of his herald was predicted. Thereupon prophecy was silent for more than four hundred years. After that came the fulfilment of prophecy in Jesus Christ, but (chronologically speaking) first of all in John the Baptist. In him, accordingly, prophecy was beginning to be fulfilled. It was he who tied together the old and the new dispensation. At least equally important, it was he whose inspired exhortation, if obeyed, would solve the problem of the generation gap, for by means of faith in the Christ whom he proclaimed the hearts of the fathers were turned to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathersMal. 4:5, 6). This John the Baptist, preacher of repentance and faith, was accordingly the Elijah who was to come. Like the Elijah of old, John too was a preacher of repentance. The two resembled each other also in the sudden character of their appearance, the incisiveness of their message, and the simplicity of their life. See on 3:3. True, John was not literally Elijah (John 1:21), but inwardly he was indeed, for he went forth in the spirit and power of Elijah (Luke 1:17), and was therefore called Elijah by no one less than Jesus himself (Matt. 17:12). If you are willingto accept it, says Jesus, for he knows that accepting this truth was a matter not solely of the mind but also of the will. If the people were but willing to accept John as being truly the prophet of the Most High, then there was hope for them. Therefore Jesus adds: 15. He who has ears let him hear.Let him listen attentively to the message of salvation as God's gracious reward for repentance and faith. Let him find peace and joy in the One who had been described by John as taking away the sin of the world. In all of Christ's teaching, both on earth and from heaven, it would be difficult to discover any exhortation that he repeated more often, in one form or another, than the one of verse Mark 4:9, 23; Luke 8:8; 14:35; Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22; 13:9; cf. 8:18 in both Mark and Luke . No wonder, for is not lack of receptivity that which, if persisted in, leads directly to the unpardonable sin? For more on this unresponsiveness or unwillingness to hear and to heed see 13:3–9, 18 23. In the present connection it is evident that when Jesus says, He who has ears let him hear, he was thinking surely not only of what he had said in verse 14, namely, that John was Elijah who was to come, but of the entire contents of verses 7 14. Over against the gradual change of attitude on the part of many with respect to John, Jesus had extolled him. It was not John who was fickle, but rather that large group of individuals who had allowed themselves to be led astray by the Pharisees (Luke 7:30), so that their earlier noisy enthusiasm about John had cooled, in fact had been replaced by hostile criticism. In fact, both John and Jesus had become the butt of their disparaging and insolent remarks (see verses 18, 19). So Jesus continues: 16 19. But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and shouting to their playmates, We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; We sang dirges, and you did not beat the breast. For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He has a demon. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Look, a glutton and a drinker, a friend of tax-collectors and sinners. It is clear that Jesus is here accusing these critics of being childish. There is a difference between being childlike and being childish. The Lord recommends the first (18:1–5 and parallel passages). He condemns the second. The picture he draws is that of children who on those days when no business is being transacted on the market have gathered in its ample spaces in order to play games. Today, however, nothing seems to succeed. Some children begin to play the flute, as an accompaniment not to mourning (9:23) but to merriment (Rev. 18:22). They want to play wedding. Others object. So the players put their flutes away and start to lament pitifully and/or moan a dirge, as they had heard their elders and the professional mourners do. That idea, too, does not go across. In a spirit of desperation they then scold their playmates for being so unco-operative, a complaint which the others return (Luke 7:32). We can easily imagine something of this nature happening today. Let's play wedding, says one child. Others chime in. Let Mary be the bride, Ruth the maid of honor. I'll be the groom. Bert can be the best man, Peter the father of the bride, Jack will do very nicely for the preacher. Yes, let's do that, say some of the others, and they start whistling a wedding march. But many voices scream back in disgust, Not that silly stuff. That's not for us. Then let's play funeral, says the boy who had been the first to suggest playing wedding, and he adds, I'll be the funeral director, the pall-bearers are John, Bert, Peter, and Larry. Mike can be the corpse. Dolefully the speaker and some others begin to intone a funeral hymn. But their groaning is drowned out by loud protests: Cut it out. We want none of this sad stuff. So a petty quarrel develops, in which those who had suggested the games are shouting to their playmates, You re never satisfied. You don't want to play wedding and you don't want to play funeral. What doyou want to play? The accused hurl back similar [Greek] -2 _ftnref7 [Greek] All are unhappy, disgruntled, sulky. Weddings are too silly, too glad; funerals, too gloomy, too sad. Not only are the children peevish and quarrelsome, they are also fickle, inconsistent: what they used to get all excited about they now look down upon. Jesus, then, is saying, That is the way you, Pharisees and your followers, are behaving. You are being childish. You are frivolous and are acting irresponsibly, inconsistently. You are never satisfied. You used to be filled with enthusiasm about John; at least, you stood in awe of him and did not find fault with his austerity and call to repentance. But now you say, He is too harsh and unsociable; his message is too severe. Why, he must be possessed. But you are also turning against me, the Son of [Greek] -2 _ftnref8 [Greek] You are pointing the finger at me and saying, Though he demands self-denial in others, he himself is a glutton and a drinker, a friend of tax-collectors and sinners. He is too sociable. Jesus points out that in the end such thoroughly unfair and bitter criticism and intolerance will get nowhere. The victory is on the side of truth. He says, Yet wisdom is [Greek] -2 _ftnref9 ([Greek] by her works.The wisdom of John the Baptist, when he insisted on repentance, and of Jesus, when he held out the hope of salvation even to those with whom many in Israel would have nothing to do, was shown to have been fully justified by what it actually accomplished in the hearts and lives of those who, by sovereign grace, gave the proper response to both of these preachers. John and Jesus each had his distinct mission to perform. Each carried out his assignment. By Jesus, who himself in person was and is wisdom from GodI Cor. 1:30), this assignment was carried out flawlessly; by John, by and large superbly. Wisdom's children (Luke 7:35) are all those who were wise enough to take to heart the message of John and of Jesus. Between John and Jesus there was this similarity: both proclaimed the gospel. Even John's message was certainly not without hope (John 1:29). Even when his emphasis was on repentance, his exhortation was hope inspiring. See Matt. 3:7–11. Yet between John and Jesus there was also a contrast, not only the one pointed out here in 11:18, 19, but also this, namely, that while John proclaimedthe good news, Jesus not only proclaimed it but came into this world that there might be good news to proclaim! Today we know that to a considerable degree wisdom's vindication has already arrived. For example, has not the designation that was originally intended as a disparaging nickname, friend of tax-collectors and sinners become one of the Savior's most hope-imparting and soul-stirring titles? Is this title not being justified by thousands upon thousands of lives that have taken it to heart and acted upon it? And will not the full and final vindication arrive on the day of the consummation of all things, and ever afterward? 11:20–24 Woes Pronounced on Impenitent Cities Cf. Luke 10:13 15 20 Then he began to reproach the cities in which most of his mighty works had been performed, because they did not repent: 21 Woe to you Chorazin! woe to you Bethsaida! for if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, for Tyre and Sidon it will be more tolerable in the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? To Hades you shall descend, for if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom it would be standing today. 24 But I tell you that for the land of Sodom it will be more tolerable in the day of judgment than for you. The relation between this and the immediately preceding section (verses 1 19) has already been indicated (p. 482). 20. Then he began to reproach the cities in which most of his mighty works had been performed, because they did not repent.& The exact moment indicated by then is not given. The contents of the paragraph clearly indicate however that many miracles had already been performed in Capernaum and its neighboring cities. This might point to the latter part of the Great Galilean Ministry. However, if we reflect on the fact that at the very beginning of that ministry Jesus immediately chose Capernaum as his headquarters and began to exhibit his healing power in that city and its vicinity (4:13 ff.) we are led to conclude that such a late date is not even strictly necessary: eitherthe middle or the latter part of that period of activity is probably indicated. Jesus, then, began to reproach the cities in which most of his mighty works had been performed. The verb reproach is here used in a sense somewhat different than in 5:11. There it had reference to an unjustifiable action, that of heaping insults upon Christ's disciples; here it indicates the Lord's justifiable denunciation of those who have hardened themselves in sin. We read that Jesus reproached (the cities. Here again, as in 10:15, the term city refers first of all and most of all to the inhabitants. See on 4:15; also footnote 441 on p. 460. A mere topographical entity streets, buildings, a wall cannot be expected to repent, is not held accountable for any deeds, and does not enter into the judgment. It is true, nevertheless, that what is done by the citizens is bound to affect the place where they liveGen. 19:13, 24). These cities had seen Christ's mighty works, his deeds of power, as the miracles are here called. Such works should have caused them to reflect on their ways and to turn to God in true sorrow for sin, but that had not been the effect (Rev. 9:20, 21). So Jesus continues: 21. Woe to you Chorazin! woe to you Bethsaida! for if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.It is probable that Chorazin and Bethsaida were situated very close to Capernaum, which is mentioned last of all, namely, in verse 23. The ruins of present day Kerazeh, northwest of the Sea of Galilee, and two and one-half miles north of what used to be Capernaum, are all that is left of ancient Chorazin. The Bethsaida here mentioned could be either Bethsaida Julias, located just southeast of the point where the Jordan River, coming from the north, flows into the Sea of Galilee, or else another Bethsaida, situated closer to [Greek] -2 _ftnref10 ([Greek] In view of the mention of Chorazin and Capernaum in this very connection, the latter would seem to be probable. If so, it was the Bethsaida located in the plain of GennesaretMark 6:53), which stretches northwest from the Sea of Galilee. It was the home town of Philip, the place where Andrew and Peter also originally came from (John 1:44). It is easily understood that with Capernaum as his headquarters Christ's mighty deeds would have been performed not only inside this city but also in the nearby towns of Chorazin and Bethsaida. Jesus states that if the mighty works done in the two last-named cities had been done in Tyre and Sidon, these Phoenician cities, situated more northerly, along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean, would have repented long ago. Yet, from (Isa. 23and Ezek. 26 28 one receives the definite impression that the commercial seafarers and colonizers who inhabited these cities were proud, money-mad, and cruel. Amos denounced the Tyrians for selling Israelites into slavery to the EdomitesAmos 1:9). The Phoenicians also sold the children of Judah and the children of Jerusalem to the Greeks (Joel 3:6). In the description of pleasure-mad, arrogant, presumptuous Babylon of Rev. 17 19 there is much that brings back to mind the heathen center of wickedness and seduction, Tyre. The assertion, therefore, that had Tyre and Sidon been favored in a manner similar to Chorazin and Bethsaida, the people of these Phoenician cities would have repented long [Greek] -2 _ftnref11 [Greek] shows with what revulsion the Lord views those who were far more highly privileged but had remained impenitent. The woe pronounced upon them amounts to a curse. Tyre and Sidon would have repented in sackcloth and ashes, says Jesus. Since the material of which sackcloth was made was a coarse kind of cloth, dark in color (Rev. 6:12), it was especially appropriate as a symbol of mourning. The sackcloth worn by mourners was actually a kind of shirt, with openings for neck and arms, slit down the front, and cast about the loins. It could be worn over an undergarment (Jonah 3:6) or directly over the skin (I Kings 21:27; II Kings 6:30; Job 16:15; Isa. 32:11). This symbolic reference to sorrow is even strengthened by the addition of and ashes. Continued: 22. But I tell you, for Tyre and Sidon it will be more tolerable in the day of judgment than for you.For explanation see on 10:15. The Lord now turns to the very heart and center of his activity, namely, Capernaum: 23, 24. And you Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? To Hades you shall descend.& This city and the work which the Savior performed here, including the miracles, have already been discussed; see on 4:13. The main point now is this: by and large the population of Capernaum had remained impenitent in spite of all the labor of love which Jesus had bestowed upon it. It is for this reason that he now addresses this center of his activity in terms that remind one of Isa. 14:13, 15, where the king of Babylon is pictured as boasting that he will ascend into heaven, and is then described as actually descending into Sheol's lowest depth. In a question full of dramatic emphasis Jesus, accordingly, asks, And you Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? In other words, You don't really expect to be exalted to heaven, do you? As far as the form is concerned, the question is so phrased as to expect a negative [Greek] -2 _ftnref12 ([Greek] This is irony, for Capernaum expects exactly to be thus exalted. Swift as an arrow from a bow comes the answer, To Hades you shall descend. Note position of Hades (before the verb) in this answer, making this curse-filled prediction all the more emphatic, an emphasis that is lost in many of the renderings. HereLuke 10:15), as probably everywhere in the (Gospels,but not everywhere in the entire New Testament, Hades means hell. Note how sharply it is contrasted with heaven. Hades is here the place of torments and of the flameLuke 16:23, 24). See also on Matt. [Greek] -2 _ftnref13 [Greek] That the utter ruin here predicted for the people of Capernaum also implied the destruction of their city is clear. Similarly, the punishment which was visited upon the people of Sodom and Gomorrah included the loss of their city. Nevertheless, in both cases it is the curse upon the peoplethat is primary. It is as a result of their sin that the city, too, is destroyed, not vice versa. In a manner similar to that found in verses 21 and 22 and 10:15, so that no further explanation is even necessary, Jesus concludes this paragraph by saying: for if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom it would be standing today. But I tell you that for the land of Sodom it will be more tolerable in the day of judgment than for you. 11:25–30 The Savior's Tender Invitation Cf. Luke 10:21, 22 25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I praise thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from wise and learned (people) and didst reveal them to babes; 26 yes Father, for such was thy good pleasure.27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son but the Father, nor does anyone know the Father but the Son and he to whom the Son is willing to reveal (him). 28 Come to me all who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you shall find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is kindly, and my burden is light. This oft-quoted paragraph, dear to the heart of every true believer, forms a striking contrast with the preceding one. There withering denunciation, here tender invitation; there the curse, here the blessing: (25, 26. At that time Jesus answered and said.& At that time, but Matthew does not tell us just when these words of adoration, revelation, and invitation issued from the heart and lips of the Savior. Luke does, however (10:1, 17, 21, 22). They were uttered after the return of seventy men whom Jesus had sent, two by two, into every place where he himself was about to come. Of course, even this is by no means a definite time designation. But it provides a background for the precious saying found in Matt. 11:25 30and in part also in Luke 10:21, 22. Naturally the seventy had much to reportLuke 10:17), though, as remarked earlier, what theyreported was not nearly as important as what the Lord says in response. It is to this reaction on the part of Jesus that the evangelists, each in his own way, call attention. See Luke 10:18 22; and compare Matt. 11:25–30. In fact, here as often the very words answered and said indicate a reaction or response to a situation, rather than a reply to a question. In the present case Christ's reaction develops into a tender invitation. Since everything in verses 25 27 can be viewed as preparing for the invitation found in verses 28 30, this theme suggests the following subdivisions: The Thanksgiving That Precedes It Enthusiastic reports not only about demons that had been expelled (Luke 10:17) but probably also about souls converted (Mark 6:12) cause Jesus to give expression to his gratitude. The connection, however, is not only with the preceding events but also with that which follows in verses 27 30. A gracious invitation is about to be extended. Burdened ones are going to be urged to come to Jesus. Yet no one can come unless the path which in so doing he must tread has been revealed to him (verses 25, 26). Nor would it make much sense to come unless the One who invites knows what those invited need and unless he has whatever it takes to satisfy this need (verse 27). So, with a feeling of serene trust in his Father, an attitude of mind and heart similarly reported of him on another stirring occasion (John 11:41), the Mediator between God and man, himself man (I Tim. 2:5), probably lifting up his eyes to heaven (John 17:1), says, I [Greek] -2 _ftnref14 ([Greek] thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from wise and learned (people) and didst reveal them to babes.Jesus does not say Our Father, the form of address found in the prayer which he taught his disciples to pray. He says FatherMark 14:36; Luke 10:21; 22:42; 23:34; John 11:41). Sometimes he is quoted as saying, (O) my Father (Matt. 26:39, 42), or as using this expression in speaking abouthis FatherMatt. 6:17; 10:32, 33; 11:27; 12:50; 18:10, etc.; Luke 10:22; 22:29; 24:49; John 5:17; 6:32, 65; 8:19, 28, 38, 49, 54; 10:30, etc. . Even his enemies interpreted this to mean that he was claiming equality with God (John 5:18), in so far a correct interpretation (John 10:30, 38). In the present connection the term was appropriate also for another reason: hisFather, in a unique, trinitarian, and also Messianic (or mediatorial) sense, is at the same time, though in a different sometimes called religious or spiritual sense, the Father of all those who are his children by adoption, all true believers, here designated by the endearing term babes. Altogether fitting is also the next title of address, namely, Lord of heaven and earth. As such, the Father is the sovereign Ruler, whose decisions and dispositions for example, that he purposely hides certain things from wise and learned people must not be criticized. The question is raised, But how could Jesus actually praise the Father not only for (revealingmatters touching salvation to some, but even for concealingthem from others? It is not entirely satisfactory to say: Jesus meant that salvation transcends human understanding but can be appropriated by the humble heart. By rereading the question it becomes evident that if this is intended as a full answer it is somewhat unsatisfactory. It tries to evade the difficulty experienced when we think of the kind and loving Savior as praising the Father for actually hidingfrom certain individuals knowledge that is essential to their salvation. Perhaps a more satisfactory way of dealing with the question would be: a.To admit that in our present state of knowledge it cannot be fully answered. Is not God the Lord of heaven and earth? Are not such passages as Deut. 29:29; Job 11:7, 8; Dan. 4:35; and Rom. 9:20applicable here? b.In so far as a partialanswer is possible, to view this praise of the Father as the thankful recognition of the latter's righteousness shown in punishing those who are wise in their own eyesProv. 26:5; Rom. 11:25; 12:16), the very opposite of babes. The matter becomes easier when we consider the next clause, namely, &and didst reveal them to babes. Physically speaking, babes are sucklings (Matt. 21:16). They drink milk, not solid food (I Cor. 3:1; Heb. 5:13), and have not yet advanced very far in learning to speak (I Cor. 13:11). It is clear, therefore, that babes are those who are conscious of their utter dependence on others. Spiritually, therefore, babes are those who humbly confess their own nothingness, their emptiness and helplessness, and who, being thoroughly aware of their absolute dependence upon the might and mercy of the heavenly Father, betake themselves to him, trusting that from him they will receive whatever is necessary so that, enjoying salvation full and free, they may live lives of gratitude to his glory. It must have become clear by now that the contrast between (a.wise and learned and b.babes is not that between educated and uneducated people. It is between a.Those who imagine that, because of their practical wisdom or superior intellect, they can save themselves, at least to some extent think of Pharisees and scribes, with their doctrine of meritorious good works; and b.those who realize that they must be saved by grace aloneEph. 2:8). If this is understood, it will be clear that a highly educated individual can be a babe, and that a wholly uneducated person can be in the undesirable company of the wise and learned. That Jesus would praise the Father for revealing these things to babes is understandable. In the present context the designation these things must mean the things concerning the kingdom of God (Matt. 11:12; cf. Luke 10:9, 17), the gospel (Luke 9:6) of repentance, hence of salvation (Mark 6:12). Such praise then is understandable, for if, in order to enter the kingdom or to obtain salvation, looking away from self and leaning on the everlasting arms of God is the path that must be trodden, then the way is opened to educated and uneducated, extraordinarily talented and intellectually retarded, rich and poor, young and old, male and female, slave and free. Truly, the Lord of heaven and earth has provided a glorious solution to the problem of human sin and misery. Is it not worthy of everlasting praise and adoration that the sovereign Ruler, who is self-sufficient and does not need man, is nevertheless willing to reveal the way of salvation to him; yes to humble people of every rank and station? For thus says the high and lofty One who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also who is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite (Isa. 57:15). It is as if the Mediator wishes to linger for a moment on this comforting thought, for in reverence and adoration he now continues, yes, Father, [Greek] -2 _ftnref15 [Greek] such was thy good pleasure.It is comforting to note that throughout the New Testament the good pleasure or delight of the Father, when positively expressed, everywhere else has as its object Christ and/or the work of salvation in connection with [Greek] -2 _ftnref16 ([Greek] It seems logical, therefore, to believe that also hereMatt. 11:26and in its parallel Luke 10:21) the positive thought of revealing to babes the things pertaining to salvation is uppermost in Christ's mind when he mentions the Father's good pleasure. Says H. Bavinck, In a certain sense, the fall, sin, and eternal punishment are included in God's decree and are willed by him. But this is true in a certain senseonly, and not in the same sense as grace and salvation. These are the objects of his delight; but God does not delight in sin, neither does he take pleasure in punishment. [Greek] -2 _ftnref17 [Greek] Cf. Ezek. 18:23, 32; 33:11. The Claim That Gives Meaning to It The waythat leads to salvation has been pointed out (verses 25, 26). It is the way of humble trust in God, or if one prefers, in Jesus Christ. However, another question must now be answered, Does the One who extends the invitation to accept this salvation havewhat the sinner needs, and does he even knowwhat he needs? The answer is implied in verse 27. All things have been handed over to me by my Father.& First of all, then, he (haswhat the sinner needs. All thingsJohn 3:35; 13:3) necessary for the carrying out of the mediatorial task have by the Father been entrusted to the Son. What things? From the preceding chapters it has already become clear that Jesus, the Father's Son, has received authority over Satan (4:1–11) and demons (8:28–32); over human ailments and handicaps (9:20–22; 9:1–8), winds and waves (8:23–27), body and soul (9:1–8), life and death (9:18, 19, 23 26), his own disciples and all other people (ch. 10), to save them (9:13) and to judge them (7:22, 23). From 28:18 we learn that he has been given all authority in heaven and on earth. From other parts of Scripture it is clear that as Mediator he was endowed with the Spirit of Jehovah, that is, with the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, counsel and might, knowledge and the fear of Jehovah (Isa. 11:1, 2). In the heart of the Mediator there is peace (John 14:27; 20:21, 26), light, life, love (John 1:4, 17, 26), and joy (John 15:11; 16:24; 17:23). All these spiritual qualities and many more have been [Greek] -2 _ftnref18 [Greek] to him by the Father in order that from him as the Fountain they might flow out to othersJohn 1:16, 17; 3:16; 6:51; and other passages already mentioned . It has become clear, therefore, that the Mediator haswhatever is needed to render a human being truly blessed. He also knowswhat the sinner needs. This follows from the fact that he is able to add: and no one [Greek] -2 _ftnref19 ([Greek] the Son but the Father.So great and so glorious is the heart of this Mediator that none but the Father can fathom its riches of knowledge, wisdom, and love. The very fact that the word Son is now used not me shows that what is being revealed here is the inner relation between Father and Son, a relation that existed from all eternity. When Paulspeaks about the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden in ChristCol. 2:3), about the fulness of the godhead dwelling in him (2:9), he immediately applies this theme in a very practical manner by adding, and in him you have attained to fulness (2:10). It is probable that a similar practical implication is also implied here in Matt. 11:27, as if to say: from a reservoir so inexhaustible that only the Father knows its capacity weary and heavily burdened ones are urged to replenish their needed supplies. This practical purpose becomes even more clearly evident, it would seem, with the addition of the clause that is the counterpart of the preceding: (nor does anyone know the Father but the Son.& The sinner's inner self and therefore his needs are known to God alonePs. 139; Jer. 17:9, 10). Before him every creature is laid bare (Heb. 4:13). Really to know a person means therefore to be able to see him as the Father sees him. Therefore, he who knows the Father knows the sinner and his needs also. It is the Son, the Son alone, who knows the Father, and who therefore also knows the sinner and his needs. Since the Son knows the Father he, he alone, is able to reveal him, and does reveal him (John 1:18; 6:46; 14:8–11). Therefore to the words nor does anyone know the Father but the Son there is added: (and he to whom the Son is willing to reveal (him).This must not be interpreted to mean that the Son is reluctant to reveal the Father, for just a moment ago (verse 25) the Son has been praising the Father for having revealed salvation to his humble children. The words indicate that the salvation of God's children is dependent not upon anything in man but solely upon revelation, and that this revelation, in turn, is based solely upon the will and delight of both the Father and the Son, for not only as to essence but also as to purpose Father and Son are oneJohn 10:30). From start to finish therefore salvation is based on sovereign grace. Cf. Eph. 2:8. The Content That Encourages Its Acceptance The Son hasand he knows,and now he also offersand giveswhat is needed by those who are weary and burdened: 28 30. [Greek] -2 _ftnref20 ([Greek] to me all who are weary and burdened.& What it means to come to Jesus is clearly described in John 6:35, He who comes to me will in no way get hungry, and he who believes in me will in no way get thirsty. It is clear from this passage that coming to Jesus means believing in him. Such faith is knowledge, assent, and confidence all in one. Moreover, faith, being the gift of the Holy Spirit, produces the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, and self-controlGal. 5:22; cf. John 14:15; 15:1–17; I John 2:3). It brings forth the works of gratitude, performed in spontaneous obedience to Christ. It is to the [Greek] -2 _ftnref21 [Greek] and [Greek] -2 _ftnref22 [Greek] ones that the invitation is extended. It is they, allof them, who are urged to come to Jesus. Specifically whom does Jesus have in mind? Matt. 23:4provides the answer. The reference is to all those who are oppressed by the heavy load of rules and regulations placed upon their shoulders by scribes and Pharisees, as if only then when in any person's life obedience to all these traditions outbalances his acts of disobedience can he be saved. When in anyone's mind and heart the belief took root that in this way, and onlyin this way, man must earn his way into everlasting life, the result at best was painful uncertainty; more often something worse, namely, clutching fear, gnawing anxiety, rayless despairRom. 8:15a . It stands to reason that Christ's urgent invitation that such weary and burdened ones should come to him is relevant today as well as it was at the time when Jesus walked on earth. It applies to anyone who, for whatever reason, tries wholly or partly to achieve salvation by means of his own exertion. And does not the heart of every sinner, including even the man already reborn but still living here on earth, harbor a Pharisee, at least once in a while? The promise is: and I will give you [Greek] -2 _ftnref23 ([Greek] Such rest is not only negatively absence from uncertainty, fear, anxiety, and despair; positively it is peace of mind and heartPs. 125:1; Isa. 26:3; 43:2; John 14:27; 16:33; Rom. 5:1); assurance of salvation (II Cor. 5:1; II Tim. 1:12; 4:7, 8; II Peter 1:10, 11). Continued: Take my [Greek] -2 _ftnref24 [Greek] upon you and [Greek] -2 _ftnref25 [Greek] from me.& In Jewish literature a yoke represents the sum-total of obligations which, according to the teachingof the rabbis, a person must take upon himself. This definition accounts for such terms as yoke of the Torah, yoke of the commandments, yoke of the kingdom of heaven, etc. It has already been shown that because of their misinterpretation, alteration, and augmentation of God's holy law, the yoke which Israel's teachers placed upon the shoulders of the people was that of a totally unwarranted legalism. It was the system of teachingthat stressed salvation by means of strict obedience to a host of rules and regulations. Now here in 11:29 Jesus places his own teaching over against that to which the people had become accustomed. When he says, Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, or and become my disciples, he means, Accept my teaching, namely, that a person is saved by means of simple trust in me. Continued: for I am meek and lowly in [Greek] -2 _ftnref26 [Greek] In explaining the word meek as it occurs in 5:5, it was pointed out that the meek person is the one who finds refuge in the Lord, commits his way entirely to him, leaving everything in the hand of him who loves and cares. See also on 12:19, 20. It is clear that the meek person is peaceful and peace-loving. It is therefore not so strange that the Syriac (Peshitta) New Testament has: Come to me &and I will restyou &for I am restful& and you shall find restfor yourselves. This, or something very similar to it, may well have been what Jesus, speaking Aramaic, closely resembling Syriac, said that day to the conscience-stricken [Greek] -2 _ftnref27 ([Greek] The synonym of meek is lowly or humble, as opposed to proudI Peter 5:5). The result of taking Christ's yoke and becoming his disciple is: and you shall find rest for your [Greek] -2 _ftnref28 ([Greek]. Such finding is obtaining. Note the parallel: I will give you rest (verse 28) and you shall find rest (verse 29). Men can never obtain unless Christ gives. They can never discover what he has not disclosed. Concluded: For my yoke is kindly, and my burden is light.It should never be forgotten that a yoke, literally a wooden frame, was placed upon a person's shoulders in order to make a load or burden easier to carry, by distributing its weight in equal proportions to opposite sides of the body. This, however, did not entirely rule out the possibility that if the burden was very heavy the yoke would not be of sufficient help to the wearer. Consequently even a yoke could be called heavyActs 15:10). Accordingly, to make the carrying task delightful not only must the yokebe well adjusted to the shoulders, not chafing, but also the burdenmust not be too heavy. Symbolically speaking, Jesus here assures the oppressed persons whom he addresses, both then and now, that hisyoke, that is, the one he urges them to wear, is kindly, [Greek] -2 _ftnref29 [Greek] and his burden, that is, that which he requires of us, is light. What he is really saying, therefore, is that simple trust in him and obedience to his commands out of gratitude for the salvation already imparted by him is delightful. It brings peace and joy. The person who lives this kind of life is no longer a slave. He has become free. He serves the Lord spontaneously, eagerly, enthusiastically. He is doing what he (the new man in him) wants to do. Cf. Rom. 7:22. On the contrary, the attempt to save oneself by means of scrupulous adherance to all the artificial rules and arbitrary regulations superimposed upon the law by scribes and Pharisees (23:4) spells slavery. It produces wretchedness and despair. Therefore, says the Lord, Come to me. In the study of this marvelous passage (verses 28 30) one fact is generally passed by in silence. It is this: The authoritative advice Jesus gives is not only good for the soul; when heeded it also greatly benefits the body. The rest peace of heart and mind which Jesus here provides is the very opposite of the aggravated mental stress that sends so many people to doctors, hospitals, and death. Absence of peace, whether in the form of anxiety or of rancor and vindictiveness, may lead to ulcers, colitis, high blood pressure, heart attacks, etc. The teachings of Christ, if taken to heart, have a curative effect on the entire person, soul and [Greek] -2 _ftnref30 [Greek] He is a complete Savior! Summary of Chapter 11 This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XII Outline of Chapter 12 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him to Do 12:1–14 The Son of Man Asserting His Authority as Lord of the Sabbath 12:15–21 The Chosen Servant 12:22–37 Christ's Miracles: Proof of Beelzebul's Dominion or of His Doom? 12:38–45 The Craving for Signs Rebuked 12:46–50 The Mother and the Brothers of Jesus 12:1–14 The Son of Man Asserting His Authority as Lord of the Sabbath Cf. Mark 2:23 3:6; Luke 6:1 11 12 1 Now at that time Jesus on the sabbath went through the fields of standing grain. His disciples were hungry and began to pick heads of grain and to eat them. 2 But the Pharisees saw it and said, See here, your disciples are doing what is not permitted on the sabbath. 3 He said to them, Have you not read what David did when he and those with him were hungry: 4 how he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which neither he nor those with him but only the priests were allowed to eat? 5 Or have you not read in the law how on the sabbath the priests in the temple break the sabbath, yet are guiltless? 6 And I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. 7 However, if you had known what this means, I desire mercy and not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath. 9 He went on from there and entered their synagogue. 10 And look, a man with a shriveled hand! Is it right to heal on the sabbath? they asked him [Jesus], aiming to bring a charge against him. 11 He said to them, What man of you, if he has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the sabbath, will not grab hold of it and lift it out? 12 Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is right to do good on the sabbath. 13 Then he said to the man, Hold out your hand. He held it out, and it was restored, sound as the other. 14 But the Pharisees went out and took counsel against him, how they might destroy him. Between the close of chapter 11 and the beginning of chapter 12 there is a twofold connection. First, the phrase at that time of 12:1 recalls 11:25. Though the words are rather indefinite, they do indicate that the events introduced cannot have been very far removed from each other in time.^[494] And secondly, as to material content, the burden of superimposed legalism from which Jesus promised to deliver all who would come to him (11:28–30) receives a double illustration in 12:1–14, which passage implies that a heavy load of sabbath rules and regulations had been placed on the people's shoulders by scribes and Pharisees. 1. Now at that time Jesus on the sabbath went through the fields of standing grain. Grain was evidently ripening. This process, varying with the altitude, occurred during a period extending from the spring of the year until mid-summer. In Palestine's warm Jordan Valley barley ripens during April; in Transjordan and the region east of the Sea of Galilee wheat is harvested in August. Exactly when it was that Jesus and his disciples went through the fields of standing grain is not stated in the text. The place is even more indefinite than the time. A. T. Robertson's suggestion that the event took place probably in Galilee on the way back from Jerusalem may be as good a guess as any.^[495] But it is no more than a conjecture. The translation fields of standing grain leans heavily upon the context for its justification. Literally and etymologically the reference is simply to that which was sown. However, the context shows that when the trip on a path through the grain fields occurred, harvest time had arrived or was soon to arrive. His disciples were hungry.& This is related by Matthew alone, though also implied by Mark (2:25) and Luke (6:3). No longer being regularly engaged in their earlier occupations it is not surprising that at times the disciples how many at this time is not indicated were hungry. Jesus, too, experienced not only thirst (John 4:6, 7) but also hunger (Matt. 21:18). This little group was poor, needy, and now also hungry. For people in such a condition the law had made special provision (Deut. 23:25): When you enter your neighbor's field of standing grain, you may pick the heads of grain with your hand, but you must not thrust a scythe into your neighbor's standing grain. What the disciples did to relieve their hunger is related variously in the Synoptics. Mark merely states that they started to pick the heads of grain; Matthew: and began to pick heads of grain and to eat them. This eating is also implied by Mark (2:26). Luke, more complete on this point than either of the others, has, His disciples began picking and eating the heads of grain, rubbing them with their hands. As to these heads of grain, some prefer &of wheat. ^[496] Since by us wheat is generally thought of as most closely related to the staff of life, so that we think of it first of all in connection with the stilling of hunger, and also since the recorded event must not be dated too early in the year (barley ripens before wheat), it is not difficult to understand that there are those who favor the rendering wheat. This may well be correct. It is but fair to add, however, that A. T. Robertson, in his Word Pictures (see my footnote above) makes allowance for the possibility that the grain to which Matthew refers was barley. See John 6:9, 13. Cf. Ruth 1:22; 2:17, 23; 3:2, 15, 17. If we knew more definitely where and when the event related in Matt. 12:1, 2occurred it would be easier to prove which grain was meant. To satisfy their hunger and in full accordance with the law of Deuteronomy, as has already been shown, the disciples began to pick the heads and to eat the grain after rubbing it out with their hands. On the part of those who hated Christ and were trying to find some excuse for having him condemned there was an immediate reaction, as is shown in verse 2. But the Pharisees saw it and said, See here, your disciples are doing what is not permitted on the sabbath. On the hostile attitude of the Pharisees toward Jesus see what has been said earlier, in connection with 3:7; 5:17–20; 9:11, 34. By means of their hairsplitting legalism these men were constantly burying God's law under the heavy load of their traditions, as has become clear from the explanation of 5:21–48; see also on 15:1–11 and on chapter 23. Filled with envy they were always watching Jesus to see whether something he said or did could be used as a charge against him, so as to destroy him. As to the Pharisees here referred to, whether they had come a great distance having traveled on his heels, perhaps from Judea back to Galilee, as some think or were from nearby, one thing is certain: their intentions were not honorable. There was murder in their hearts. See verse 14. Cf. John 5:18; 7:19; 8:40. Suddenly they confront Jesus, blaming him for allowing his disciples to profane the sabbath. Was not work forbidden on the seventh day (Exod. 20:8–11; 34:21; Deut. 5:12–15)? Had not the rabbis drawn up a catalogue of thirty-nine principal works, subdivided into many minor categories, so that, for example, plucking heads of grain was considered reaping, and rubbing out the grain threshing?^[497] And here were the disciples engaged in these very activities and even enjoying the fruits of their sins: they were eating this ill-gotten grain! And Jesus was doing nothing about it. According to the passage now under discussion (Mark 2:24) the charge was leveled against Jesus himself. According to (Luke 6:2it is the disciples who are being accused. Since both were involved there is no real discrepancy hereMatt. 10:24, 25; John 15:20). In his answer Jesus, who elsewhere gave the true, spiritual interpretation of the first and second commandmentsExod. 20:1–6; cf. Matt. 22:37, 38, which summarizes the entire first table of the law , of the third commandment and the ninth (Exod. 20:7; Lev. 19:12; Num. 30:2; Deut. 23:21; cf. Matt. 5:33–37), the fifth and eighth (Exod. 20:12, 15; cf. Matt. 15:3–6), the sixth (Exod. 20:13; cf. Matt. 5:21–26, 38 42), the seventh (Exod. 20:14; cf. Matt. 5:27–32; 19:3–12), and the tenthExod. 20:17; cf. Luke 12:13 21; 16:14, 19 31; see also Matt. 22:39, in which the entire second table is summarized , now reveals the true meaning of the fourth commandment (Exod. 20:8–11). Implied in his interpretation, but in this case not stated in so many words, is a condemnation of the false explanation which the rabbis had superimposed upon this commandment and which in the days of Christ's sojourn on earth was being widely propagated by scribes and Pharisees. They were either completely ignoring or else leaving insufficient room in their teaching for the following truths, which also summarize Christ's teaching as now presented. a. Necessity knows no lawMatt. 12:3and 4 b. Every rule has its exception (verses 5 and 6) c. Showing mercy is always right (verses 7 and 11) d. The sabbath was made for man, not vice versa (Mark 2:27); and e. Sovereign Ruler over all, including the sabbath, is the Son of manMatt. 12:8; cf. verse 6 . a. Necessity knows no law 3, 4. He said to them, Have you not read what David did when he and those with him were hungry: how he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which neither he nor those with him but only the priests were allowed to eat? Have you not read? As if to say, You pride yourselves in being the very people who uphold the law and you deem yourselves to be so thoroughly versed in it as to be able to teach others; yet are you yourselves unacquainted with the fact that even this very law allowed its ceremonial restrictions to be ignored in cases of necessity? Have you not read about David and the bread? This reference is to consecrated bread, showbread, literally bread of the presence, twelve loaves of bread laid in two rows and displayed on the table of showbread before the Lord. The twelve loaves represented Israel's twelve tribes and symbolized the constant fellowship of the people with their God, receiving their bread from him, eating with him, being consecrated to him, and gratefully acknowledging their indebtedness to him by means of this offering. This bread was changed for fresh loaves every sabbath. The old loaves were eaten by the priests (Exod. 25:30; I Sam. 21:6). The rule was that this holy bread was for Aaron and his sons, that is, for the priesthood, definitely not for everybody (Lev. 24:9). Yet when Ahimelech, functioning in the days of Abiathar the high-priest (I Sam. 21:1–6; Mark 2:26), realized that David and his men were hungry, and became convinced that the man whom God had anointed to be king over Israel (I Sam. 16:12, 13) had undertaken a sacred mission (I Sam. 21:5), he gave him the bread needed by this future king and by his retinue. David, having entered the house of God, that is, the tabernacle in Nob (I Sam. 21:1; 22:9) ate this bread. If then David had a right to ignore a divinely ordained ceremonial provision when necessity demanded this for, surely, Jehovah's anointed had a right and a duty to maintain himself physically, and so did his hungry attendants! then would not David's great Antitype, namely, Jesus, God's Anointed in a far more exalted sense, have the right to set aside a totally unwarranted, man-made sabbath regulation? The aptness of this historical reference appears all the more clearly when the fact is considered that a parallel is drawn here between, on the one hand, David and his followers, and on the other, Jesus and his disciples. Though, to be sure, during the old dispensation ceremonial laws were instituted to be obeyed, yet it would be hard to prove that even then a higher law in this case the principle that human life and health must be preserved (Exod. 20:13; Matt. 22:39b; I Cor. 6:19) could not under certain circumstances invalidate or at least modify an ordinance of lesser significance. All the more was there good reason in the case of Jesus and his disciples to ignore a purely rabbinical regulation regarding sabbath observance, a rule resting upon nothing more solid than a misinterpretation and misapplication of God's holy law. b. Every rule has its exception The principle announced in verses 3 and 4 applies always, sabbath or no sabbath. What David did when he ate the consecrated bread was right and necessary, whether it was done on the sabbath or on any other day of the week. Turning now specifically to God's ordinances regarding the sabbath, Jesus continued, 5, 6. Or have you not read in the law how on the sabbath the priests in the temple break the sabbath, yet are guiltless? On the sabbath the priests were kept very busy (Lev. 24:8, 9; Num. 28:9, 10; I Chron. 9:32; 23:31; II Chron. 8:12–14; 23:4; 31:2, 3), all this in spite of the sabbath commandment found in Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15. What happens in such a case is that a higher law, demanding that everything be done to make possible the worship of God by the people, modifies and restricts the too literal interpretation of the regulation concerning sabbath rest. So also today no one in his right mind will blame a minister for preaching and/or administering the sacraments on the Lord's Day. The trouble with the Pharisees when they found fault with Jesus and his disciples was this, that they not only placed rabbinical tradition on a par with God's written law, which often in practice amounted to elevating it above the written law, but that in addition to this they attached an all but absolute value to specific traditions. Not even the divine law as recorded in the Decalog, says Jesus as it were, was to be applied with such rigidity. Otherwise how could the priests have performed their work on the sabbath? The remark has been heard: Every rule has its exception. This is a rule. Therefore it has its exception. The exception in the present case is, of course, the basic principle expressed by Jesus in Matt. 22:37–40; Mark 12:29 31; Luke 10:27, whatever be the wording of this principle. That basic principle applies always and everywhere. In an authoritative manner Jesus adds, And I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. Meaning: If even an earthly temple, which was but a type, demanded modification of the fourth commandment, literally interpreted, would not its far superior Antitype, namely, Jesus Christ, who was addressing the Pharisees here and now, and in whom all the fulness of the godhead dwells bodily (Col. 2:9; cf. John 10:30), have the right to make a similar demand? Surely, something greater than the temple, a treasure infinitely more precious, a gift from heaven immeasurably more valuable, an authority endowed with rights far more magisterial, was speaking to them. c. Showing mercy is always right Repeating what he had said on another occasion accordingly for the meaning of the passage see on 9:13 the Lord continues, 7. However, if you had known what this means, I desire mercy and not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the guiltless. That was exactly the trouble with these Pharisees: they lacked pity. They did not love kindness. Therefore the hunger which plagued the disciples of Jesus failed to kindle within the hearts of their critics any feeling of tenderness or eagerness to help. Instead they were condemning the disciples. As to Jesus, they not only condemned him but secretly rejoiced in having discovered another reason, as they saw it, for causing him to be destroyed. With respect to what the disciples were doing to those heads of grain, these hungry men were entirely guiltless. In no sense whatever were they transgressing any divine commandment. Yet the Pharisees, these hypocrites, with murder in their hearts, were condemning them. Yes, them but especially their Master (James 5:6). If they had only taken to heart the words of Hosea 6:6they would have known that showing mercy is right on any day of the week, including most certainly the sabbath! d. The sabbath was made for man, not vice versa This statement of our Lord, in further defense of his disciples, is found in Mark 2:27, where it immediately precedes the words, Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath, paralleled in Matt. 12:8. The sabbath was instituted to be a blessing for man: to keep him healthy, to make him happy, and to render him holy. Man was not created to be the sabbath's slave. e. Sovereign ruler over all, including the Sabbath, is the Son of man In line with the saying of verse 6, Jesus concludes this grainfield sabbath controversy by saying, 8. For the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath. The conjunction for is not difficult to understand. Jesus has just now pronounced his disciples guiltless. They were indeed without any guilt with respect to the charge made against them by the Pharisees, for in picking and (after rubbing out the grain) eating this food they were doing what Jesus allowed and wanted them to do. They were recognizing his lordship rather than the lordship of the Pharisees and their oft foolish traditions. The disciples were right in so doing, for the Son of man is indeed Lord of the sabbath. They were correct when they placed obedience to him above slavish observance of arbitrary, man-made sabbath ritual. Is not the Son of man for which term see on 8:20 Lord over all (11:27; 28:18)? Would he not then be Lord of the sabbath also? Guilty are those who imagine that they can honor the sabbath while dishonoring its Lord. Jesus, as Lord of the sabbath, not only honored it by regularly attending the synagogue services on that day but also by at times taking a leading part (Luke 4:16 27). Again, he honored it by performing acts of mercy and healing on that day (Luke 13:10 17; 14:1–6; John 5:9; 7:23; 9:14). Also, he hallowed it by resting in the tomb on that day, thereby sanctifying the grave for his followers (Matt. 27:57–60; Mark 15:42, 46; 16:1; Luke 23:53, 54; 24:1). Moreover he did justice to it by fulfilling its symbolic significance. During the old dispensation the week began with six days of LABOR. These were followed by one day of REST. Later, by the labor of his vicarious suffering Christ, the great Highpriest, procured for the people of God the eternal sabbath rest (Heb. 4:8, 9, 14). By faith in him believers even now (in principle!) enter into this REST, which is constantly being followed by their LABOR of love, that is, by their works of gratitude for salvation already obtained for them as a free gift. The order LABOR REST is therefore changed to REST LABOR: very appropriately the week now begins with the day of REST. In summary, Jesus asserted his authority over the sabbath by interpreting it by word and deed as being a day of true freedom, a day of rejoicing, of rendering service of love to each and to all, and, in and through it all, by worshiping God above everything else! The truths mentioned above, in items b, c, d, and e, apply also to the next sabbath controversy. Not so directly item a, for it was not immediately apparent that the man with a shriveled hand needed to be cured on the sabbath. Humanly speaking one might argue that such a restoration of a paralyzed hand could wait until the next day. Here, then, the Pharisees seem to be on safer ground. They jump at the opportunity, not even waiting for Jesus to take the initiative. Note their eagerness: 9, 10. He went on from there and entered their synagogue. And look, a man with a shriveled hand! Is it right to heal on the sabbath? they asked him [Jesus], aiming to bring a charge against him. From the grainfield the action now shifts to the synagogue. It is sabbath. In walks a man with a lame hand. It is moreover his right hand (Luke 6:6). The apocryphal Gospel according to the Hebrews states that the man was a stonemason, who pleaded with Jesus to heal him that he might not have to spend his life as a beggar. Be that as it may, the point is that this is a sabbath, and though there may well have been a difference of opinion between the disciples of Shammai, with their stricter interpretation of sabbath observance, and those of Hillel, with their more lenient view the more rigorous position prevailing in Jerusalem, the more lenient in Galilee the rule that only in such cases in which a man's life was actually in danger would it be permissible to heal him on the sabbath was widely endorsed.^[498] Would Jesus dare to oppose this rule, by the Pharisees regarded as a well-established and basic principle which must not be violated? Secretly the opponents hope that by word and/or deed Jesus may trample upon their rule of conduct. Thus basely motivated (see verse 14) they ask him, Is it right to heal on the sabbath? Their purpose is to bring a charge against him. Do they fail to realize that their own wicked motivation is the grossest sabbath desecration of all, a sin so damning that in the sight of the Almighty it constitutes a most grievous charge against them? Also, do they fail to realize that Jesus knows their thoughts (Luke 6:8)? The Lord of the sabbath (see verse 8) orders the man to stand up before the entire assembly (Mark 3:3; Luke 6:8), as if to say to one and all, Look at him; study his hand, and consider what his condition means to him. Does he not arouse your sympathy? Next, Jesus answers the question of his critics. He does so by, as it were, turning the tables on them. By means of a counter-question he makes these Pharisees answer their own question: 11, 12. He said to them, What man of you, if he has a^[499] sheep and it falls into a pit on the sabbath, will not grab hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! It is safe to infer from the question asked by Jesus that at least at that time and place it was not regarded wrong to rescue a sheep that had suffered such a mishap, regardless of whether the accident occurred on a sabbath or on any other day. That being so, is not a human being of more value than a sheep? If on the sabbath doing good to an animal is allowed, then all the more it is right and proper on that day to show kindness to a man, God's image-bearer! Must such help be offered only when life is in danger? Jesus does not even enter into this question, except by implication. That implication is very clear: showing mercy is always right (see above, p. 512, point c.). Ethical conduct is ever far more important than ceremonial obedience. If the Pharisees had only made a more thorough and unbiased study of their own truly sacred scriptures (Mic. 6:6–8) they would have known this! Certainly, because a man is incomparably more valuable in the sight of God than a sheep, Therefore it is right to do good on the sabbath, that is, to be a blessing to man, not to remain indifferent to his needs. For this type of argument see also 6:26, 30; 10:29, Luke 12:6 (, 7). These words, Therefore it is right to do good on the sabbath must have been spoken with deep earnestness. They may have been uttered both as a positive statement (thus Matthew) and in question form, Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to inflict injury, to save a life or to kill? (Mark 3:4; cf. Luke 6:9). But if the question form alone was used, did it not imply Christ's affirmation of the thesis that it is indeed right to do good on the sabbath? A real conflict between the Gospel writers cannot be proved therefore. It was Jesus himself who was about to do good to this man. Christ's critics, on the other hand, were harboring thoughts of murder, the murder of the Benefactor (verse 14). Which was best? Jesus, looking around, studies the faces of his opponents and reads their inner secrets (Luke 6:8, 10). His cheeks are glowing with holy indignation. He is grieved at their hardness of heart (Mark 3:5). No one is able to answer him. The Pharisees cannot very well deny that to do good on any day, and certainly on the sabbath, is right and proper. Yet to admit this openly means surrender for them. So an embarrassed, chilling silence prevails in their ranks (Mark 3:4). With bated breath the rest of the people are also watching, wondering what will happen now. The atmosphere in the synagogue is surcharged with uneasiness on the one hand, expectancy on the other. The man with the withered hand is still standing there, in full view of the audience. Jesus is about to perform the miracle demanded by this situation. He must act now, not later. For him to have waited until the following day could easily have been interpreted as an admission on his part that deeds of healing are after all wrong when performed on the sabbath. Such a delay, accordingly, would have compounded error. This must not be. Now is the time. So, after this searching look all around, the Master rivets his attention upon the handicapped man. 13. Then he said to the man, Hold out your hand. He held it out, and it was restored,^[500] sound as the other. The cure is instantaneous and complete. Subsequent treatments or even check-ups are not required. The right hand is now as sound as the left. It must be emphasized also that the cure took place in connection with the man's act of obedience. Nevertheless, for the miracle itself we must give all the credit and the glory to Jesus, to him alone. He did not touch the man. In fact, not even by means of a single syllable did he order the hand to be cured (Mark 7:34). He merely told the man to stretch out his hand and it was made well. In a manner too mysterious for any mortal to comprehend, the Savior had concentrated his mind on the plight of this poor man, had become filled with compassion, and in the sight of everyone present had willed and performed the cure! Did this astounding deed of might and mercy convince the Pharisees of their error? Did they now confess their guilt? Not at all. They hated Jesus all the more because of what he had done on the sabbath. As they saw it, imparting health and happiness to a man by removing his handicap was a crime when it was done on the sabbath, but plotting on that same day to destroy the Healer amounted to a meritorious (act. 14. But the Pharisees went out and took counsel against him, how they might destroy him. Had it been possible they would have been glad to kill Jesus right now, for they were filled with rageLuke 6:11). Two obstacles made it difficult for them to carry out their wicked plan immediately: a. the Roman government (John 18:3), and b. the spectators. The deeply impressed synagogue audience would not have tolerated any drastic action against Jesus at this time. What could be done in this situation? To find a solution to their problem the Pharisees, those very men who were always boasting about their extraordinary holiness, at times carrying their high opinion of themselves to the very throne of God (Luke 18:11, 12), now consult with &of all people, the thoroughly unholy, worldly Herodians (Mark 3:6), a political party that supported Herod's dynasty! Misery makes strange bedfellows, especially when it is linked with envy. Together the two groups now plot how to crush Jesus. See also on 3:7 and on 22:16 (Mark 12:13). These bitter enemies of the Lord should have read and taken to heart Ps. 2. 12:15–21 The Chosen Servant Cf. Mark 3:7 12 15 Jesus, aware of this, departed from that place. Many followed him, and he healed them all. 16 And he warned them not to make him known, 17 in order that what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled: 18 Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, My beloved, with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, And he shall proclaim justice to the Gentiles. 19 He shall not quarrel or shout, Nor shall anyone hear his voice in the streets. 20 A bruised reed he shall not break, And a smoldering wick he shall not quench, Until he leads justice on to victory. 21 And in his name shall the Gentiles hope. Since Jesus was fully aware of the murderous intent of his enemies, and since he also knew that the time for his departure from this earth had not as yet arrived, we are not surprised to read: 15. Jesus, aware of this, departed from that place. But even in his departure he was thinking not only of himself but of those elsewhere for whom he could be a blessing: Many followed him, and he healed them all. For explanation see on 4:23–25; 9:35; and 11:5. He did all this for people many of whom were going to reject him. Cf. 11:20–24; John 6:66. As to 16. And he warned them not to make him known, see the detailed explanation of 8:4, especially points b., c., and d. See also on 9:30. Jesus was not seeking fame. He did not wish to stand out as a worker of miracles. Vain display, earthly glory, matters such as these did not constitute the reason for his incarnation and sojourn among men. They were completely out of harmony with the humble Servant of Jehovah of Isaiah's prophecies. This explains verse 17. in order that what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled. To prove Christ's unassuming, gentle, and retiring nature a reference to Isa. 42:2, 3would probably have sufficed, but it is Matthew's desire to quote also the preceding and following context, in order that Messiah's glory may become all the more strikingly evident, and the wickedness of his opponents stand out more clearly by contrast. Accordingly, what is offered here in 12:18–21 is Isa. 42:1 4as interpreted by Christ's fully inspired apostle Matthew. It is not a word for word reproduction but the result of profound sympathetic reflection. And a careful comparison of the Hebrew original with Matthew's version leaves no doubt about the fact that the former publican had indeed caught the thrust of Isaiah's strikingly beautiful description of the coming Christ.^[501] Isa. 42:1 4is the first of four prophecies regarding the Servant of Jehovah. The others are Isa. 49:1 9a; 50:4–9; and 52:13 53:12Isa. 61:1ff. . Matthew's version begins as follows: 18. Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, My beloved with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, And he shall proclaim justice to the Gentiles. It is clear from the entire context that when Matthew in his own way quotes (Isa. 42:1 4he refers this prophecy directly to Jesus Christ, God's beloved Son, the Mediator between God and man. Matthew interprets Isa. 42as Philip the evangelist and as the apostles John and Peter interpreted Isa. 53Acts 8:26 35; John 12:37 43; I Peter 2:24). In fact, Isa. 42cannot be separated from Isa. 53. Because of 42:6, 7 (cf. 9:2, 6) it is simply impossible to intepret Isa. 42:1 4intelligibly except as referring to and being fulfilled in Christ. Moreover, as to the marvelous things said about the Servant of Jehovah in Isa. 49:6; 53(the entire chapter); and 55:3–5, to whom could such statements refer if not to the Son of God who is also the Son of man? Those who refer such passages to Israel forget that 53:6 draws a sharp distinction between a. the people who have gone astray and b. the Servant upon whom Jehovah places the burden of their iniquity (see also verses 4, 5, 8, and 12). Matthew, then, draws a sharp contrast between a. Christ's wicked opponents, in this case the Pharisees, who are seeking to destroy him (12:14), and b. Christ himself, the Father's beloved Son (Matt. 3:17; Luke 9:35; Col. 1:13; II Peter 1:17, 18; cf. Ps. 2:6–12), ever eager to do the will of his Sender (John 4:34; 5:30, 36; 17:4). It is upon this divine and human Redeemer that the Father pours out his Spirit, and this without measureMatt. 3:16; John 3:34, 35; cf. Ps. 45:7; Isa. 11:2; 61:1ff. . As a result (Luke 4:18) the Mediator carries out his prophetic activity, namely, that of proclaiming justice, that which is right, in harmony with the will of God: that sinners repent, come to (that is, believe in) the Savior, find salvation in him, and out of gratitude live to the glory of their Benefactor. See further on verse 21. In close connection with verse 16 the attitude of the Spirit-filled Mediator between God and man is now pointed out. His frame of mind and heart is the very opposite of that of his enemies: 19. He shall not quarrel or shout, Nor shall anyone hear his voice in the streets. The shouting mentioned here is not that of religious rejoicingPs. 5:11; 32:11; Isa. 12:6; Zech. 9:9, etc. , nor of battle or victory (Exod. 32:18; Amos 1:14; cf. Josh. 6:20). It rather resembles the raving of a ruler among fools, as contrasted with the words of the wise spoken and received in an atmosphere of blessed quietness (Eccl. 9:17). It is like the riotous screaming which by popular belief was ascribed to the satyr (Isa. 34:14). It is, as the passage (Matt. 12:19) clearly shows, the kind of shouting that is associated with quarreling. Think of the nasty public wrangling among those who have just lost a game, the uproarious fulmination of the demagogue as he stirs up the people in the streets, the boisterous boasting and fighting of the Bacchus parade (Gal. 5:21), etc. Completely different is the meek and gentle Savior. See (Isa. 42:1–4) Isa. 57:15; Zech. 9:9; I Kings 19:11, 12; Matt. 5:7–9; 21:5; Luke 23:34. Continued: 20. A bruised reed he shall not break, And a smoldering wick he shall not quench.^[502] In a context that speaks of justice being proclaimed to the Gentiles, and of the Gentiles hoping in his name it is well-nigh certain that the terms bruised^[503] reed^[504] and smoldering^[505] wick^[506] must be taken figuratively, as referring to those from afar, to the weak and helpless, those of little faith, etc. What a contrast between the cruelty of the Pharisees and the kindness of Jesus, between their vanity and his reserve, their love for display and his meekness. They plan murder (12:14) and are callous, indifferent to the agony of the handicapped (12:10). Is it lawful? Is it lawful? is their constant cry; never, Is it kind? He is completely different. In fact, so very different that it would be incorrect to interpret the words of verse 20 in a purely negative manner, as if they merely meant to indicate what he would not do to those who fear that their faith will fail or that the tempter will prevail. On the contrary, these expressions belong to the figure of speech called litotes, by means of which a positive truth is conveyed by the negation of its opposite. The real significance of the bruised reed which he will not break and of the smoldering wick which he will not quench is therefore that he will treat with profound and genuine sympathy, with tender concern, whatever is near to exhaustion. He will impart strength to the weak, to all who while pining away ask him for help. He will heal the sick (4:23–25; 9:35; 11:5; 12:15), seek and save tax-collectors and sinners (9:9, 10), comfort mourners (5:4), cheer the fearful (14:13–21), reassure doubters (11:2–6), feed the famished (14:13–21), and grant pardon to those who repent of their sins (9:2). He is the true Immanuel (see above, on 1:23). He will never cease to do all this until he leads justice on to victory, that is, until at last, at the great consummation, sin and all its consequences will have been banished forever from God's redeemed universe. Then the justice of God (see above, on verse 18) will triumph completely, for the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah as the waters cover the (bottom of the) sea (Isa. 11:9; cf. 61:2, 3, 11; Jer. 31:34). It is not surprising therefore that according to the divine plan the time was coming when the command not to make Jesus known (12:16) would be withdrawn. Israel's Savior must become the world's Savior (John 4:42; I John 4:14). The continuation, therefore, is natural: 21. And in his name, that is, in Christ as revealed to the world, shall the Gentiles hope. They shall place their firmly anchored (Heb. 6:19) confidence in the Lord Jesus Christ. The period of secrecy (Matt. 12:16) will be gradually replaced by that of wide publicity, when the church fulfils its mission among the Gentiles.^[507] A foreglimpse of this era of gospel proclamation and salvation for Gentiles as well as for Jews, predicted but not yet widely realized during the old dispensation (Gen. 22:15–18; Ps. 72:8–11; 87; Isa. 54:1–3; 60:3; Mal. 1:11), can be seen in Matt. 2:1, 2, 11; 8:10–12; 15:21–28; Luke 2:32a; John 3:16; ch. 4; 10:16. For a larger measure of fulfilment see Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 22:21; Eph. 2:11–22. For the final result or victory see Rev. 7:9–17. 12:22–37 Christ's Miracles: Proof of Beelzebul's Dominion or of His Doom? 22 Then a demon-possessed man who could neither see nor speak was brought to him. And he healed him, so that the dumb man spoke and saw. 23 All the people were amazed and said, Surely, this cannot be the Son of David? 24 But when the Pharisees heard (this) they said, This fellow does not cast out demons but by Beelzebul the prince of the demons. 25 Knowing their thoughts he said to them, Every kingdom divided against itself is on the way to ruin, and no city or house divided against itself shall stand. 26 If Satan is engaged in casting out Satan he is divided against himself; How then shall his kingdom stand? 27 And if it is by Beelzebul that I cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. 28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. 29 Or how can anyone enter the strong man's house and carry off his goods unless he first binds the strong man? It is only then that he will ransack his house. 30 He who is not with me is against me; he who does not gather with me scatters. 31 Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32 And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in the present age or in the age to come. 33 Either consider the tree to be good and its fruit good, or consider the tree to be sickly and its fruit sickly, for by the fruit the tree is known. 34 You offspring of vipers, how can you speak what is good when you yourselves are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 35 The good man from his good inner storehouse brings out what is good, and the evil man from his evil treasure brings out what is evil. 36 But I say to you that for every careless word that men shall speak they shall render account on the day of judgment. 37 For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned. For 12:22–32 cf. Mark 3:19 30; Luke 11:14 23; 12:10. For 12:33–37 cf. Luke 6:43 45. 22. Then a demon-possessed man who could neither see nor speak was brought to him. The adverb then is again very indefinite. As in 12:2, 10, and 14 so also here Jesus is in the company of his opponents. A demoniac afflicted with loss of sight and of speech is brought to him. For demon-possession in general and for the relation between it and physical afflictions see on 9:32. And he healed him, so that the dumb man spoke and saw. Jesus cured him instantly and completely, so that the man who had been so grievously afflicted was now no longer demon-possessed nor blind nor dumb. Effect upon the spectators: 23. All the people were amazed and said, Surely, this cannot be the Son of David? The people who witnessed this miracle were utterly astounded. A feeling of amazement coupled no doubt with a measure of fear in the presence of the One who had performed this startling feat took possession of them. If it were not, perhaps, too colloquial, we might say, They were knocked out of their senses. This, or something approaching it, preserves the flavor of the original. That the attention of the audience, having focused itself on the man who was the recipient of this triple blessing, was soon fixed upon the great Benefactor himself is clear from the question whether the latter might be the Son of David. For the meaning of this title see on 9:27. The question was so phrased that a modified negative answer was expected, somewhat on the order, No, he is probably not the Son of David &and yet, who else could he be, to perform such a miracle? The question was significant indeed! Perhaps the people's state of mind at this moment might be described thus: the astonishing character of the miracle had convinced them that this Jesus could very well be the Messiah, but they do not dare to give definite vocal expression to this thought, especially because of the presence of Christ's bitter opponents, the Pharisees. Their question can also be rendered, Could this be the Son of David? Though the possibility that Jesus might be the Messiah is expressed ever so hesitantly, it is certainly an advance on the more or less neutral, What kind of person is this? (8:27). But though we should guard ourselves against attaching too little significance to the question, we must equally refrain from reading too much into it. It must be borne in mind that even if it should be granted that these people, at least some of them, saw in Jesus the Messiah, the further question would still be, What kind of Messiah? Merely a deliverer from earthly woes, such as bodily afflictions and handicaps, yes even from demons, possibly also a potential rescuer from the Roman yoke, hence from degradation and oppression, all this.& but not from sin? Not from the evil underlying all other miseries, namely, man's alienation from God? The Messianic conception of many of the people, including to some extent Christ's own disciples, was distinctly materialistic, earthly, Judaistic (Matt. 20:21; 23:37–39; Luke 19:41, 42; Acts 1:6; John 6:15, 35 42). The very suggestion of the possibility, no matter how imperfectly and remotely conceived or presented, that Jesus might be the long awaited One, was poison to the Pharisees; particularly also to the scribes, who had come all the way from Jerusalem (Mark 3:22), no doubt to ensnare Jesus in his words and/or actions. Continued: 24. But when the Pharisees heard (this) they said, This fellow does not cast out demons but by Beelzebul the prince of the demons. This time, unlike in 12:2, 10, the opponents do not address Jesus directly but slander him behind his back. They basely ascribe his demon expulsions to the power of Beelzebul the prince of the demons. For a discussion of the title Beelzebul (=Satan) see on 10:25, including footnote 450. See also on 9:34. The charge leveled against Jesus by scribes and Pharisees was wicked. It was the result of envy. Cf. (Matt. 27:18. They felt that they were beginning to lose their following, and this they were unable to endure. How completely different had been the attitude of John the BaptistJohn 3:26, 30). The thoroughly shameful character of the charge becomes apparent also from the fact that it regards Beelzebul not as an evil spirit exerting his sinister influence upon Jesus from the outside; no, Satan is regarded as being inside the soul of Jesus. The latter is said to have an unclean spirit (Mark 3:30; cf. John 8:48); in fact, to be himself Beelzebul (Matt. 10:25). Replying to the charge that he is casting out demons by the power of Beelzebul, Jesus points out that a. it is absurd (verses 25, 26); b. it is also inconsistent (verse 27); c. it obscures the true situation (verses 28 30); d. it is unpardonable (verses 31, 32); and e. it exposes the wickedness of those who make it, showing whose sons these blasphemers really are, in the same way in which the good deeds and attitudes of others supply evidence to prove what kind of individuals these good men are inwardly (verses 33 37). First of all, then, the charge is absurd. 25, 26. Knowing their thoughts he said to them, Every kingdom divided against itself is on the way to ruin, and no city or house divided against itself shall stand. If Satan is engaged in casting out Satan he is divided against himself; how then shall his kingdom stand? The slander is ridiculous, thoroughly unreasonable, for if it were true Satan would be opposing Satan. He would be destroying his own work. First, he would be sending out his envoys, the demons, to work havoc in the hearts and lives of men. Afterward, in base ingratitude and suicidal folly, he would be supplying the very power needed for the expulsion of his own obedient servants! Thus he would be breaking down his own empire. No kingdom, city, or household thus divided against itself can maintain itself. Secondly, it is also inconsistent. 27. And if it is by Beelzebul that I cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. There were others besides Jesus and his disciples who claimed to possess the power to expel demons. That occasionally such successful conjuration of evil spirits by the sons or disciples of the Pharisees may actually have occurred need not be disputed. See on 7:22. It is, however, not necessary either to prove or to disprove this. The point is: friends and followers of the Pharisees claimed that they possessed this power, and for reasons adequate or inadequate this claim was generally accepted. Naturally the teachers of these reputed exorcists were only too eager to accept their share of the credit, that is, to bask in reflected glory. But if the Pharisees were right in doing this, how could they with any kind of consistency oppose Jesus for engaging in the same type of work? Let the sons then judge whether or not what their teachers said about the source of Jesus power to drive out demons was correct. If these sons should deem the charge to be correct, affirming therefore that he was actually expelling demons by the power of the demons, they would be condemning themselves. On the other hand, if they judge the charge to be false they are condemning their teachers and vindicating Jesus. Either way their verdict would be very embarrassing to Christ's opponents. Another instance of the Master's use of this method of argumentation, by which the enemies lose whether they answer one way or the other, is reported in 21:23–27. On the other hand when they in this case the Pharisees supported by the Herodians confront Jesus with a dilemma, he not only eludes their trap but also in the process of doing so teaches them a lesson which they, as well as all people everywhere, should take to heart (22:15–22). Jesus is the Master of every situation. So exalted is he! Thirdly, it obscures. The slander spread by the adversaries was not a slight deviation from a factual presentation but a wicked obscuration. It was the very opposite of the truth, for not by the power of an evil spirit but by the Spirit of God did Jesus cast out demons. How could it be otherwise? 28. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. This if means if, as is actually the case. The very fact that Satan's kingdom is being proved vulnerable for his envoys are being driven out of men's hearts and lives shows that God's kingdom (see on 4:23) is making its presence felt. It is in the process of gaining the victory over the realm of Satan. It is very clear from this passage that the term kingdom of God (Matthew's more usual designation is of heaven, see above, p. 87) indicates a reality that is not merely future but also present. It is a growing reality, a developing entity, each of its blessings being a harbinger of greater blessings still to come, until the never ending climax is reached in the great consummation, and even then perfection will in a sense be progressive.^[508] Even now, during Christ's earthly ministry, the sick were being healed, the dead raised, lepers cleansed, demons cast out, sins pardoned, truth spread, lies refuted. Instead of opposing and fighting this kingdom, let men everywhere enter it (John 7:39). It is by the Spirit of God that Christ's power is thus being manifested on earth. For this title the Spirit of God see also 3:16; Rom. 8:9b, 14; I Cor. 2:11b (cf. 2:12b); 2:14; 3:16; 6:11; 7:40; 12:3; II Cor. 3:3; I Peter 4:14; I John 4:2a. The parallelism in I Cor. 12:3proves that this Spirit of God is the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. So certainly also here in Matthew, as a comparison of 12:28 with 12:32 shows. That this explanation of the source of Christ's power is the only logical one is explained in verse 29. Or how can anyone enter the strong man's house and carry off his goods unless he first binds the strong man? It is only then that he will ransack his house. In ordinary life the burglar does not receive willing help from the home owner. Instead, in order to get what he wants the intruder first ties up the owner. Then he burglarizes. Jesus by word and deed is depriving Satan of those values which the evil one regards as his own and over which he has been exercising his sinister control (Luke 13:16). The Lord is casting out Beelzebul's servants, the demons, and is restoring that which through their agency Satan has been doing to men's souls and bodies. Jesus is doing all this because by means of his incarnation, his victory over the devil in the desert of temptation, his words of authority addressed to the demons, his entire activity, he has begun to bind Beelzebul, a process of binding or curtailment of power that was going to be further strengthened by means of his victory over Satan on the cross (Col. 2:15) and in the resurrection, ascension, and coronation (Rev. 12:5, 9 12). He has done, is doing, and will do this through the power not of Beelzebul himself surely but of the Holy Spirit, as he has just said (verse 28). Yes, the devil is being, and is progressively going to be, deprived of his furniture, that is, of the souls and bodies of men, and this not only through healings but also through a mighty missionary program, reaching first the Jews but later on also the nations in general (John 12:31, 32; Rom. 1:16). Is not this the key to the understanding of Rev. 20:3?^[509] Note how also in Luke 10:17, 18the fall of Satan as lightning from heaven is recorded in connection with the return and report of the seventy missionaries. In this struggle between Christ and Satan neutrality is impossible (Mark 9:40; Luke 9:50), as is shown by verse 30. He who is not with me is against me. Reason: there are only two great empires: a. that of God or heaven, with Christ as Head, and b. that of Satan. A person belongs either to the one or to the other. Consequently if he is not in intimate association with Christ, he is down on,^[510] that is, against, him. To be with Jesus means to gather; to be down on him means to scatter: he who does not gather with me scatters. To be with Jesus means to be instrumental in gathering people to be his followers (Prov. 11:30; Dan. 12:3; Matt. 9:37, 38; Luke 19:10; John 4:35, 36; I Cor. 9:22). To be against him means to be unwilling to follow him in his mission to gather the lost. It means to leave them in their shepherdless, scattered condition, an easy prey for Satan (John 10:12). Fourthly, it is unpardonable. Jesus continues: 31, 32. Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in the present age or in the age to come. Every sin of which men sincerely repent shall be forgiven (Mark 3:28; Luke 12:10). To be sure, in none of these passages is the condition of repentance mentioned. That it was, however, implied is clear from the very context (12:41), from 4:17, and perhaps even more specifically from (Luke 17:3, 4. See also Ps. 32:1, 5: Prov. 28:13; James 5:16; I John 1:9. This rule holds also with respect to that very heinous sin, namely, blasphemy. In this connection we must be careful, however, to bear in mind that Scripture at times uses this word in a broader sense than we do. Among us blasphemy may be defined as defiant irreverence. In this connection we think, for example, of such crimes as cursing God or the king who reigns by the grace of God, of willful degradation of things considered holy, pulling them down to the realm of the secular, or of claiming for the secular or purely human the honor that belongs to God alone. In Greek, however, a more general sense was also ascribed to the word blasphemy, namely, the use of insolent language directed against either God or man, defamation, railing, revilingEph. 4:31; Col. 3:8; I Tim. 6:4). Accordingly, when Jesus assures us that every blasphemy shall be forgiven men, he is using the term blasphemy in the most general sense. However, when he makes an exception but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven he is referring to a sin which even in our English language would be considered blasphemy. See also on 9:3. Cf. Mark 2:7; Luke 5:21; John 10:30, 33; Rev. 13:1, 5, 6; 16:9, 11; 17:3. Nevertheless, even for all but one kind of defiant irreverence there is forgiveness, as is clear from the fact that Jesus says, Whoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him. If this were not true how could Peter's sin have been forgiven (Mark 14:71), and how could he have been reinstated (John 21:15 17)? How could Saul (=Paul) of Tarsus have been pardoned (I Tim. 1:12–17)? On the other hand, for blasphemy against the Spirit, that is, for speaking against the Holy Spirit there is said to be no forgiveness, either now or in the age to come. In passing, it should be pointed out that these words by no stretch of the imagination imply that for certain sins there will be forgiveness in the life hereafter. They do not in any sense whatever support the doctrine of purgatory. The expression simply means that the indicated sin will never be forgiven. As to the doctrine of purgatory, supposedly the place where the souls of those who are not eternally lost pay off the remainder of their debt by suffering punishment for the sins which they committed while still on earth, it is clearly contradicted by Scripture, which teaches that Jesus paid it all (Heb. 5:9; 9:12, 26; 10:14; I John 1:7; Rev. 1:5; 7:14). The question remains, How is it to be understood that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unpardonable? As to other sins, no matter how grievous or gruesome, there is pardon for them. There is forgiveness for David's sin of adultery, dishonesty, and murder (II Sam. 12:13; Ps. 51; cf. Ps. 32); for the many sins of the woman of Luke 7; for the prodigal son's riotous livingLuke 15:13, 21 24; ; for Simon Peter's triple denial accompanied by profanity (Matt. 26:74, 75; Luke 22:31, 32; John 18:15 18, 25 27; 21:15–17); and for Paul's pre-conversion merciless persecution of Christians (Acts 9:1; 22:4; 26:9–11; I Cor. 15:9; Eph. 3:8; Phil. 3:6). But for the man who speaks against the Holy Spirit there is no pardon. Why not? Here, as always when the text itself is not immediately clear, the context must be our guide. From it we learn that the Pharisees are ascribing to Satan what the Holy Spirit, through Christ, is achieving. Moreover, they are doing this willfully, deliberately. In spite of all the evidences to the contrary they still affirm that Jesus is expelling demons by the power of Beelzebul. Not only this, but they are making progress in sin, as a comparison between 9:11; 12:2; and 12:14 clearly shows. Now, as has already been indicated, to be forgiven implies that the sinner be truly penitent. Among the Pharisees here described such genuine sorrow for sin is totally lacking. For penitence they substitute hardening, for confession plotting. Thus, by means of their own criminal and completely inexcusable callousness, they are dooming themselves. Their sin is unpardonable because they are unwilling to tread the path that leads to pardon. For a thief, an adulterer, and a murderer there is hope. The message of the gospel may cause him to cry out, O God be merciful to me, the sinner. But when a man has become hardened, so that he has made up his mind not to pay any attention to the promptings of the Spirit, not even to listen to his pleading and warning voice, he has placed himself on the road that leads to perdition. He has sinned the sin unto death (I John 5:16; see also Heb. 6:4–8). For anyone who is truly penitent, no matter how shameful his transgressions may have been, there is no reason to despair (Ps. 103:12; Isa. 1:18; 44:22; 55:6, 7; Mic. 7:18–20; I John 1:9). On the other hand, there is no excuse for being indifferent, as if the subject of the unpardonable sin is of no concern to the average church member. The blasphemy against the Spirit is the result of gradual progress in sin. Grieving the Spirit (Eph. 4:30), if unrepented of, leads to resisting the Spirit (Acts 7:51), which, if persisted in, develops into quenching the Spirit (I Thess. 5:19). The true solution is found in Ps. 95:7b, 8a, Today O that you would listen to his voice. Harden not your hearts! Cf. Heb. 3:7, 8a. Finally, it exposes. This charge exposes the wickedness of those who make it. It shows whose sons these blasphemers really are. Similarly, the good deeds and attitudes of God's true children prove what kind of individuals these good men are inwardly. It is evident from verse 34 that also in the present brief paragraph (verses 33 37) Jesus still has the Pharisees in mind. Nevertheless, it is also clear that from the particular he is advancing to the general, that is, from this particular group of people he is making a transition to the evil man, whether Pharisee or not, versus the good man, whoever he may be (verse 35). He concludes with an earnest word of warning addressed directly to each individual distinct from the rest; note the change from you ( I say to you, verse 36) to you ( For by your words, verse 37). The paragraph begins as follows: 33. Either consider the tree to be good and its fruit good, or consider the tree to be sickly and its fruit sickly, for by the fruit the tree is known. Fruit and tree belong together. They must not be separated. Therefore to say that while the deeds of Jesus, such as demon-expulsion, healing the sick, etc., may be beneficial, yet he himself is bad, being a tool of Beelzebul, makes no sense. Who Jesus is must be determined by what he does: a tree is judged by its fruit. Literally, the original says, Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree sickly and its fruit sickly, where make means consider to be. See also John 5:18; 8:53; 10:33. English usage is similar, for example, He is not the genius some make him, that is, &some consider him to be. For the rest see on 7:16–20. Sickly fruit proves that something is wrong with the tree. The Pharisees have produced sickly fruit: blasphemous speech (see verse 24). From sickly trees, that is hearts, nothing better could be expected: 34. You offspring of vipers see on 3:7 how can you speak what is good when you your selves are evil? Since the hub from which all the spokes of their being issue, since the very mainspring of their thinking, feeling, and willing is thoroughly depraved, how would it be possible for their mouth to utter anything but evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. Literally out of the overflow, the surplus or excess. As a teeming population will overflow into adjoining territory, and a too full cistern into an overflow pipe, so also the overplus of the heart will burst out into speech, as it certainly did in the case of these wicked Pharisees. The opposite is also true: when the heart is filled with good and noble intentions the good man's speech will prove this to be a fact. The rule according to which whatever a man has set his heart on, so that the very core and center of his being is full of it, will sooner or later be disclosed in his speech, holds for good and bad alike: 35. The good man from his good inner storehouse brings out what is good, and the evil man from his evil treasure brings out what is evil. A person's heart is a reservoir, a storehouse or, as the original literally expresses it, a thesaurus. Compare Matt. 2:11where the word is used to indicate a chest or box from which the wise men took gold, frankincense, and myrrh.^[511] What a man brings out of this inner storehouse, whether good or bad, precious or cheap, depends on what he was carrying in it. This, however, does not offer any excuse for a fatalistic view of life. It does not make it right for a man to say, I did not make myself, did I? Can I help it that I am what I am, and that I think, speak, and act the way I do? On the contrary, Jesus says, 36. But I say to you that for every careless word that men shall speak they shall render account^[512] on the day of judgment. Every man remains fully responsible for what he is, thinks, speaks, and does, for though it is true that he cannot change his own heart, it is also true that with strength given to him by God he is able to flee to him who renews hearts and lives. The Lord is ever willing and eager to give whatever he demands of men. If men do not receive it, this is their fault, not God sPs. 81:10; Isa. 45:22; 55:6, 7; Matt. 7:7; 11:28–30; Luke 22:22; John 7:37; Acts 2:23; James 4:2b; Rev. 3:18; 22:17b . Now if even for every careless word according to the original mere talk that does no (useful) work and is therefore ineffective in producing any good result men shall render an account on the day of the final judgment, shall they not be called upon to give a satisfactory reason for their false, hurtful, blasphemous words, such as those recorded in 12:24? For the comprehensive character of the final judgment see the list of passages mentioned on p. 469 in connection with the explanation of 10:26. Emphatically addressing each individual person in the audience, as if that individual were no longer in the group but alone and face to face with the Lord, Jesus, now using the second person singular, concludes and climaxes his words by saying, 37. For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned. The judgment passed upon the individual in the final day (see verse 36) is going to be by, in the sense of in conformity with, in accordance with, in harmony with, his words, considered as mirrors of the heart. These words will reveal whether he was a professed believer or an unbeliever; if a professed believer, whether his faith was genuine or faked. To be sure, a man is saved by grace alone, through faith, apart from any works considered as if they have earning power. Nevertheless, his works this includes his words supply the needed evidence showing whether or not he was and is a child of God. Moreover, if this judgment turns out favorably, the works, reflecting the man's degree of loyalty to his Maker and Redeemer, figure in the determination of his degree of glory. They figure similarly in establishing the degree of punishment for those who perish. Jesus wants each individual to meditate upon this important truth, that he may be justified (declared righteous in the sight of God) and not condemned. 12:38–45 The Craving for Signs Rebuked This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XIII Chapter 13 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him to Do Seven Kingdom Parables The Third Great Discourse 13:1–58 Seven Kingdom Parables 13 1 That day Jesus left the house and was sitting on the seashore. 2 The crowds that gathered about him were so large that he stepped into a boat and sat there, while all the people were standing on the shore. 3 Then by means of parables he told them many things. He said: Once upon a time the sower went out to sow. 4 While sowing, some seeds fell along the path. The birds came and gobbled them up. 5 Some fell on rocky ground, where they had little soil. Because they did not have depth of soil they sprang up immediately. 6 But when the sun came up they were scorched, and since they had no root they withered away. 7 Some fell among the thorns. The thorns shot up and choked them. 8 But some seeds fell into good soil. They yielded a crop; some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty. 9 He who has ears let him hear. 10 The disciples approached him and asked, Why do you speak to them in parables? 11 He answered, To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven but to them it has not been given. 12 For whoever has, to him shall be given, and he shall have abundantly; but whoever does not have, from him shall be taken away even what he has. 13 It is for this reason that I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear and understand. 14 And in their case that prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled which says: You shall hear and hear, but never understand, And you shall see and see, but never perceive. 15 For the heart of this people has become dull, And their ears (have become) hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should perceive with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, and turn again, And I should heal them. 16 But blessed are your eyes, because they see, and your ears, because they hear. 17 For I solemnly declare to you, many prophets and righteous persons longed to see what you are seeing, yet did not see it, and to hear what you are hearing, yet did not hear it. 18 Listen, then, to the parable of The Sower. 19 When anyone hears the message of the kingdom but does not grasp it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. He is the one that was sown along the path. 20 And the one that was sown on rocky ground is he who upon hearing the message immediately accepts it with joy. 21 However, he has no root in himself and lasts but a short while. When affliction or persecution arises on account of the message he immediately falls away. 22 And the one that was sown among the thorns is he who is hearing the message, and then the cares of this present world and the deceitful glamor of riches choke that message, and it becomes unfruitful. 23 And the one that was sown on the good soil is he who both hears and grasps the message. He bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, in another thirty. 24 He presented another parable to them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while men were sleeping his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went away. 26 So when the early grain sprouted and began to fill out, the tares were seen also. 27 Then the owner's servants approached him and said, Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Then where did the tares come from? 28 He said to them, An enemy has done this. The servants said to him, Then do you want us to go and gather them? 29 He said, No, lest while you are gathering the tares, you uproot the wheat along with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. Then at harvest time I will say to the reapers, First gather the tares, and tie them up in bundles to burn them up, but gather the wheat into my barn. 31 He presented another parable to them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field. 32 It is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it is full-grown it is the biggest of the garden herbs, and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in its branches. 33 He told them another parable: The kingdom of heaven is like yeast which a woman took and put into three measures of wheat flour, until the whole batch had risen. 34 All these things Jesus said to the crowds in parables, and without using a parable he was not saying anything to them, 35 that what was spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled: I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter mysteries from ancient times. 36 He then dismissed the crowds and went into the house. His disciples approached him, saying, Explain to us the parable of The Tares of the field. 37 He answered and said: The one who sows the good seed is the Son of man. 38 The field is the world; the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; the tares are the sons of the evil one; 39 the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the close of the age; and the reapers are the angels. 40 As the tares, then, are gathered and burned up, so it is going to be at the close of the age. 41 The Son of man shall send his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom everything that is offensive and those that perpetrate lawlessness, 42 and shall throw them into the fiery furnace. There shall be weeping and grinding of teeth. 43 Then, in the kingdom of their Father, the righteous shall shine as the sun. He who has ears, let him hear. 44 The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and covered up. Then, in his joy over it, he goes and sells all he has and buys that field. 45 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls. 46 Having found one pearl of great value, he went and sold all he had, and bought it. 47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a dragnet that was cast into the sea and gathered up fish of every variety. 48 When it was full the men dragged it ashore, sat down, picked out the good ones for the containers, but threw away the bad. 49 So it shall be at the close of the age. The angels shall come and separate the wicked from the righteous, 50 and shall throw them into the fiery furnace. There shall be weeping and grinding of teeth. 51 Have you understood all this? They answered, Yes. He said to them, 52 Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven resembles a head of a household who brings out of his storehouse things new and old. 53 Now when Jesus had finished (telling) these parables he left that place. 54 He came to his hometown and was teaching the people in their synagogue, so that they were astonished. Where did he get this wisdom?, they asked, and (the power to do) these miracles? 55 Isn t he the son of the carpenter? Isn t his mother's name Mary, and aren't James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas his brothers? 56 And aren't all his sisters here with us? Where, then, did he get all this? 57 And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own family. 58 And because of their unbelief he did not do many miracles there. For 13:1–23 cf. Mark 4:1 20; Luke 8:4 15. For 13:31–33 cf. Mark 4:30 32; Luke 13:18 21. For 13:34, 35 cf. Mark 4:33, 34. For 13:53–58 cf. Mark 6:1 6; Luke 4:16 31. Introduction The number and distribution of the parables have already been discussed, and their character has been described. See pp. 21–25. Their purpose was a. to reveal, and b. to conceal. Among Christ's listeners there were those who by grace had been led to trust in Christ to such an extent that they not only believed what they could readily understand but even that which as yet was mysterious. There were also those who by constant refusal to accept him had hardened their hearts. The life of Jesus, including his words and works, had made it very clear that he was indeed the One whom the prophets had predicted, and that when he taught he was speaking the truth. But the opponents willfully rejected the obvious. So Jesus now, more than ever before,^[521] begins to speak in parables, in order a. to further reveal the truth to those who accepted the mysterious, and b. to conceal it from those who rejected the obvious, both of these purposes being clearly indicated in 13:10–17. Here in (Matt. 13the Lord teaches precious truths concerning the kingdom. For the not always identical meaning of this term see above, pp. 249, 250. In other parables he dwells more fully on the character of the King himself, the manner in which he deals with his subjects; as is clear from The Laborers in the VineyardMatt. 20:1–16), The Marriage of the King's Son (22:1–14), and The Talents (25:14–30). In still others he describes the character that should be disclosed by the King's subjects; thus, The Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29 37) and The Persevering Widow (Luke 18:1 8). These three themes the kingdom, the King, and the King's subjects often overlap. So, for example, it can be argued that all three themes are treated in the parable of The Tares (Matt. 13:24–30, 36 43): here the kingdom's present mixed character and future consummation in purity and splendor is set forth, as is also the King's order to his angels, and the King's subjects duty to be patient with a view to the manner in which he will dispose of all things. Summary The Kingdom's a. Message, how received: The Sower (verses 3 9), explanation (verses 18 23). b. Present mixed character and future consummation in purity and splendor: The Tares (verses 24 30), explanation (verses 36 43); The Dragnet (verses 47 50). c. Growth and Development, both outward: The Mustard Seed (verses 31, 32), and inward: The Leaven or Yeast (verse 33). d. Preciousness: The Hidden Treasure (verse 44); The Pearl of Great Price (verses 45, 46). Altogether, this material covers thirty-eight verses, that is, about two-thirds of the entire chapter. The remaining twenty verses are devoted to a couple lines of introduction (verses 1 and 2; strictly speaking 1 3a); several verses setting forth the purpose and use of parables (verses 10 17, 34, 35); a description of the true scribe (verses 51, 52); and a brief concluding paragraph (verses 53 58) describing Christ's rejection at Nazareth, showing the bitter and unreasonable opposition to him that had developed. This was one of the two main reasons (reason b. mentioned above, namely, to conceal) which had led him to the use of parables. Thus considered, we notice that the entire chapter is a unit. From 13:1, 2, 36 it is clear that Jesus spoke the first four parables to the multitudes from a boat, a little offshore (Mark 4:1), and that he afterward dismissed the crowds, went ashore and into a home. Here he explained to the disciples the parable of The Sower and the one of The Tares (full title: The Tares among the Wheat), and added three more parables. Opening Words and The Parable of The Sower 13:1. That day Jesus left the house and was sitting on the seashore. It is clear that the temporary withdrawal (12:15) has ended. By going to the seashore Jesus is able to reach more people than by staying in the house. 2. The crowds that gathered about him were so large that he stepped into a boat and sat there, while all the people were standing on the shore. On the part of many interest in Jesus had not waned. With them eagerness to hear him had not abated. Was not the prophet from Nazareth most interesting? Was he not going to establish himself, if he had not even already done so, to be the best teller of fascinating stories? So, from all around, from every city (Luke 8:4), the people kept coming. The multitudes became so vast that Jesus, to escape the crush and the probability of being hampered in his efforts to address the people, stepped into one of several boats that had been beached here. By doing this he was able to address a very large number of people, to speak somewhat at length, and to have speaker and audience face each other. In this region and at this time it was usual for the speaker to sit, for the audience to stand. Continued: 3. Then by means of parables he told them many things. What these many things were has already been indicated; see above, the summary. It is not necessary to believe that all the parables spoken to the multitudes that day are here recorded (John 21:25). Here, then, follows the first of this series of seven recorded kingdom parables. He said: Once upon a time the sower went out to sow; literally, Behold or Lo, or Look, etc. For a discussion of this little Greek word (and its Hebrew equivalent) see on 1:20, footnote 133. In the present case the focus of attention is not the fact as such that the sower went out to sow, which, after all, was a constantly recurring event familiar to everybody, especially to every farmer, but the entire story. Since among us the introduction Once upon a time has about the same interest arousing effect as in this connection the little Greek word (or its Aramaic equivalent) must have had, it has been suggested that this proposed English rendering is legitimate.^[522] Continued: 4. While sowing, some seeds fell along the path. It was customary for wheat or barley to be sown by hand. But it makes all the difference in the world how that seed is received. As this man is sowing, it was unavoidable that a portion of the seed fell along the footpath on which he was walking through the field. Since the place where it fell had not been reached by the plow, and/or many feet had walked here, the soil was too hard for anything to fall into it. So the separate seeds remained on the surface, with the result: the birds came and gobbled them up. The feathered creatures acted very quickly and greedily. The seeds were snatched up; then down they went into the alimentary tract; hence literally, they (the birds) ate them down. 5. Some fell on rocky ground, where they had little soil. Because they did not have depth of soil they sprang up immediately. It is typical of Palestine now Israel and its surroundings that a considerable portion of its tillable soil is found on top of layers of rock. In such a situation the seeds, in the process of sprouting, have only one way to go, namely, up. So, instead of first becoming firmly rooted, the seeds described in this part of the parable sprang up immediately. 6. But when the sun came up they were scorched, and since they had no root they withered away. Because these seeds lacked depth of earth, they could not take root; hence, when the sun was risen they were scorched, thus Matthew and Mark. Luke 8:6supplies the intermediate cause of withering: (for lack of roots) these seeds had no moisture. No wonder that they were scorched to death. 7. Some fell among the thorns. The thorns shot up and choked them. This soil was infested with the roots of thorns. Since generally nothing grows faster than that which is not wanted, and each patch of ground had adequate room for only a definitely restricted amount of healthy plant life, it is not surprising that the faster growing weeds were soon choking the very life out of the noble grain. 8. But some seeds fell into good soil. They yielded a crop, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty. This soil was fertile. It was neither hard, nor rocky, nor preoccupied, but good in every way, serving its purpose excellently. The degree of yield was not uniform, however. In some cases one grain or seed produced a hundred grains (Gen. 26:12); in others sixty; in still others thirty. The admonition of 11:15 (see on that passage) is now repeated, 9. He who has ears let him hear. Implication: There is more than appears on the surface. The lesson taught here is very important. Let those who have the spiritual capacity to do so ponder this parable, and let them apply its lesson to their lives. The Purpose of the Parables 10. The disciples approached him and asked, Why do you speak to them in parables? The admonition, He who has ears let him hear (verse 9) did not remain unheeded. When four of the seven parables had been spoken, and Jesus was not only back on the shore but in the house (13:36), the inner circle of disciples, together with some other loyal followers (Mark 4:10), approached him with the question, Why do you speak to them in parables? Why did Matthew depart from the chronological order to insert this question and its answer here at verse 10? Probable answer: a. because verses 18 23, in which the very parable (The Sower) is explained which the evangelist has just now recorded is so closely connected with Christ's answer that it might even be considered part of that answer; and b. because the thrust of Christ's immediate answer (verses 11 17), to the effect (II Cor. 2:16) that the gospel is either a savor of death unto death (verses 13 15) or a savor of life unto life (verses 16, 17), harmonizes beautifully with the central lesson taught in that parable (verses 4 7 contrasted with verse 8). The disciples question must not be interpreted to imply that the story-form of teaching was a novelty, something introduced by Jesus here and now, and never used before his day. This would contradict the evidence supplied by Judg. 9:7–15; II Sam. 12:1–14; 14:4–17. For this or closely related methods of instruction see also Ezek. 17:1–10; 19:10–14; 23:1–29; 37:1–14. Besides, was not even Matt. 7:24 27a parable, and had not Jesus at least approached the parabolic form in 11:16, 17; 12:43 45? But never before had he addressed the multitudes so extensively and deliberately in parables as he is doing now. Why? 11. He answered, To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven but to them it has not been given. A mystery is something that would have remained unknown had it not been revealed. One of these mysteries now being disclosed is the fact that with the entrance of Jesus upon the scene of history the kingdom of heaven's reign on earth had made its appearance. Another mystery, now being revealed, was the nature of the visible realization of this reign, that is, of this kingdom, in a sense sometimes (as probably in verses 24 30, 47 50) nearly equivalent to church, its present mixed character versus its future consummation in beauty and purity. A mere look at the Summary of the parables (above, p. 550) will immediately indicate what were some of the other mysteries. All of these matters are mysteries, for they cannot be perceived by unaided human reasoning. Unless a man is born anew he cannot see the kingdom of God (John 3:3). To the disciples the privilege of, to a certain extent, discerning these mysteries had been given. Note given. It was a matter of pure grace. To be sure there is also a human factor that enters in, as will become clear in the following verses, but at bottom understanding these mysteries is always a matter of grace (I Cor. 4:7; Eph. 2:8). To some this grace is given, to others not. See also on 25:15, and cf. Daniel 4:35; Rom. 9:16, 18, 20, 21. But without in any way bypassing the basic truth concerning the necessity of sovereign grace not only for the impartation of salvation to man but even for his intellectual and spiritual grasp of the truth concerning salvation, it is only fair to add that in the ensuing verses (see especially verses 13 and 15) it is man's responsibility and the use he makes of it that is emphasized. Note the beginning of this line of thought even in verse 12. For whoever has, to him shall be given, and he shall have abundantly; but whoever does not have, from him shall be taken away even what he has. In matters spiritual, standing still is impossible. A person either gains or loses; he either advances or declines. Whoever has, to him shall be given. The disciples (exception Judas Iscariot) had accepted Jesus. With reference to them he was later on going to say to the Father, They have kept thy word (John 17:6) and They are not of the world (17:16). To be sure, this faith was accompanied by many a weakness, error, and flaw. But the beginning had been made. Therefore, according to heaven's rule, further progress was assured, an advance in knowledge, love, holiness, joy, etc., in all the blessings of the kingdom of heaven, for salvation is an ever deepening stream (Ezek. 47:1–5). Every blessing is a guarantee of further blessings to come (John 1:16): he shall have abundantly. On the other hand, whoever does not have, from him shall be taken away even that semblance of knowledge, that superficial acquaintance with matters spiritual, which he once had. Is there not an analogy of this in the realm of knowledge on a level below the strictly spiritual? Is it not true that the person who has learned enough music to play a few simple melodies, but not really enough to be able to say, I have mastered this or that instrument, and then stops practicing altogether, will soon discover that the little skill which he had at one time has vanished? The man who refuses to make proper use of his one talent loses even that (Matt. 25:24–30). Now if even neglect of things valuable is bad, willful rejection is even worse: 13. It is for this reason that I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear and understand. The growing hostility of the Pharisees, the scribes, and their followers, against Jesus has already been indicated (9:11, 34; 12:2, 14, 24; cf. 11:20–24). This human obduration cannot be left unpunished. When Pharaoh hardens his heart (Exod. 7:22; 8:15, 19, 32; 9:7), Jehovah hardens Pharaoh's heart (9:12, predicted already in 7:3). He who, having been often reproved, hardens his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy (Prov. 29:1).^[523] Seeing they do not see, that is, Though they outwardly observe the miracles&, they do not grasp what, in the light of prophecy, these mighty works tell about me. Similarly, hearing they do not hear, that is, Though the sound of my voice penetrates their eardrums, and they catch enough of my meaning to become antagonized, they do not really understand and certainly do not heed, do not take to heart, my instructions, warnings, and invitations. My parables, says Jesus as it were, will therefore lead to further obfuscation. That is the punishment which these people deserve and receive. They have brought it upon themselves! Such human hardening followed by divine hardening was nothing new. The Pharisees, scribes, and their followers were simply repeating the story of ancient Israel. Then too Jehovah had tenderly and earnestly admonished the people to repent of their evil ways. Then also, in many cases, this striving of the Spirit had been given the cold shoulder. Punishment always followed. See Isa. 5:1–7; Jer. 7:12–15, 25 34; 13:8–14; 29:19, 20; 35:16, 17. The exile of ancient Israel, a punishment for its hardness of heart, had been a type of that which was now happening to Christ's bitter opponents: 14, 15. And in their case that prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled which says: You shall hear and hear, but never understand, And you shall see and see, but never perceive. For the heart of this people has become dull, And their ears (have become) hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should perceive with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, and turn again, And I should heal them. The quotation is from the vision in which Isaiah received the call to the prophetic office. This vision, in which the prophet saw the glory of Jehovah as reflected in the coming Christ (John 12:41), is found in the sixth chapter of Isaiah, the words here quoted being found in 6:9, 10. Cf. John 12:40for quotation in part; Acts 28:26, 27in full. However, the quotation, as spoken by the Lord and recorded by Matthew, does not follow the Hebrew^[524] but the Septuagint (Greek) translation, with no essential difference (as explained in footnote 524). The manner in which the quoted words are introduced is unique. Here not the simple might be fulfilled, (as in 12:17, in order that what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, and cf. 1:22; 2:15, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 13:35; 21:4) but is being fulfilled or is being filled up, ^[525] as if to stress the fact that Israel's doom, partly realized at the time of the exile, is now being made full in the lives of all those who reject the Lord. That this is so is not God's fault. It is in fact made very clear that for all who in true repentance turn to the Lord there is forgiveness and healing. Note the words, and turn again and I should heal them. But the point is this: envious Pharisees and scribes, together with their followers, have anesthetized their heart, muffled their ears, and closed their eyes to the works and words of the Lord. Now because they have done this (verse 15; cf. verse 13), the result will be as stated in verse 14, You shall hear and hear, but never understand, and you shall see and see but never perceive. As already explained in connection with verse 13, there is a hearing which hardly even deserves the name, and a seeing that is a mere caricature of the genuine article. If the objection should be raised that Jesus, in his reference to Isaiah's prophecy, speaks as if the wicked people's own purpose, negatively expressed, is, lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears &, whereas, on the other hand, in Isaiah's prophecy it is God himself who has decided that such perception, hearing, understanding, turning again, and being saved, shall be impossible for these hardened sinners, the answer is that the two coincide perfectly. It is because the people have decided not to really see, hear, etc., as if this were a dreadful thing to do, that God has decided to punish them by allowing them to have their way! Causing them to be addressed by means of parables is a means to this end. With respect to Christ's true disciples the very opposite holds: 16. But blessed are your eyes, because they see, and your ears, because they hear. In close conjunction with 11a and 12a those who are receptive to Christ's message are pronounced blessed, the word being used in the same sense as in the beatitudes; see above, pp. 264, 265. The word is not limited in meaning to how they feel, whether in high spirits or not. In the present connection it means that both in their seeing and in their hearing God's favor is resting upon them. They see and they hear with the organs of faith, hence the great contrast between them and Christ's critics. Not that the disciples are by nature any better than the others. Whatever they have they owe to sovereign grace. So to them the parables are a great blessing. Being Christ's followers these disciples attach top value to these stories. They meditate upon them. The very fact that they present to the mind vivid images, moving pictures, as it were, makes it easier to store them away in the memory. Also, since the disciples accompany the Master from place to place, they have the golden opportunity to ask him for an explanation of whatever it may be that they do not understand. They also made use of this opportunity. Thus, they asked him to explain to them the parable of The Sower (Luke 8:9) and the one of The Tares (Matt. 13:36). Neither did Jesus always wait until they asked: privately he explained all things to them (Mark 4:34). What a wealth of material was that which these men saw, heard, and believed! Says Jesus, 17. For I solemnly declare to you, many prophets and righteous persons longed to see what you are seeing, yet did not see it, and to hear what you are hearing, yet did not hear it. See also on 11:11b. For I solemnly declare see on 5:18. As to these Old Testament prophets for example, Samuel, Isaiah and (other) righteous persons Noah, Abraham, etc. they looked forward with longing to the coming Redeemer (Heb. 11:13, 39, 40; 1Peter 1:10, 11). They yearned, searched, but got no farther than, O that thou wouldest rend the heavens, that thou wouldest come down! (Isa. 64:1). To be sure, even to the saints of the old dispensation glimpses of the coming glory were given at times, even while these men were still living on earth. Thus, for example, in the birth of Isaac, Abraham by faith saw a guarantee of the fulfilment of the Messianic promise (John 8:56), and what a great blessing this was! Similarly, with the eye of faith, a faith greatly strengthened by revelation, Isaiah in a vision saw Messiah's glory and spoke of him (John 12:41). Such were indeed inestimable privileges. Many longingly looked forward. But none of them, while still on earth, saw the incarnate Christ. None witnessed his miracles. None heard his words. They all died in faith, not having received the fulfilment of the promisesHeb. 11:13; cf. 39 . That better thing (Heb. 11:40), the fulness of Messianic blessing, had been reserved for believers of the new day. Explanation of the Parable of The Sower In this paragraph Jesus explains to his loyal followers the parable found in verses 2b 9: 18. Listen, then, to the parable of The Sower. As has previously been indicated, the parable was first told, and at a later time explained in response to the disciples request. If the objection be raised that even on the surface, without any explanation whatever, the parable is quite clear, its meaning obvious, so that any further elucidation is really superfluous, the answer is: a. that the disciples did not then have the light which we have now; b. that sowing and at a later time fruit-bearing, both of which are mentioned in this parable, presuppose a gradual and time-consuming process of development with reference to the kingdom, a process which the disciples, in their oft revealed impatience, may not have expected (especially in view of 3:11, 12); c. that by means of his words and works of majesty Jesus had revealed himself to these men as a mighty King, while here in this parable he seems to identify himself with a humble sower, but can the same person be both?; and d. that in this story he seems to assign a considerable degree of responsibility, for success in obtaining spiritual results, to the soil on which the seed falls; can he really mean that? To all this it may well be added that even now, among interpreters who have both the parable and Christ's own infallible explanation, complete unanimity as to interpretation is lacking. Nevertheless, this is not the fault of him who had told it, and who now proceeded to explain it as follows: 19. When anyone hears the message of the kingdom but does not grasp it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. Although it is nowhere stated in the explanation of this parable, yet in that of The Tares Jesus definitely affirms that he who sows the good seed is the Son of man (verse 37). And as to the seed, Christ's own explanation is found in (Luke 8:11, The seed is the word [or: message] of God. Is this not clearly implied also in the passage now under study here in Matthew, namely, in the clause, When anyone hears the message of the kingdom? See also 13:11, 17b. Of these two things we can be certain, therefore: a. the sower is the Son of man, and, by a legitimate extension of the figureMatt. 10:40; Mark 4:14), is anyone whether minister, missionary, evangelist, any believer whoever he may be who faithfully proclaims the Son of man's message; and b. the seed is that message. The comparison of a word or message of God, or of any word or message whatever, with a seed that is sown or planted has become an idiom in the literature of many people. In Scripture, too, it is by no means confined to this parable. See, for example, John 4:36, 37; I Cor. 3:6; 9:11. To depart from this basic position is to go in a wrong direction in the explanation of this parable. To these two tenets a third can now be added: c. The ground or soil upon which the seed falls is clearly man's heart. This is definitely implied here in 19a, what was sown in his heart. In each of the four instances recorded in the parable that ground or soil, that is, that heart, is different. One might speak of the unresponsive heart (verse 19), the impulsive heart (verses 20, 21), the preoccupied heart (verse 22), and the good, responsive, or well-prepared heart (verse 23). Correct is therefore the following: What, then, is the lesson? The Savior has given us the answer in his own interpretation of the story. The seed is the word of God, or the word of the kingdom; and the soil is human hearts: so that, reduced to a general law, the teaching of the parable is, that the result of the hearing of the gospel always and everywhere depends on the condition of heart of those to whom it is addressed. The character of the hearer determines the effect of the word upon him. ^[526] Verse 19a speaks about the unresponsive, insensible, callous heart, the heart of the person who by persistent refusal to walk in the light has become accustomed hardly even to listen to the message as it is being proclaimed. Under the influence of the devil whatever it is that this man hears he immediately thrusts away from himself as if for him at least it contained nothing of importance. Perhaps he does not like the speaker, and/or hates to be reminded of a particular weakness in himself. In any event he does not bother to reflect or meditate upon the meaning of the message. Therefore he does not grasp it. The evil one, who figures so often in the teaching of Jesus (see footnote 297, p. 308), snatches away what was sown in this man's heart. When Jesus was speaking can he have had in mind, among others, the scribes and Pharisees, who were filled with ill-will toward him, and were always on the lookout to see whether they could catch him in his words so as to prepare a charge against him? But there must have been other persons also who refused to ponder the words of the Master. Some, perhaps, found it inconvenient to take the message to heart; perhaps next time, but not just now (Acts 24:25). Let anyone add his own up-to-date illustrations. The next line uttered by our Lord has brought about a startling diversity of opinion among translators and commentators. What Jesus said was: He is the one that was sown along the path. Other legitimate ways of rendering the original would be, This is he, etc. (A.V., A.R.V.) or This is the man, etc. (T.C.N.T.). There are, however, some questionable ways of treating this statement: a. Perhaps because it is hard to conceive of a person being sown, translators have made various attempts to solve this difficulty. One attempt is: This [or: that] is what is sown.& (Beck, Williams, R.S.V.). However, this ignores the original's reference to a person.^[527] b. Probably in order to avoid this error another comes up with, This is the one on whom seed was sown (N.A.S.). With due respect for the general excellence of the work referred to, we may well ask whether in this particular instance the translator has been completely successful. Seed sown on a man, what does that mean? Besides, does the text really say that seed was sown on a man? c. The third attempt at a solution, while deserving credit for being faithful to the original, errs in taking literally the words, He is the one that was sown along the path. We are told that the seed is indeed men who have heard the word. ^[528] But this not only produces a very awkward picture, but besides, as we have seen, fails to do justice to Christ's clear statement that the seed is the word or message. d. What may well be regarded as the only reasonable procedure is that which sees in these words of Jesus (verse 19b) an illustration of abbreviated expression. ^[529] The thought completely expressed would have been somewhat as follows (with the actual words of Jesus in italics): He is the one that in his reaction to the message resembles the reaction of the ground to the seed that was sown along the path. ^[530] In both cases the reaction is the same: the piece of ground upon which this seed falls does nothing about it. It does not welcome or absorb it. So also this person's heart does nothing with the message. When the question is asked, Why did not Jesus express this thought more fully, instead of using this compressed manner of speaking?, the answer is that for Christ's true followers to whom he gave his explanation that would have been unnecessary. For those who had heard the Master state and imply that the seed meant the word or message, verse 19b was perfectly clear. 20, 21. And the one that was sown on rocky ground is he who upon hearing the message immediately accepts it with joy. However, he has no root in himself and lasts but a short while. When affliction or persecution arises on account of the message he immediately falls away. Here the one that was sown on rocky ground is the person who in his reaction to the message behaves as does rocky ground to seed that fell upon it. The reception which the seed received from such a thin layer of soil over a stratum of rock has already been noted (see on verses 5, 6). The tiny seed that never became firmly rooted sprang up quickly and then by the sun was scorched to death. So, says Jesus, it is also with the person here symbolized. Immediately, impulsively, gladly, he as it were jumps up to accept the message. He is thrilled and enthused, may even be sufficiently affected to shed a tear. Once the spell has subsided he seems to have forgotten all about it and returns to his former sinful life. A modern, rather recent, example from actual life: So affected by the sermon was this lady that at its conclusion she fainted. When the visiting preacher, showing concern, stepped up to her, one of the elders, taking him aside, whispered, She does this little trick every once in a while. In the interval between spells she falls back into her former life again. For Biblical analogies see 8:19, 20; 19:16–22; and for apostasies after a longer period of seeming loyalty note the cases of Judas Iscariot (26:14–16) and of Demas (II Tim. 4:10). Today's evangelical revival gatherings, undoubtedly sources of blessing for many, add illustrative material. Investigation has established that by no means all those who at the spur of the moment emotionally affected by the message and personal appeal of the evangelist, as well as by the music and the words of the old familiar hymns were led to come forward and to sign the pledge card, have remained faithful. As the very closely related twin causes of such defection Jesus speaks of affliction, meaning pressure, probably mostly from the outside in a non-Christian environment, and of persecution, actual suffering brought about by the enemy, all on account of the message. By devices such as these the fair-weather adherant is led to apostatize. Literally he gets caught, is ensnared, hence, falls away. ^[531] The erstwhile adherant, never a genuine follower at all, for his confession did not spring from inner conviction, had failed to consider that true discipleship implies self-surrender, self-denial, sacrifice, service, and suffering. He has ignored the fact that it is the way of the cross that leads home. 22. And the one that was sown among the thorns is he who is hearing the message, and then the cares of this present world and the deceitful glamor of riches choke that message, and it becomes unfruitful. This verse describes the case of the man whose heart resembles soil infested with roots and runners of thorns. Such dirty soil is a serious threat to the growth of any desirable plant. Similarly a heart filled with worry with respect to the workaday world and beclouded by dreams about riches thwarts any influence for good that might otherwise proceed from the entrance of the kingdom message. Such a heart is preoccupied. It has no room for calm and earnest meditation on the word of the Lord. Should any such serious study and reflection nevertheless attempt to gain entrance, it would immediately be choked off. Constant anxiety about worldly affairs fill mind and heart with dark foreboding. When this person is poor he deceives himself into thinking that if he were only rich he would be happy. When he is rich he deludes himself into imagining that if he were only still richer he would be satisfied, as if material riches could under any circumstances guarantee contentment. The man in question cannot be richly blessed nor can he be a blessing. The word as it affects him cannot be fruitful. There is nothing wrong with the sower. Also, there is nothing wrong with the seed. With the man, however, everything is wrong. He should ask the Lord to deliver him from absorbing cares and dream-world delusions, so that the kingdom message may begin to have free course in heart and life. Then the mind, rescued from gnawing anxieties and delusory fantasies, will be able to reflect meaningfully on such precious passages as Prov. 30:7–9; Isa. 26:3; Matt. 6:19–34; 19:23, 24; Luke 12:6, 7, 13 34; I Tim. 6:6–10; and Heb. 13:5, 6. Finally, there is the case of the well-prepared heart, the kind of heart symbolized by good soil: 23. And the one that was sown on the good soil is he who both hears and grasps the message. He bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, in another thirty. With this kind of person the message of the kingdom falls into good soil, the kind of soil that, negatively speaking, is neither hard nor shallow nor preoccupied; positively speaking, is receptive and fertile. This type of person hears because he wants to hear. He reflects on what he hears, for he has faith in the speaker. So he reaches a measure of true understanding. He puts the message into practice and bears fruit: conversion, faith, love, joy, peace, longsuffering, etc. The importance of spiritual fruitbearing, as the mark of the true believer, is stressed even in the Old Testament (Ps. 1:1–3; 92:14; 104:13). This line of thought is continued in the Gospels (Matt. 3:10; 7:17–20; 12:33–35; Luke 3:8; John 15) and in the rest of the New Testament (Acts 2:38; 16:31; Rom. 7:4; Gal. 5:22; Eph. 5:9; Phil. 4:17; Col. 1:6; Heb. 12:11; 13:15; James 3:17. 18). There is, however, a difference in the degree of fruitfulness. Not all are equally penitent, trustful, loyal, courageous, meek, etc., hence also not all are equally productive in bringing other lives to Christ. In the case of one believer the seed, the message, yields a hundredfold, in another sixty, in still another thirty.^[532] In each, however, the seed has fallen upon good soil, and brings forth fruit, to the glory of God. The Parable of The Tares among the Wheat 24. He presented another parable to them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. The parable of The Sower and the one of The Tares among the Wheat were probably explained to the disciples in close succession (Luke 8:9with Matt. 13:36). It is not unlikely that they were also spoken in similar chronological sequence, the contents of verses 1 9 being immediately followed by that of verses 24 30. To an extent they are similar in nature: both introduce a sower, a field, seed, and crop-yield. There are, however, also striking differences. Though the evil one appears in the interpretation of both (13:19, 39), he is seen in a different character: in the first he snatches away the good seed; in the second he is the one who sows the tares among the wheat. So also in the first all the seed is good; in the second tares appear among the wheat. Finally, in the first the emphasis is on the kind of reception given to the seed by the various types of soil; in the second on the sower, that is, on his command a. to the servants long before harvest-time, and b. to the reapers at harvest-time. The kingdom of heaven (literally has become like, hence) is like is an abbreviated expression. The kingdom itself is not like the man but resembles the situation on this man's farm at the present time, while the plants are still developing, and again later on, at the time of the harvest. Both the farm (the farmer's field with whatever grows on it) and the kingdom in this present age present a mixture in which the good and the bad are mingled together. In the end both farm and kingdom are subjected to a cleansing or sifting process, with the result: purity, beauty, and glory for both. It is in that sense that the kingdom of heaven is like a man.& This man, apparently a wealthy farmer, one who employs several hands to work his farm, sows good seed in his field. Continued: 25. But while men were sleeping his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went away. What this enemy does is mean, cruel, cowardly, sadistic. He waits until everybody is fast asleep, so that he will not be seen and caught. Then, without the least bit of concern for all the labor that has been bestowed on the field, the expenses incurred, and the hopes inspired, he oversows the field with tares. By this term is meant an obnoxious weed which in its earliest stage, while both wheat and tares are still in blade, closely resembles the nobler grain. The weed's technical name is lolium temulentum. This bearded darnel is host to a fungus which, if eaten by animals or man, is poisonous. The question may be raised, But would anyone really be base enough to commit a crime so contemptible? The answer is that something very similar in this case the sowing of charlock over wheat happened to a field that belonged to the versatile Dean Henry Alford, as he relates in his four volumed Greek Testament (London, 1849 61), commenting on this parable.^[533] 26. So when the early grain sprouted and began to fill out, the tares were seen also. It was not until the grain began to fill out that the difference between wheat and tares became evident. The servants are struck with alarm. Clearly the relation between them and their master is excellent, so that when he suffers damage he can figure on their sympathy. 27. Then the owner's servants approached him and said, Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? The ratio of tares to wheat must have been unusually large. Otherwise these servants would not have been so surprised, for to see some tares among the wheat was, after all, not very strange. What these men see in this field however is altogether different and calls for an explanation. The real solution does not even occur to the farm hands. Perhaps they regard the oversowing of good seed with bad a crime so unbelievable that they have dismissed this possibility completely from their minds. Certainly no one would do that, at least not to their master! What then? What was the source of the trouble? Had the seed even before being sown by the master been contaminated perhaps, having become accidently mixed with that of weeds? But this, too, seems hardly possible, so that, as the original implies by its very wording, to the question, Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? they expect an affirmative answer, Yes, I did. Completely baffled they now ask, Then where did the tares come from? Literally, Then, whence does it have tares? 28. He said to them, An enemy has done this. The answer is definite. The owner's mind is not filled with any doubt whatever. Nevertheless, he does not mention the culprit by name but wisely limits himself to pointing out that what has happened is not to be accounted for by accidental scattering of kernels from nearby fields or by contaminated seeds. No, it was the deliberate deed of an enemy. With respect to the tares, The servants, ever eager to co-operate, said to him, Then do you want us to go and gather them? The question was not unnatural. Allow us to pull the tares out before they do any more harm, such is their reaction. 29. He said, No, lest while you are gathering the tares, you uproot the wheat along with them. The intertwining of the roots of wheat and tares made this a real possibility. And if, at this time, before the wheat was fully ripe, it would be pulled out, total loss for all such wheat would result. Therefore the owner continues, 30. Let both grow together until the harvest. Then at harvest-time I will say to the reapers, first gather the tares, and tie them in bundles to burn them up, but gather the wheat into my barn. Not only would the difference between wheat and tares be even more apparent at harvest-time, but then the wheat, even if uprooted, will still serve its useful purpose. Besides, the task of reaping will then be assigned to those who are specialists in that type of work, namely, the reapers. The owner will then order those reapers first to gather the tares with a view to burning them up, and then very carefully to gather the wheat and bring it to its proper place, the storehouse, barn, or granary (Luke 3:17). For the explanation of this parable see on verses 36 43. The Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven 31, 32. He presented another parable to them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field. It is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it is full-grown it is the biggest of the garden herbs, and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in its branches. As indicated in the summary on p. 550, the two parables of verses 31 33 (The Mustard Seed and the Leaven or Yeast) are a pair, the first referring to the outward, the second to the inward growth of the kingdom of heaven. These two cannot be separated: one might say that it is because of the invisible principle of eternal life, by the Holy Spirit planted in the hearts of the citizens of the kingdom and increasingly exerting its influence there, that this kingdom also expands visibly and outwardly, conquering territory upon territory. Jesus, then, first of all speaks of a mustard^[534] seed (Mark 4:31and Luke 13:19; see also Matt. 17:20, parallel Luke 17:6). A man sows it in his field. Among seeds sown in a garden it was generally the smallest. Proverbially it indicated anything very minute in its beginning. But though insignificant at first, the mustard seed grows and grows until it becomes a tree so tall that the birds of the air come and lodge in its branches.^[535] Rabbinical literature took cognizance of the size which this tree would at times register.^[536] Even today mustard grows vigorously in Palestine. It reaches ten feet, sometimes fifteen. In the fall of the year, when its branches have become rigid, birds of many kinds find here a shelter from the storm, rest from weariness, and shade from the heat of the sun,^[537] all in all a wonderful place to go tenting! The kingdom of heaven in its outward manifestation on earth is like that, says Jesus. It is seemingly insignificant in its beginning, but from this small beginning great results will grow. This too was a mystery (see on 13:11), in need of clarification or at least of re-emphasis. The disciples, and other adherents in a looser sense, were often impatient. Relatively speaking, the group of Christ's loyal followers was so small and so weak that at times they must have almost despaired. They were looking for revolutionary changes right here and now (Matt. 21:8, 9and parallels; Luke 9:54; John 6:15; Acts 1:6). They may have asked, Did not John the Baptist point in this direction? See Matt. 3:11, 12. Did not the Old Testament contain prophecies concerning the exaltation of Israel, its expansion among the nations, and its cosmic significance during the Messianic age? See Gen. 22:17, 18; Ps. 72:8–11; Isa. 54:2, 3; chap. 60 62; Jer. 31:31–40; 32:36–44; Amos 9:11 15; Mic. 2:12, 13; 4:1–8; chap. 5; Zech. chap. 2; 8:18–23; etc. But in the thinking of the people these passages if pondered at all were probably often lifted out of their contexts. There is the additional consideration that this same Old Testament bears testimony to the truth that spiritually great results generally develop from small beginnings (Isa. 1:8, 9; 11:1; 53:2, 3; Dan. 2:35b; Ezek. 17:22–24; Zech. 4:10). It would seem that this truth, too, did not always receive the respectful attention it deserved. Yet it is reaffirmed in the New Testament (Luke 12:32; I Cor. 1:26–31). Christ's rule of grace, no matter how despised and seemingly insignificant at first, is bound to go forward, conquering and to conquer. From vict ry unto vict ry his army he shall lead. Accordingly, to those who first heard it, this parable was saying, Have patience, exercise faith, keep on praying, and keep on working. God's program cannot fail. It is saying the same thing to those who have come afterward. Only, it is saying it today with even greater force, because the story-illustration is really a prophecy, and this prophecy has already been partly fulfilled! As to this matter of fulfilment see on 24:14. Now whenever Christ's rule enters human hearts this happens by implantation from without. That is one of the important lessons taught by the first three parables. Man can never think or talk or work his way into the kingdom. The poet who wrote, By ourselves we cease from wrong, By ourselves become we pure, No one saves us but ourselves was wrong. Once established, however, this rule of Christ, through the operation of the Holy Spirit, begins to operate also from within outward. More and more thoroughly though the line of progress is not always straight but often diagonally upward, and even has its ups and downs that kingship of the Son of man penetrates the various faculties (if use of this term is still permissible) of the human soul, with the result that the changed and constantly changing person begins to exert his influence for good not only in his individual and family life but also in every sphere of life. Sometimes he becomes a blessing by means of the words he speaks or writes or by the motions he makes; at other times it is his very presence or his example of good deeds that counts. Sometimes, but by no means always, the power that proceeds from him operates secretly, mysteriously. The important fact is that art, science, literature, business, industry, commerce, government, these and all the other departments of human thought and endeavor begin to be blessed by this man's activity. The yeast is working! That, briefly, would seem to be the meaning of verse 33. He told them another parable: The kingdom of heaven is like yeast which a woman took and put into three measures of wheat flour, until the whole batch had risen. The measure ^[538] here indicated, though not always and everywhere identical in capacity, is generally held to have averaged about a peck and a half. Three such measures would therefore amount to a huge quantity, not less than an ephah; one might say more than a bushel. But it was not at all unusual for a woman to make so large a batch. Sarah did it (Gen. 18:6). A similar amount is also mentioned in (Judg. 6:19and in I Sam. 1:24. The point of the parable is that yeast once inserted continues its process of fermentation until the whole batch has risen. So also the citizen of the kingdom demands that every sphere of life shall contribute its full share of service, honor, and glory to him who is King of kings and Lord of lordsRev. 19:16). Not as if on a sinful earth, before the return of Christ, this state of perfection will ever become a reality. Scripture clearly reveals that this will not be the case (Luke 17:25 30; 18:8; II Thess. 1:7–10; 2:8). But nothing less than the ultimate realization of this goal can ever be the aim of the believer. He is comforted by the prophecy of Isa. 11:9, They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover (the bottom of) the sea. Meanwhile his purpose is not merely to get to heaven when he dies, or only to be an instrument in God's hand to bring others there, but everywhere to bring every thought of whatever kind into submission to, and therefore harmony with, the mind and will of Christ (II Cor. 10:5),^[539] that is, to demand that not only every tongue but also every domain of life shall exalt him. Therefore Christ's true follower actively promotes such causes as the abolition of slavery, the restoration of women's rights, the alleviation of poverty, the repatriation, if practicable, of the displaced (if not practicable then help of some other kind), the education of the illiterate, the reorientation of fine arts along Christian lines, etc. He promotes honesty among those who govern and those who are governed, as well as in business, industry, and commerce. He does all this not apart from but in connection with, in fact as part and parcel of, the evangelization of the world. That this yeast of the rule of Christ in human hearts, lives, and spheres has already exerted a wholesome influence in thousands of ways, and that this influence is still continuing, is clear to all who have eyes to see. All one has to do is to compare conditions for example, the treatment of prisoners of war, of women, of workmen, of the underprivileged in countries where Christ's rule has not yet become acknowledged to any great extent, with those existing in nations where this principle has already been operative for some time on a generous scale. In the explanation of this parable as presented in the preceding it will have become apparent that an attempt has been made to avoid over-interpretation. (This holds too for the other parables.) For example, those who have tried in this Commentary to find an answer to the question, To what does the woman who put the yeast into the flour refer? have received no satisfaction.^[540] Nor has any sympathy been shown for interpretations that contradict the context; for example, for the idea that the leaven or yeast symbolizes a corrupting influence that mars fellowship with God.^[541] The argument advanced in favor of the latter position, namely, that everywhere else in Scripture leaven indicates something bad, breaks down immediately. One could, for example, say that in Scripture the serpent is generally associated with, and/or is a symbol of, evil (Gen. 3:13; Ps. 58:4; 140:3; Prov. 23:32; Isa. 27:1; Matt. 23:33; II Cor. 11:3; Rev. 12:9, 14, 15; 20:2). But what shall we do with Num. 21:8, cf. John 3:14, where the serpent obviously represents the Son of man; and with Matt. 10:16, which admonishes us to be keen as the serpents, guileless as the doves? It is the context in each case that must decide the symbolical meaning, if there be any such meaning. In the present case the yeast clearly represents the kingdom or kingship of heaven, that is, the rule of Christ gladly acknowledged in heart and life, and this is something very good indeed! Christ's Use of Parables in Fulfilment of Prophecy 34, 35. All these things Jesus said to the crowds in parables, and without using a parable he was not saying anything to them, that what was spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled: I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter mysteries from ancient times. We are told here that at this particular season Jesus, in describing the mysteries of the kingdom (13:11) to the crowds, confined himself to parables. His twofold reason for employing this story method, namely, revealing the truths concerning salvation to those who were willing to accept them, and concealing them from those whose hardened hearts rejected them, has already been discussed (13:10–17). By the inspiration of the Spirit, Matthew sees in this use of parables a fulfilment of prophecy, once again focusing the attention upon Jesus as being indeed the Messiah who was to come. For the introductory formula that what was spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled see on 1:22. Though in the present case there is no (spoken) by the Lord (as in 1:22; 2:15), nor any mention of the name of the prophet (as in 2:17; 3:3; 4:14; 12:17),^[542] the fact that the prophet was the agent through whom the Lord spoke is clearly implied. As to the quoted words themselves, these present no real problem. They are taken from (Ps. 78:2.^[543] The prophet referred to was the psalmist Asaph, also called a seer or prophet in II Chron. 29:30. The mystery which he explains by means of ever so many pithy sayings is that in the history of Israel from its very establishment God carried out his plan and revealed his marvelous attributes. Throughout the psalm the poet speaks about the manifestation of God's power, his marvelous works. He dwells also on the Lord's unfailing and forgiving love (see verses 4 7, 12 16, 23 28, 38, 52 55). Did not Jesus, in an even more unforgettable manner set forth the Father's tender concernMatt. 5:45–48; 6:4, 6, 8, 26, 30 34; 7:7, 8, 11; 10:20, 28 32) and his own besides (Matt. 8:3, 16, 17; 9:2, 12, 13, 22, 35 38; 11:25–30; 12:15–21, 48 50)? The psalmist also shows how, in spite of all this love, many of the people rejected God (verses 8, 10, 11, 17 19, 32, 36, 37, 40 42, 56 58). Did not Jesus, in passages that will live forever, present to his audiences that same regrettable fact (10:16, 22; 11:16–24; 12:38–45; 13:1–7, 13 15)? Thirdly, Asaph's psalm ends on a climactic, triumphal note, showing how the Lord had chosen David to be Israel's shepherd (Ps. 78:68–72). According to Matthew's Gospel, the Antitype of this shepherd was David's great Son and Lord, namely, Jesus Christ (John 10:11, 14, 16, 28), who in his very character as The Good Shepherd mirrored the Father (Matt. 18:12–14; cf. Luke 15:3 7; John 14:9). Finally, even in his style of speaking Jesus was the poet's Antitype, who, by means of the parabolic form, as revealed here in Matt. 13and elsewhere, carried to new heights of perfection Asaph's highly figurative languagePs. 78:27, 50: metaphor; verses 45, 48: hyperbole; verse 65: anthropomorphism . Explanation of The Parable of the Tares among the Wheat 36. He then dismissed the crowds and went into the house. After what has been said about this house in the comments on 9:28; 12:46; and 13:1 nothing further by way of explanation is necessary. His disciples approached him, saying, Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field. See what has been said before with reference to the disciples asking Jesus to explain parables (on 13:16, 18, 24). The reason they asked for an explanation of this particular parable was probably the same as, or similar to, that which caused them to ask the Master to clarify the parable of The Sower. The Baptist's saying about the impending judgment, with the axe lying even now at the root of the trees (3:10–12), may well have seemed to them to be at variance with the long delay, for gradual ripening of wheat and tares, implied in the parable of The Tares. Had not even Jesus himself proclaimed that the kingdom of heaven was at hand (4:17)? This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XIV Outline of Chapter 14 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him to Do 14:1–12 Herod's Wicked Birthday Party and John the Baptist's Gruesome Death 14:13–21 The Feeding of the Five Thousand 14:22–33 Walking on the Water 14:34–36 Healings in Gennesaret 14:1–12 Herod's Wicked Birthday Party and John the Baptist's Gruesome Death Cf Mark 6:14 29; Luke 9:7 9 14 1 At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the news about Jesus, 2 and said to his servants, This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead; that's why these miraculous powers are at work in him. 3 For Herod had arrested John, had bound him and put him away in prison, on account of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife; 4 for John kept telling him, It isn't right for you to have her. 5 And although he wanted to kill him, he was afraid of the people, because they were holding John to be a prophet. 6 But when Herod's birthday came, the daughter of Herodias danced before them and fascinated Herod, 7 so that with an oath he promised to give her whatever she might ask. 8 She, urged on by her mother, said, Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptist. 9 The king was distressed, but on account of his oaths and his dinner guests he ordered it to be given. 10 So he had John beheaded in prison. 11 The head was brought in on a platter and given to the girl, who brought it to her mother. 12 Then John's disciples came, took away the body and buried it; and they went and reported it to Jesus. 1, 2. At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the news about Jesus, and said to his servants, This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead; that's why these miraculous powers are at work in him. The phrase at that time is very indefinite. In connection with the words, he (John the Baptist) is risen from the dead the temporal designation must refer to a period of time extending beyond John's execution, which probably occurred many months after his imprisonment. It is not improbable that the murder of Christ's herald took place in or near the beginning of the year a.d. [Greek] -2 _ftnref1 [Greek] A tetrarch was originally a ruler of the fourth part of a region, but later the term was used to indicate any prince or governor less in rank than a king (Herod the Great) or an ethnarch (Archelaus). The Herod to which reference is made here, and everywhere in the Gospels except in (Matt. 2:1 19and Luke 1:5, where Herod the Great or Herod I is indicated, was at this time ruler over Galilee and Perea. He continued in that position from a.d. 4 to 39, when he was banished to Lyons in Gaul. He was the son of Herod the Great by Malthace the Samaritan. Though in the GospelsActs 4:27; 13:1) he is simply called Herod, elsewhereJewish WarI.562 his name is frequently given as Antipas. We may therefore consider his full name to have been Herod Antipas. The reverse is probably the case with the man who (according to the best text) is called Philip here in 14:3, but who is elsewhere called Herod, and was therefore probably Herod Philip. For better understanding of 14:1–12 with reference both to Herod Antipas and John the Baptist what was said earlier in connection with 2:22; 4:12; and 11:1–19, should be consulted. See also the charts on pp. 161 and 189. It seems somewhat strange that not until now did Herod Antipas hear the news or the reports about Jesus, especially in view of the fact that it was exactly this ruler's own domain that the Lord had chosen as the main sphere of his labors (4:12–16; 11:20–24). The explanation of 14:1 may well be: a.that although Herod Antipas had previously heard about Jesus, nevertheless the tidings of his great fame, gained through his unforgettable words and illustrious miracles, had not penetrated the walls of this ruler's residence until now; or b.that the palace where Herod Antipas was now staying (Machaerus, described earlier) being in Perea, far to the south, was too far removed from Capernaum and surroundings for the news concerning Jesus to have reached him earlier; or c.a combination of a.and b. When the tetrarch heard the reports about Jesus he was greatly disturbed. He was impressed particularly with the reports concerning Christ's miracles, the results of mighty energies operating within him. These worksof Jesus, even more than his words,shocked him to such an extent that in his restless, morbid, feverish imagination he saw in Jesus a John the Baptist Redivivus (restored to life). He, the guilt-laden superstitious murderer, so informed his servants. What follows, in verses 3 ff. is an explanation of the fact, already implied in verse 2, namely, that John the Baptist had died. He had not been put to death at once but had first been arrested and imprisoned. The reason for this action against John, and also the reason for the ruler's hesitancy in putting him to death, are given in the account beginning with vss. 3, 4. For Herod had arrested John, had bound him and put him away in prison, on account of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife; for John kept telling him, It isn't right for you to have her. Herodias, as shown on the chart, p. 189, was the daughter of Aristobulus, who was a son of Herod the Great by Mariamne I. She had married her half-uncle (her father's half-brother) Herod Philip, son of Herod the Great by Mariamne II. To this Herod Philip she bore a daughter, who in 14:6 (Mark 6:22) is referred to simply as the daughter of Herodias, but who by Josephus is called SalomeAntiquitiesXVIII.136 . At a later time this daughter was going to marry her half-uncle, Philip the tetrarch (Luke 3:1), thereby becoming both the sister-in-law and aunt of her own mother! It should also be noted that Salome's mother Herodias had a brother who was to become King Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:1), and to whom reference will be made later (see p. 590). Now Herod Antipas, on a visit to Herod Philip, became infatuated with Herodias. The two illicit lovers agreed to separate from their present marriage partners Herodias from Herod Philip; Herod Antipas from the daughter of Aretas, king of the Nabatean Arabs and to marry each other. This was done. When John the Baptist heard about this he rebuked Herod Antipas. He did this [Greek] -2 _ftnref2 ([Greek] There was good reason for the rebuke, for such a marriage was incestuousLev. 18:16; 20:21). Was it not also adulterous (Rom. 7:2, 3)? Of course, Herodias knew very well that whenever John rebuked the tetrarch he was also, by implication, denouncing her. So she insisted by means of constant nagging perhaps? that John be put to death. As to Herod Antipas himself, his attitude to the accuser was not entirely hateful. In fact, there were certain qualities in John that he admired. See Mark 6:20. Was his admiration due, perhaps, to the very fact that, in sharp contrast with the flatterers usually found in the company of rulers, here was one man who dared to speak his real mind, in other words, who was righteous and holy? Was it John's manly eloquence that caused the tetrarch to hear him gladly? Was it the ruler's conscience that kept the Baptist alive? On the other hand, Herod Antipas had to put up with the woman whom he now considered his wife, and whose heart was seething with unmitigated, savage vengeance. Not at all to yield to her wishes seemed impossible. So he compromised. He arrested John, put him in chains, and shut him up in a terrible, deep, and hot dungeon that formed part of the castle-palace at [Greek] -2 _ftnref3 [Greek] In addition to the voice of the tetrarch's conscience to which (Mark 6:20by implication calls attention, there was one other reason that prevented him from immediately having John put to death, so that even when he was about to yield to his wife's wishes he did not carry out his plan. That reason is mentioned by Matthew in these words: 5. And although he wanted to kill him, he was afraid of the people, because they were holding John to be a prophet.In our estimate of the people's attitude toward John it is well to avoid extremes. In the beginning it had been very favorable (3:5, 6; 11:7–9), except among the Jewish religious leaders in JerusalemJohn 1:19 28). Due in all probability to their influence the original noisy enthusiasm about John had cooled, in fact on the part of many had been replaced by hostile criticism (Matt. 11:16–18). But even this adversely critical attitude was by no means unanimous. Besides, various factors may have co-operated to reverse the general opinion once again and to make it more favorable toward the Baptist; for example, (a.among Christ's followers, the high praise which Jesus had bestowed upon JohnMatt. 11:9–11); b.among the general populace the sympathy aroused by the Baptist's cruel imprisonment; and c.the people's unfavorable attitude toward Herod Antipas, the man who had imprisoned John. Whatever other reasons there may have been, it is a fact that the favorable attitude of the multitude toward John, at least to the extent of regarding him to be (or, after his death, to have been) a prophet, is reported not only here in 14:5 but also in 21:26. What was it, then, that nevertheless brought about the murder of John the Baptist at the order of Herod Antipas? The answer is given in verses 6 10. But when Herod's birthday came, the daughter of Herodias danced before them and fascinated Herod, so that with an oath he promised to give her whatever she might ask. She, urged on by her mother, said, Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptist. The king was distressed, but on account of his oaths and his dinner guests he ordered it to be given. So he had John beheaded in prison. The day arrived when the birthday of Herod Antipas was celebrated. This gave Herodias the opportunity for which she had been anxiously waiting. There was, of course, a banquet. For women to recline with men at the same table was contrary to the mores of the times (Esther 1:9). However, when the men needed to be entertained, the distaff side was by no means ignored. From the story of Esther we learn that Queen Vashti refused to be so used. Queen Herodias was of a different disposition. She was willing even to have her own daughter used for such a purpose. The queen stood ready to employ whatever means was necessary to wreak vengeance on her enemy, John the Baptist. So, with the hearty consent of Herodias, Salome danced in the midst of here probably to be rendered before or in front of the invited male guests. Had her mother, through womanly intuition aided by intimate knowledge of her husband's weaknesses, guessed what was going to happen? Had she even planned it that way perhaps? However that may have been, when things began to work out the way she wanted she was ready to strike. Evidently her daughter was of one mind with her. It takes but little i (magination to surmise what kind of guests a Herod would have invited to such a feast. See Mark 6:21. Those, of course, to whom the gratification of sensual delights meant everything. Cf. Esther 1:3, 10; Dan. 5:1, 4, 23. Were they even sober as they watched Salome go through her rhythmic movements, dancing bewitchingly and seductively? Her glamorous appearance and exotic movements pleased Herod to such an extent that he, losing all sense of propriety and dignity if he ever had any! and not suspecting that the words he was about to utter might have serious results, promised under oath to give Salome whatever she might ask, even to the half of my kingdomMark 6:23). The girl, at the instigation of her mother, answered, Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptist. Moreover, she wanted it immediately (Mark [Greek] -2 _ftnref4 [Greek] Herod Antipas was definitely in a quandary. The king the title is used now in a loose, very general sense, for technically this man was not a king and was never to become one was distressed. His conscience told him that issuing an order for the execution of John was wrong. It amounted to murder. He must also have realized that by doing this he would be heaping upon himself the ill-will of all those people who thought highly of John. On the other hand, Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned Congreve, The Mourning Bride,Act III. Imagine the scorn Herodias would have poured out upon the tetrarch had he refused to play her game now! But at this point she is not even mentioned. She has done her part and can afford to wait developments. The text however does make mention of the consideration that must have weighed heaviest in the king's mental balances, namely, the oaths made publicly and probably also emphatically. How could he ever violate such [Greek] -2 _ftnref5 [Greek] It can be argued that the way out of his predicament would have been for him to say to Salome, I promised to favor you with a gift;I certainly did not promise to commit a crime. Or else, I promised you,not your mother, a gift. Best of all would have been, I see now that I sinned when I made this promise; hence I retract it. But Herod lacked the courage, humility, and perhaps also the sobriety or clarity of mind, to consider such answers. Of supreme importance to him were the oaths made before the guests, and the necessity not to lose face before them. So the order was issued, and Herod Antipas had John beheaded in prison. [Greek] -2 _ftnref6 [Greek] Continued: 11. The head was brought in on a platter and given to the girl, who brought it to her mother.It frequently happens that from a banquet dishes are brought to those unable to attend. This, then, was the portion received by the wicked queen. Revenge, how sweet? Rather, how gruesome, and how productive of bitter consequences for both king and queen! As to the results of the tetrarch's action, considered as a whole (rejecting his own wife, marrying Herodias, and murdering John) note the following: a. The increased displeasure of many of the Jews b. The wrath of Aretas, the father of Herod's rejected wife Aretas bitterly resented what Herod Antipas had done to his daughter. He therefore waged war against him and in the ensuing battle the entire army of Herod was destroyed (AntiquitiesXVIII.114, 116, for both points a.and b.). c. Banishment Gaius Caesar, better known to us as Emperor Caligula, who ruled over the Roman empire from a.d. 37 41, soon after his accession promoted the brother of Herodias, namely, Herod Agrippa I (<a href="/bible/parallel/ACT/12/1" class="green-link">Acts 12:1), to the rank of king, with all the honors and emoluments pertaining to that high position. This made Herodias very jealous. She begrudged her brother his rise to power and egged her husband on to embark to Rome and seek equal status. For a while Herod Antipas resisted, but he finally gave in. Herod Agrippa I, however, hearing about this, dispatched Fortunatus, one of his freedmen, to Rome, bearing letters showing that even now Herod Antipas was allied with the Parthians in a conspiracy against the emperor. At the very time when the emperor was greeting Herod Antipas he was also reading these letters from Herod Agrippa. Since the tetrarch was unable to disprove the evidence against him which the letters contained, he was deprived of all his powers and condemned to perpetual exile in Lyons of Gaul. His tetrarchy was added to the kingdom over which Agrippa reigned. As to Herodias? She was with her husband when this sentence was pronounced. When the emperor learned that Herodias was the sister of Agrippa, he, out of consideration for her brother, did not banish her and even allowed her to keep all her personal property. To do her justice it must be stated that whatever spark of virtue was still left in her was shown at this time, for she decided to remain with her husband and to go into exile with [Greek] -2 _ftnref7 [Greek] The story of John the Baptist is concluded as follows: 12. Then John's disciples came, took away the body and buried it; and they went and reported it to Jesus.For the disciples of John see on 9:14; 11:1–3; also -2 _ftnref8 N.T.C.on John 3:25, 26. In view of the fact that these men had been permitted to visit John in his prison it is not surprising that they were also allowed to provide an honorable burial for his decapitated body. The very fact that these disciples, now that their master had been murdered, reported this to Jesus would seem to indicate that they were on friendly terms with the latter; not only that, but that they believed in him. Does not this also seem to indicate that the answer Jesus had sent to JohnMatt. 11:4f must thus have satisfied John [Greek] -2 _ftnref9 [Greek] For more on John the Baptist see Summary of Chapter 11, p. 506. 14:13–21 The Feeding of the Five Thousand Cf. Mark 6:30 44; Luke 9:10 17; John 6:1 14 13 Now upon hearing this, Jesus withdrew from there privately by boat to a lonely place. But when the crowds heard about it they followed him on foot from the towns. 14 So, as he came out he saw a great multitude. He was moved with compassion for them and healed their sick. 15 And when it was evening the disciples came to him and said, This is a lonely place, and it is already late in the day; dismiss the crowds, that they may go into the villages and buy food for themselves. 16 But Jesus said to them, They do not need to go away; yougive them to eat! 17 They said to him, All we have here is five bread-cakes and two fishes. 18 He said, Bring them here to me. 19 Then he ordered the people to sit down on the grass, took the five bread-cakes and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven gave thanks. He then broke the bread-cakes and gave them to the disciples, and the disciples (gave them) to the people. 20 All ate and were filled. They picked up what was left over of the pieces: twelve baskets full. 21 The number of men who ate was about five thousand, not counting women and children. It is clear from (Matt. 14:1, 2, 12, 13; Mark 6:29 32; and Luke 9:7 10, that at least the following items belong to the interval between the execution of John and the withdrawal of Jesus to a desolate placeMatt. 14:13): a.John's burial, b.the Baptist's disciples report to Jesus, c.the report of The Twelve to Jesus regarding their mission tour, and d.the report to Herod Antipas regarding the works of Jesus, causing the tetrarch to exclaim, This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead; that's why these miraculous powers are at work in him. All of this may well indicate an activity covering several weeks. It is not strange, therefore, that the feeding of the five thousand, described here in 14:13–21 took place when Passover, probably April of the year a.d. 29, was already approaching, as is clear from John 6:4. The Great Galilean Ministry, probably extending from December, a.d. 27 to April, a.d. 29, is coming to an end. One more year and the Lamb of God will by means of his death on the cross render satisfaction for the sins of all who trust in him. 13. Now upon hearing this, Jesus withdrew from there privately by boat to a lonely place. (In view of the immediately preceding context it is natural to interpret this passage as indicating that what Jesus heard was the report of the disciples of John the Baptist regarding the death and burial of their leader and the events that had led to his execution. The shocking intelligence of the Baptist's cruel death required reflection and quiet meditation. Besides, the disciples had recently returned from a mission tour. They must have felt the need to be alone with the Master to tell him all about what had happened. On the busy, western shores especially in Capernaum there was no opportunity for leisure and relaxation. This point is distinctly mentioned by MarkLuke 9:10, 11). There is no need, therefore, to link the present withdrawal too closely with the terror in the heart of Herod Antipas, as if Jesus, realizing that the time for him to lay down his life had not yet arrived, were fleeing from him. It must be borne in mind that the withdrawal here mentioned was of a very temporary nature. In fact, presently Jesus is back on the western shore once more, at Gennesaret (Matt. 14:34; cf. Mark 6:53), and a little later in the synagogue at Capernaum, where he delivers the discourse on The Bread of Life (John 6:59). The real Retirement Ministry, therefore, begins not at this point but at Matt. 15:21; Mark 7:24; see above, pp. 8, 9. The statement that Jesus withdrew privately does not mean that he crossed the sea all by himself, without his disciples. His disciples were with him (14:15–19, 22). In (John 6:3 14some are even mentioned by name. The statement means that he wanted to get away from the multitude to be alone for a while with his disciples. The lonely or desolate place to which Jesus and his little company withdrew was in the neighborhood of BethsaidaLuke 9:10), that is in all probability Bethsaida Julias, originally a fishing village located on the northeastern shore of the Sea of Galilee. By the tetrarch Philip it had been rebuilt, strengthened, and named in honor of the daughter of [Greek] -2 _ftnref10 [Greek] About a mile south of this town there is a little plain of rich silt soil. A hill rises just behind this plain. Jesus went up into this hill (John 6:3; cf. Matt. 14:23). Continued: (But when the crowds heard about it they followed him on foot from the towns.The people from the various towns and villages, noticing that Jesus had stepped into a boat and was heading for Bethsaida Julias, walked around the northern shore of the lake in order to be with him once more. They were definitely impressed with this Worker of miraclesJohn 6:2). They were willing to brave any obstacles to be in his company. 14. So, as he came out he saw a great multitude. He was moved with compassion for them and healed their sick.When Jesus came out from the place on the slope of the hill, to which he had already arrived (verse 13), he saw a great multitude. John describes the scene as follows: Jesus went up into the hill &he lifted up his eyes and observed that a vast crowd was coming toward him (6:3, 5). Luke presents the same idea: the crowds &followed him, and he welcomed them. [Greek] -2 _ftnref11 [Greek] Instead of addressing this vast crowd as follows, I came here for rest, quiet, and meditation; so please go home and see me some other time, he was moved with compassion for them. Another excellent rendering would be, his heart went out to them. [Greek] -2 _ftnref12 ([Greek] For a fuller discussion of this sympathy see on 8:17 and on 9:36. The needs of people, sick, ignorant, disconsolate, and also hungry (as they were soon to become, verses 15, 16), meant far more to him than his own convenience and ease. So he healed their sick (cf. 4:23, 24; 8:16, 17; 9:35; 11:4, 5), this in spite of a. his ownneed for rest, and b. theirearthly, materialistic motivationsJohn 6:2, 15, 26, 66). It must not escape us that by doing this under such circumstances he was also setting an example for the disciples (10:8), and in a sense for the entire church throughout the ages (Matt. 5:43–48; Luke 6:27 36; John 13:14, 15; Eph. 4:32 5:2). Jesus not only healed the sick but also spent some time in teaching the people (Mark 6:34). All this activity must have taken a considerable amount of time. Almost at once after Jesus from the place where he was had stepped out toward the people, he had asked Philip, testing him, How are we to buy bread-cakes that these people may eat? Philip had answered, Bread-cakes for two hundred denarii would not be sufficient for them so that each might get a little something. So Philip had struggled with this problem, Andrew also. All the time Jesus knew exactly what he was going to do (John 6:5 9). But the disciples were at a loss what to do, and this in spite of all the miracles they had already witnessed. 15. And when it was evening the disciples came to him and said, This is a lonely place, and it is already late in the day; dismiss the crowds, that they may go into the villages and buy food for themselves.Though the sun had not yet set it was becoming late. By means of his miracles and teachings the Lord so captivated the vast crowds that even now they were not leaving. If they were to depart they must be sent away. So the disciples remind their Teacher of the loneliness of the place and the lateness of the hour. This is a lonely place, they say. In other words, this is not a city, containing all kinds of places within easy reach where food may be bought; it is a desolate region. To go to any of the surrounding villages in search of food will take time. Besides, It is already late in the day, or more literally, The time is already past, referring perhaps to the time when food is generally bought. Accordingly they advise Jesus to send the people away right now in order that they may still try to go to the nearby hamlets to buy food for themselves. Christ's answer was striking: 16. But Jesus said to them, They do not need to go away; yougive them to eat.This demand baffles the disciples. Does he mean that their very limited material resources will suffice to feed such a vast multitude? Certainly he cannot mean that! See Mark 6:37; Luke 9:13. What then does the Master mean when he tells the disciples that they must supply food for this vast multitude? It may be impossible to give a fully satisfactory answer to this question. A few things can be pointed out however. a. Jesus means that these men must not be so quick to shake off responsibility. They were often ready to do this very thing, and to say, Dismiss the crowds (here in 14:15); Send her [the Syrophoenician woman] away (15:23). They even rebuked the parents who brought their little children to Jesus that he might bless them (19:13). See also (Luke 9:49, 50. Don t bother the Master and don't bother us, was too often their slogan. In the light of this evidence it is safe to say that Jesus wants to remind these men of the fact that simply trying to get rid of people in need is not the solution. It is certainly not God's way of doing thingsMatt. 5:43–48; 11:25–30; Luke 6:27 38; John 3:16). b. He wants them to ask, seek, and knock (Matt. 7:7, 8); in other words, to claim God's promise for themselves, and to go to him who is able to supply every need. He who, when there was a shortage, supplied wine (John 2:1 11), can he not also supply bread? c. In view of the fact that bread, as the term is used in this account (see verses 17, 19), while referring to be sure, to that which supplies a physical need, is also symbolical of Jesus as the Bread of Life (John 6:35, 48), is he not also telling these fishers of men that they must be the means in God's hand to supply the spiritualneeds of the people? 17. They said to him, All we have here is five bread-cakes and two fishes. (It was Jesus himself who told his disciples to see how many bread-cakes they had. When they knew they said, Five, and two fishesMark 6:38). John's Gospel supplies further details: One of the disciples, Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, said to Jesus, There is a young lad here who has five barley-cakes and two fishes, but what are these for so many? (6:8, 9). For bread the original uses a term that should not be rendered loaves, since this English word has a meaning that is entirely foreign to the sense of the original. What is meant is something that resembles a pancake, flat and round. At times the term used in the original simply means bread. What deserves the emphasis here in verse 17 is that these men are giving an answer not of faith but of near-despair, All we have here is &; even more literally, We do not have (anything) here except five bread-cakes and two fishes. Evidently the disciples had not caught the real meaning of the exhortation, Yougive them to eat. Their Lord is now going to strengthen their faith by means of an unforgettable miracle: 18, 19. He said, Bring them here to me. Then he ordered the people to sit down on the grass, took the five bread-cakes and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven gave thanks. He then broke the bread-cakes and gave them to the disciples, and the disciples (gave them) to the people.Of all the evangelists Matthew is the only one who reports the order, Bring them here to me. Implied is, of course, that the five bread-cakes and the two fishes are bought from the lad and brought to Jesus. The Lord then issues another order, namely, for the people to sit down on the grass. This command was easy to obey, since about this time of the year the slopes of the hill must have been covered with grass. So the people reclined against the hillside. According to Mark 6:40they reclined in groups, by hundreds and by fifties. By means of this grouping a charming picture is formed: And they reclined group by group, or possibly even garden-bed by garden-bed, ifthe basic meaning of the original [Greek] -2 _ftnref13 [Greek] in the Marcan passage still shines through, which, however, is by no means certain. We may have to be satisfied with the weakened sense in groups or group by group. Nevertheless, there was this strikingly colorful arrangement of people dressed in their bright garments, reclining under the blue vault of heaven, upon the green grass with the Sea of Galilee nearby. Jesus takes the five bread-cakes and the two fishes. He looks up to heaven. For this lifting heavenward of the eyes in prayer see also Ps. 25:15; 121:1; 123:1, 2; 141:8, 145:15; John 11:41; 17:1; I Tim. [Greek] -2 _ftnref14 [Greek] Looking up to heaven Jesus blessed, thus literally. The same verb is also found in the Synoptic parallels (Mark 6:41; Luke 9:16). John, on the other hand, has having given thanks (6:11). Solution: blessed in this instance means gave thanks, and can be thus translated. When a person blesses or praises God is he not giving thanks to [Greek] -2 _ftnref15 ([Greek] It was the custom of the Jews to thank God before starting a meal. However, since it is abundantly clear from the Gospels that our Lord never spoke as the scribes, that is, that his words were always characterized by freshness and originalityMatt. 7:29), we may well believe that this was true also on the present occasion. Then from the bread-cakes Jesus begins to break off fragments of edible size. He gives these to his disciples who carry them (in baskets collected here and there from the crowd?) to the people. With the fishes the procedure is somewhat similar. The striking beauty of the account is heightened by the fact that only a few simple words are used to relate the miracle of the multiplication of the fragments. One might even say that the miracle is implied rather than expressed: 20. All ate and were filled.Exactly when did the bread and the fish multiply? Under his hands? Probably, but even this is not stated. All we really know is that there was plenty bread in fact, plenty and to spare for everybody: at some point of time between the breaking of the bread and the reception of the fragments by the people the miracle must have occurred. All men, women, children ate and were filled, that is, had all they wanted, were fully satisfied. For the meaning and history of the verb used in the original see footnote 267 on p. 274. Theythe disciples picked up what was left over of the pieces: twelve baskets full.Wastefulness is sinfulness. Besides, even the rabbis had carefully regulated the manner in which what remained of a meal must be gathered and used. So the people were accustomed to this idea. There were others who needed something to eat: the young lad, if he were still around, the disciples, the poor on the day of tomorrow, Jesus himself. Some people must have taken more fragments than they could eat. When the disciples went back, probably each equipped with a large wicker-basket, they collected not less than twelve baskets full of left-over fragments. To emphasize the greatness of the miracle the size of the crowd is now indicated: 21. The number of men who ate was about five thousand, not counting women and children.It is probable that the reason at least one of the reasons why the men alone were counted was that they constituted the overwhelming majority. One can hardly imagine that many women to whom the care of the little ones was entrusted would have walked all the way from Capernaum and surroundings to the northeastern shores of the Sea of Galilee. Some of this terrain is marshy and difficult. Not counting women and children, no less than five thousand had been miraculously fed. Because the people had been arranged in groups of fifty and one hundred the tally must have been easy. To try to explain or rationalize what happened here is foolish. An example of this attempt is described in N.T.C. on the Gospel according to John, Vol. I, p. 227. As to the significance of the miracle, the following should be noted: a. It points beyond itself, that is, from the gift to the Giver. This is clear not only from (Mark 6:52Matt. 16:8–11) but also, and especially, from Christ's discourse on The Bread of Life, found in chapter 6 of John's Gospel; see especially verses 35, 48. Jesus is described as the perfect Savior, the One who provides for both body and soul. b. It also points to Christ as the Fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy, the One to whom the prophets point forward. Had Moses given the Israelites manna (Exod. 16:15)? This was but a shadow of him who was the real bread out of heaven (John 6:32). Had Elijah been used by God to see to it that the widow's jar of flour was never empty and that her jug of oil did not diminish (I Kings 17:16)? And did the people remember how through Elisha a hundred men had been fed with twenty barley-cakes, so that there had been something left over (II Kings 4:43, 44)? Here, with Jesus at Bethsaida Julias, were more than five thousand people for whom five bread-cakes and two fishes were more than sufficient. It is not surprising that the people said, This is really the prophet who is to come into the world (John 6:14; cf. Deut. 18:15 [Greek] -2 _ftnref16 [Greek] Yes, the people were filled with enthusiasm the type of fervor which takes hold of a Jewish mob at the season of Passover. They were ready to proceed posthaste to Jerusalem, holding in their midst their (strong man, that they might crown him king! But he whose kingdom is not of this worldJohn 18:36) dismisses this multitude, the disciples also, and proceeds toward the top of the hill, that he may be by himself alone with his heavenly Father, as will be shown in the next section. 14:22–33 Walking on the Water Cf. Mark 6:45 52; John 6:15 21 22 Then immediately Jesus made the disciples get into the boat and go ahead of him to the other side, till he should send the crowds away. 23 Now after he had sent the crowds away he went up into the hill by himself to pray, and when evening fell he was there alone. 24 But the boat was already many stadia from the land, battered by the waves, for the wind was from the opposite direction. 25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus came to them, walking on the sea. 26 Now when the disciples saw him walking on the sea they were frightened and said, It's a ghost! And they screamed with fear. 27 At once Jesus spoke to them, Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid! 28 Then Peter answered him, Lord, if it be thou, bid me to come to thee on the water. 29 He said, Come. So Peter stepped out of the boat, walked on the water, and came toward Jesus. 30 However, when he saw the wind he got scared, and as he began to sink he cried out, Lord, save me. 31 Immediately Jesus reached out his hand, grabbed him, and said to him, O man of little faith, why did you waver? 32 And when they stepped into the boat the wind ceased. 33 Those in the boat worshiped him, saying, Thou art indeed God's Son. This section pictures separation, storm and stress (verses 22 24), fright (verses 25, 26), reassurance (verse 27), wavering (verses 28 31), and worship (verses 32, 33). The first part (verses 22 27) might be viewed as an elaboration of the theme: On the Stormy Sea Christ Speaks Peace to His Disciples. So viewed, there is a description a.of the disciples without Jesus (verses 22 24); b.of the disciples with the unknown Jesus (verses 25, 26); and c.of the disciples with Jesus, whom they now recognize because he speaks peace to them (verse 27). The description of the disciples without Jesus begins as follows: 22. Then immediately Jesus made the disciples get into the boat and go ahead of him to the other side, till he should send the crowds away.Why did Jesus wish to send the crowds away? A simple answer would be: by now many of these people have been with Jesus a long time, and are a considerable distance away from their homes; moreover, on the basis of 14:15 it can be added that the region is about to be or is already engulfed in darkness. Another very general answer, applicable to many an occasion, suggests itself, namely, the people had to be senthome because, having just now witnessed rather experiencedan astounding miracle, they are by no means eager of their own accord to leave the Miracle-worker. There is, however, a more specific reason for the decision of Jesus to dismiss this multitude. It is given in John 6:15: the people were about to come and take him by force that they might make him king. Jesus, whose kingdom is spiritual, refuses to become involved in any such definitely earthly, Jewish, political scheme. Being fully aware of the weaknesses of his own disciples, for whom co-operation with the throng in its unholy political planning constituted a real temptation (Matt. 20:20; Acts 1:6), the Lord first of all causes his constant companions to get into a boat and to go ahead of him to the other side. This phrase to the other side must mean to the side opposite from Bethsaida Julias. Accordingly, the disciples, leaving the northeastern shore sometime between 7:30 and 9:00 P.M.? start to row (Mark 6:48; John 6:19) toward western Bethsaida (Mark 6:45), in the vicinity of Capernaum (John 6:16, 17) and of the plain of Gennesaret (Matt. 14:34; Mark 6:53). One reason, perhaps the most important of all, for the dismissal of the disciples and of the crowd, has not yet been mentioned: Jesus wanted to be by himself. He desired to enter into solitary communion with his Father, as is clear from verse 23. Now after he had sent the crowds away he went up into the hill by himself to pray, and when evening fell he was there alone.Far more significance must be attached to these words than is generally done. During his earthly sojourn Jesus spent much time in prayer. He prayed in lonely places, on a hill, in Gethsemane; in the morning, in the evening, sometimes all nightMark 1:35; 6:46; Luke 5:15, 16; 6:12; 9:18; 22:41, 42; Heb. 5:7; etc. . Not only did he pray for himself; the recorded prayers of Christ offer abundant evidence that he prayed also for others. The longest of these recorded supplications (John 17) may be divided as follows: a prayer for himself (verses 1 5), for the apostles (verses 6 19), and for the Church Universal (verses 20 26). Matt. 11:25records a prayer of thanksgiving for those whom he affectionately calls his babes. He even prayed for his tormentorsLuke 23:34, assuming this passage to be authentic . He made intercession for Simon (Luke 22:31, 32), and for the people who were standing around at Lazarus tomb (John 11:41, 42). Even now he not only makes intercession but actually lives in heaven for the very purpose of making intercession (Heb. 7:25). We are on safe ground therefore in maintaining that in the quiet of the evening indicated here in Matt. 14:23Jesus, in solitary communion with his Father, prayed not for himself alone, but also for his disciples. The picture of Jesus on the hill praying for himself, his disciples, etc., must not be separated from that of the disciples on the stormy sea: (24. But the boat was already many stadia from the land, battered by the waves, for the wind was from the opposite direction.John's Gospel mentions twenty-five to thirty stadia, a stadium being about one-eighth of a mile. Hence, the boat had proceeded a distance of about three or four miles. Now if the distance between the point from which the disciples started to the place where they landed was five miles, as seems probable, then these men were now indeed in the midst of the seaMark 6:47). Then, while it was already dark a storm arose. And the sea was getting rough, as a strong wind was blowing (John 6:18). The boat was being battered or distressed [Greek] -2 _ftnref17 [Greek] by the waves, says Matthew. Besides, the wind was from the opposite direction; hence, blowing from the west. No wonder that the men were not making any appreciable headway! For a more detailed account of such storms on the Sea of Galilee see above, on 8:24. If we had only 14:24 the situation would be gloomy indeed: the violent wind from the opposite direction, the darkness, the angry billows, the absence of Jesus! But, as already indicated, we also have verse 23. O that an artist would reproduce this combined scene: the disciples apparently in peril of losing their lives on this stormy sea, but Jesus on that hill interceding for them, undoubtedly including also this petition, that they might be safeguarded against misleading Messianic conceptions and that their lives might be spared so that they would be able to carry out their tasks. Seen from that angle, were not these men perfectly safe after all? And does not this combined picture have many applications for the present day and for every time of trouble and distress? But Jesus intended to do more for the disciples than pray for them. 25. And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus came to them, walking on the sea.The fourth watch is from 3 to 6 A.M. (the first being from 6 to 9 P.M., the second from 9 P.M. to 12 midnight, and the third from midnight until 3 A.M.). These many hours shall we say between six and ten hours? the disciples had been harassed by the elements, and they were still a considerable distance away from their destination. It was then that Jesus came to them, actually walking on the heaving and falling billows. The disciples must discover that they have a Savior who is able not only to still the storm but even to use it as his pathway! For him the very laws of nature are means for the effectuation of his purpose. The winds cannot overturn him. Are they not his willing messengers? The waves cannot drown him. Are they not his obedient servants? The disciples however were alarmed because of what they thought they were seeing: 26. Now when the disciples saw him walking on the sea they were frightened and said, It's a ghost! And they screamed with fear.With the boat heading southwest, the rowers must have been facing northeast. By the little light there was coming perhaps from the pre-Passover moon intermittently peeping from between the dark clouds they see, probably not far away from them, what looked like a man coming toward them from the direction of Bethsaida Julias. Of course, it could not be a man, for men cannot walk on water! Of this the boat's occupants are sure. They do not realize how wrong they are. Overcome with [Greek] -2 _ftnref18 [Greek] they scream, It's a ghost! They were looking at their Lord and Savior but they thought that they saw an infernal, haunting specter; literally a phantasm, one of the meanings of this English word being ghost. This incident, too, has many applications, for how often do not believers ascribe their unpleasant experiences to the machinations of some sinister power, when in reality they are the manifestations of Christ's loving care? How frequently does not that which at first appears to be a stumbling-block turn out to be a stepping-stone to glory? See Gen. 42:36; 50:20; Rom. 8:28. Continued: 27. At once Jesus spoke to them, Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid[or: stop being afraid]. The bracing words, Take courage or Be of good cheer, so characteristic of Christ, have been discussed in connection with 9:2; see on that [Greek] -2 _ftnref19 [Greek] It is I, hence, it is the very Lord who has chosen you as his disciples, has been guiding you step by step, and has already given you so many proofs of his power and love. So, do not be afraid. Is it not encouraging how very often in Scripture God or Jesus Christ tells his people, Do not be afraid? A partial list of passages in which this exhortation is found would be Josh. 1:9; 11:6; II Kings 19:6; II Chron. 20:15; 32:7; Neh. 4:14; Ps. 49:16(cf. 27:1); 91:5; Isa. 10:24; 37:6; 44:8; Matt. 17:7; 28:10; Mark 5:36; Luke 12:4; John 14:1, 27; Acts 18:9; I Peter 3:14. If even we today receive encouragement from the reading of these many assurances, and thrill when we listen to F. Mendelssohn's Be not afraid (from The Elijah), how unforgettably precious must not the comfort have been which the disciples received when by means of this brief command, spoken by the One they adored, they were lifted in one moment from crushing fear to exuberant joy! Moreover, this Be not afraid is well-founded. It is firmly anchored in limitless power and infinite, intensely personal love. The effect of Christ's words upon Peter is now dramatically portrayed: 28. Then Peter answered him, Lord, if it be thou, bid me to come to thee on the water.Impulsive Peter is immediately ready for action. He trusts and loves the Lord, and therefore desires to be with him. From more than one aspect this trust of Peter merits admiration: a.It is the very opposite of the fear which the disciples, not excluding Peter, have expressed a moment ago, when they said, It's a ghost! Peter's if is not that of doubt but amounts to since. b.It implies consciousness of utter dependence on the authority and the power of Jesus. Peter knows that without the Master's permission he will not be allowed to walk on the water, and that apart from Christ's power he will not be able to do so. So he asks that this permission and this power be granted. Peter's action, therefore, starts out as a deed of faith and devotion. Solid evidence of recklessness on his part (see, by contrast, 4:5–7) is completely or at least largely lacking. Also, evidence of boastfulness is absent. We are doing this apostle an injustice when we accuse him of wishing to show off before the others. c.It shows that Peter grasped something of the significance of Christ's constant teaching with respect to the very close relationship existing between the Lord and those whom he calls his own. The very thought, If Jesus can walk on the water, so, with strength imparted by him, can I, is admirable. We are not surprised therefore that Jesus, without a word of rebuke or criticism, gave permission: (29. He said, Come. So Peter stepped out of the boat, walked on the water, and came toward Jesus.He walked (literally) on the waters, idiomatic pluralGen. 1:2; Deut. 5:8; Josh. 3:13; Ps. 107:23). Perhaps this plural stems from the fact that in such connections the emphasis is not so much on water as contrasted with land or air or fire, as on the vastness of its expanse and the boisterousness of its many waves. For the idea that before the feet of Peter the waters were [Greek] -2 _ftnref20 [Greek] I can find no support. The stilling of the storm did not take place until later (see verse 32). Besides, this smooth water concept is contradicted by verse 30. However, when he saw the wind he got scared, and as he began to sink he cried out, Lord save me.Peter saw the wind, that is, he saw the effect of the wind upon the billows. As long as he concentrated his attention on Jesus all went well. But the moment he took notice of the boisterous winds and the surging waters he became frightened. Had he been somewhatover confident? However that may be, his faith, though little, was not lost, for as he began to [Greek] -2 _ftnref21 [Greek] he cried to Jesus for help. A most interesting person, this Peter. He seems to do nothing by halves. When he is good he is very good, when he is bad he is very bad, and when he repents he weeps bitterly. He turns from trust to doubt (14:28, 30), from clear and open profession of Jesus as the Christ to rebuking that very Christ (16:16, 22), from a vehement declaration of loyalty to base denial (26:33–35, 74), from By no means shalt thou wash my feet ever to Not my feet only but also my hands and my head (John 13:8, 9). See also John 20:4, 6; Gal. 2:11, 12. Nevertheless, by the grace and power of the Lord this Simon was transformed into a true Peter. The Lord does not disappoint his wavering disciple, who in his distress has cried to him for help: 31. Immediately Jesus reached out his hand, grabbed him, and said to him, O man of little faith, why did you waver? Strictly speaking it would not have been necessary for Jesus to reach out his hand to rescue Peter. A simple command would have sufficed. But was not the method which the Lord actually used reassuring? Jesus wanted Peter to feel his love as well as to experience his power. See also on 8:3 and 9:25. The Lord calls Peter a man of little faith. For this expression see on 6:30. Doubt or wavering had entered Peter's heart because for a moment he had looked away from Jesus, that is, he had failed to rest the eye of his faith upon the Master. He had not sufficiently taken to heart the comfort he should have derived from the presence, promises, power, and love of Christ. 32. And when they stepped into the boat the wind ceased.Jesus had just shown that he could make use of the elements of nature. Now he proves that he is also able to cause them to stop their raging. He had done this before (8:23–27). At thattime the storm was at its height when he was in the boat. He stilled it. Nowhe causes it to cease when he steps into the boat. Either way he is always in full control. So also, through faith his followers are always secure. John 6:21reports that all at once the boat was at the land where they were going. Jesus had walked upon the water. He had even enabled Peter to do likewise. He had rescued Peter. He had stilled the storm. He had done all this and more!He had walked upon the water to them,to be with them and to comfort them, to strengthen them in their faith. Thus the power and the love of their Lord had been gloriously manifested. The effect of all this is described in verse 33. Those in the boat worshiped him, saying, Thou art indeed God's Son.Those in the boat fell at his feet in humble adoration. For the meaning of the verb worshiped see on [Greek] -2 _ftnref22 [Greek] By acknowledging Jesus as God's Son or as the Son of God [Greek] -2 _ftnref23 [Greek] they confess that they now realize that what the Father had previously declared (3:17; cf. 17:5) and what even the demons had confessed (8:29) was true indeed. They are overwhelmed by the infinite power and love of Jesus, that is, by the fact that he was able to do what he had just done, and was willing to do it for them! 14:34–36 Healings in Gennesaret Cf. Mark 6:53 56 34 Having crossed over they landed at Gennesaret. 35 And when the men of that place recognized him, they sent (messengers) to the entire surrounding region; and they brought to him all that were ill, 36 begging him to allow them merely to touch the tassel of his garment; and all who touched were cured. 34. Having crossed over they landed at Gennesaret. (This is the name of a densely populated and fertile plain south of Capernaum. It measures about 3 miles in length along the Sea of GalileeLuke 5:1), and 1½ miles in width away from the shore. According to Josephus the plain produced walnuts, palms, figs, olives, and grapes. As indicated previously, from the landing place Jesus will proceed to nearby Capernaum, but not until he has blessed the people of this region by means of his gracious presence, as is now indicated: 35, 36. And when the men of that place recognized him they sent (messengers) to the entire surrounding region; and they brought to him all that were ill, begging him to allow them merely to touch the tassel of his garment, and all who touched were cured.The men, rather than the women and children, were the travelers (see also on 14:21). On previous trips away from home perhaps to Capernaum these men had become acquainted with Jesus. In all probability they had seen him perform miracles (see 11:23). So they spread the news of Jesus presence, with the result that they, the people of the surrounding towns and villages, brought to Jesus all those who were afflicted with any sickness whatever, exactly as in 4:24; 8:16. Those who brought their sick also implored Jesus to allow the diseased merely to touch the tassel of his garment (for this tassel see on 9:20, 21); so great was their faith in Jesus as a Miracle-worker! All who touched were cured. Does this mean that only those who by what is generally called saving faith touched Jesus were healed? Not necessarily. The mainpoint of the story is not the faith of men whether of the sick or of those who brought them but the power and love of Christ, as is evident also from 4:24; 8:16, 17; 9:13, 36; 12:7; 14:14. Summary of Chapter 14 Though Jesus did not perform many miracles in Nazareth (13:58), he did accomplish a great many elsewhere, so that this news reached even the palace of King Herod Antipas, causing him to exclaim, This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead; that's why these miraculous powers are at work in him (14:1, 2). Thus the opening section (verses 1 12) of chapter 14 is introduced. The king was deeply disturbed, for he had murdered the Baptist. It had come about in this way: On a trip to Rome to visit his half-brother Herod Philip, Herod Antipas had eloped with his host's wife, Herodias. When John hears about the incestuous marriage he repeatedly rebukes the king, telling him, It isn't right for you to have her. Herodias, realizing that her married state is insecure, wants her new husband to kill John. However, the king is afraid of the people, many of whom have high regard for the Baptist. So the ruler compromises by having John imprisoned. At Herod's birthday party Salome, the daughter of Herodias, so fascinates the king by her dancing that with an oath he promises to give her whatever she asks. Prompted by her mother, she asks for the head of John the Baptist. So John is beheaded in prison. His disciples come, remove the body, bury it, and report the entire story to Jesus. The next paragraph (verses 13 21) implies that the shocking intelligence of the Baptist's cruel death requires reflection and quiet meditation. Besides, The Twelve had recently returned from a mission tour. To give them an opportunity to rest a while from their labors and to tell their Master all that had happened Jesus takes them with him to Bethsaida Julias, located on the northeastern shore of the Sea of Galilee. Arrived there Jesus, looking down from a hill, sees a great multitude. Filled with compassion he heals their sick and teaches. Toward evening the disciples say to him, The place is lonely and it is already late in the day; dismiss the crowds, that they may go into the villages and may buy food for themselves. Jesus answers, They do not need to go away; (yougive them to eat. By saying this the Lord impresses upon them their own responsibility with respect to the crowds in need of both physical and spiritual sustenance. Then, by means of five bread-cakes and two fishesJohn 6:9) Jesus, after giving thanks, miraculously feeds five thousand persons, not counting women and children. The disciples pick up what is left over of the pieces of bread: twelve baskets full. Verses 22 27 show how Jesus, having dismissed the crowds and having ordered the disciples into a boat to go back to the western shore, remains for a few more hours in the region where he had performed the great miracle. Here he goes up into the hill by himself to pray, so that when evening falls he is there alone. The paragraph pictures a.the disciples, frightened by a storm and without Jesus; b.the disciples with the unknown Jesus; that is, with someone who is walking on the water toward them and whom they regard to be a ghost; and c.the disciples with Jesus whom they now recognize because he has made himself known to them, saying, Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid. There follows the episode of Peter walking on the water, then becoming afraid, and in the nick of time being rescued by the Lord. When Jesus and Peter step into the boat the wind ceases. Those in the boat worship Jesus, confessing him to be God's Son (verses 28 33). In the closing paragraph (verses 34 36) the power and love of the Savior again stand out, as in the fertile plain of Gennesaret, south of Capernaum, he heals all that are brought to him. -2 _ftn1 551 For a discussion of the tentative dates during which the various events of Christ's ministry occurred see N.T.C. on the Gospel according to John, Vol. I, pp. 36, 188, 189; also the author's Bible Survey, pp. 59–62. -2 _ftn2 552 Note the imperfect tense: [Greek]. -2 _ftn3 553 In addition to the sources mentioned in footnote 465 on p. 483 see also the vivid description of this fortress and its prison in A. Edersheim, op. cit.,Vol. I, pp. 658–660. -2 _ftn4 554 The noun [Greek] can also be translated plate or dish; cf. pine-board. In modern Greek [Greek] means a board or table. The rendering of Mark 6:25b found in the A.V. I will that thou give me by and by in a charger the head of John the Baptist was undoubtedly excellent in its day, but fails to convey any clear meaning today. -2 _ftn5 555 Josephus mentions still another reason that may have influenced Herod in reaching his decision, namely, that with John the Baptist still alive and popular the people might have been willing to follow his advice even if he should urge them to start a political revoltAntiquitiesXVIII.118, 119 . Nothing of the kind is hinted in Scripture. Nevertheless, there may have been some truth in it. It is not in conflict with anything in Matthew's or Mark's text. But we may rest assured that the inspired authors, in stressing the matter of the oaths given before the dinner guests, are stating that which for Herod Antipas really decided the issue. -2 _ftn6 556 (Though in rendering [Greek] most translators use two verbs, just why this is needed is not clear, especially because it is well known that in such combinations the idea of sent recedes to the background. With N.E.B. I therefore prefer, he &had John beheaded. So also the Dutch Bible (Nieuwe Vertaling): &en hij liet Johannes in de gevangenis onthoofden. ) -2 _ftn7 557 See the very moving account of this attempt of Herod Antipas and Herodias that failed so dismally, in Josephus AntiquitiesXVIII.238 256. -2 _ftn8 N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary -2 _ftn9 558 R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit.,p. 544. -2 _ftn10 559 For the reasons in support of the position that it was indeed Bethsaida Julias see N.T.C. on the Gospel according to John, Vol. I, pp. 216–218. -2 _ftn11 560 (See F. W. Grosheide, Het Heilig Evangelie volgens MattheusCommentaar op het Nieuwe Testament), p. 233: From the remote place to which Jesus had arrived he steps forward and meets the multitude. This is also Lenski's view, op. cit.,pp. 545, 546. It certainly seems to be supported by Matthew, Luke, and John, all of whom picture Jesus as disembarking before the arrival of the great multitude. Theyfollow. Hegets there first, goes up the hill, then sees the crowds gathering and goes out to meet them. When three of the four Gospels are in agreement on this point, as they are, it is not wise to overthrow all this and to follow what Mark 6:33b (of which there are many textual variants) may seem to say. -2 _ftn12 561 The verb is [Greek]. On the cognate noun see footnote 39, p. 58 of N.T.C. on Philippians. -2 _ftn13 562 The phrase is [Greek]. -2 _ftn14 563 The subject Prayer Posturesis treated in some detail in N.T.C. on I and II Timothy and Titus, pp. 103–104. -2 _ftn15 564 In the present tense, first per. sing. indic. the two verbs are [Greek] and [Greek]. -2 _ftn16 565 See G. E. P. Cox, The Gospel according to St. Matthew, London, 1952, p. 103. -2 _ftn17 566 (Matthew uses the pres. pass. participle, nom., sing. neut. [Greek], from [Greek]. It reminds us of the centurion's boy who was fearfully torturedMatt. 8:6), of the demoniacs who asked Jesus, Do you come here to torture us before the apointed time? (8:29), of Lot, who was distressed or vexed by the lawless deeds of his wicked neighbors (II Peter 2:8); to which can be added the instances of the use of this word in (Rev. 9:5; 11:10; 12:2; 14:10; 20:10. Jesus came to heal those who were distressed by tormentsMatt. 4:24); the noun [Greek] indicating (a.basically, a touchstone to test gold and other metals; b.the instrument of torture by which men for example, slaves were tested, i.e., forced to reveal the truth; and c.as in 4:24, where it occurs in the plural, tormentsor acute pains. ) -2 _ftn18 567 Greek [Greek] third per. pl. aor. indic. passive of [Greek], a very interesting verb, see on 2:3. -2 _ftn19 568 The verb is [Greek], sec. pers. pl. pres. imperat. of [Greek]. A similar verb is [Greek]. In the sense in which the latter is a synonym of the one used here in Matt. 14:27it is found in Heb. 13:6(in the form [Greek]), in which being courageous is again very closely linked with the presence of the Lord and the help he grants. -2 _ftn20 569 R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit.,pp. 556, 557. -2 _ftn21 570 Greek [Greek]; literally, to plunge downinto the sea,a very picturesque word. -2 _ftn22 571 In the New Testament the verb [Greek] occurs with great frequency in the Gospel according to Matthew, in John 4, and in the book of Revelation; elsewhere its use is scattered. -2 _ftn23 572 In the present case either rendering is correct. Titles can be definite even without the article, and it would be difficult to imagine that these Jewish monotheists would have regarded Jesus as being one of many deities. They now see the one and only true God manifested in Jesus. CHAPTER XV: 1 20 Chapter 15:1–20 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him to Do Ceremonial versus Real Defilement 15:1–20 Ceremonial versus Real Defilement Cf. Mark 7:1 23 15 1 Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2 Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not rinse their hands when they eat bread. 3 He answered and said to them, And why do you yourselves transgress God's commandment for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, Honor your father and your mother, and He who curses father or mother must certainly be put to death. 5 But you say, Anyone who says to his father or to his mother, It's a gift, whatever it be by which I might benefit you, 6 surely does not have to honor his father. And you have made the word of God null and void for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites, Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: 8 This people honor me with their lips But their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain do they worship me, Teaching (as their) doctrines precepts of men. 10 When he had called the people to him he said to them, Hear and understand: 11 It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles a man. 12 Then the disciples approached him and said, Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard what you said? 13 He answered and said, Every growth that my heavenly Father has not planted shall be uprooted. 14 Let them go. They are blind leaders. Now if a blind man leads a blind man both shall fall into a pit. 15 Peter answered and said to him, Explain the parable to us. 16 He said, Are you also even yet without understanding? 17 Do you not know that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and passes into the latrine? 18 But what comes out of the mouth issues from the heart, and that is what defiles a man. 19 For from the heart issue wicked schemes, murders, adulteries, sexual sins, thefts, false testimonies, abusive speeches. 20 These are the things that defile a man, but to eat with unrinsed hands does not defile a man. 1, 2. Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not rinse their hands when they eat bread. (Then is again very indefinite, meaning no more than, about this time, or on one of these days. Pharisees and scribes are mentioned together. For Pharisees see on 3:7; for scribes, on 2:4 and on 7:28, 29; for scribes and Pharisees, on 5:20. It is evident that the opposition against Jesus is increasing in intensity. No longer just the Pharisees (as in 9:11, 12:1) are attacking him but in 12:38 and here in 15:1 we have the combination of the two. Whether there is any significance in the fact that in 15:1 Matthew, contrary to his usual custom (5:20; 12:38; 23:2), mentions the Pharisees before the scribes is not clear. What is significant, however, is that these Pharisees and scribes came from JerusalemMark 7:1, 2), probably not meaning that they were local men who originally had been living in that city, but that they were citizens of Jerusalem, law experts and teachers, etc., who, perhaps at the request or suggestion of likeminded friends, had agreed to make a trip to the north, for the purpose of stopping Jesus in his tracks. The attack is becoming heated and organized. These enemies of Jesus have taken notice of the fact that the latter's disciples do not follow the tradition of the elders, that is, in the present case the regulations imposed by former rabbis and handed down to the present generation regarding ritual cleansing of the hands before and during meals. There was a vast mass of opinions and decisions that had been handed down from the past. This tradition of the elders was regarded as being equally binding as God's law itself, since, according to the scribes and their followers, they showed what the divine law really meant, that is, how it should be applied to everyday life. The trouble was however that in many cases not in all; otherwise Jesus could not have spoken the words recorded in 23:2, 3a these judgments a.went far beyond anything demanded by God's law, or b.failed entirely to do justice to the real requirements of that law. For b.see on 5:20–48. For a.,on 12:1–8. Generally a.and bcombine. What we have here in 15:1, 2 is another instance of the tradition of the elders demanding far more than was required in the law. To be sure, the law of God required holiness (Lev. 19:2). That such holiness implied not only inner renewal but must also be expressed outwardly, and this not only in ethical conduct but also in a ritual sense, so that, for example, (a.the people must wash their garments when the Lord is about to descend upon Mount SinaiExod. 19:10); and (b.the priests before performing various sacred functions must batheLev. 16:26, 28; Num. 19:7, 8, 19), is true. It is even true that Aaron and his sons were ordered to cleanse their hands before performing their duties in the tabernacle (Exod. 30:17–21), and that under certain specified conditions the law prescribed hand-rinsing for the people in general (Lev. 15:11; Deut. 21:6). But God's law nowhere prescribes ritual hand-rinsing for (everybodyand in connection with everymeal. This was strictly a tradition of the elders, unsupported by any divine ordinance. But the Pharisees, whether scribes or not, made it a matter of emphasisMark 7:3, 4). The question may well be asked, How did this emphasis on matters nowhere prescribed in the law, to the neglect of stressing the essence of the law (Matt. 22:37–40), come about? The story, in brief, is as follows. The destruction of the temple and the Babylonian captivity had violently shocked the Jews. The God-fearing people among them realized that what had befallen them was the result of departure from Jehovah their God, and that their only hope of reconciliation and restoration was by returning to him with their whole heart (Jer. 29:13). God's law, as revealed in the Pentateuch, must be obeyed so that God's favor may again rest on his people. During the exile men like Ezekiel and Daniel led the way. Soon after the return of the remnant Ezra is described as a ready scribe in the law of Moses (Ezra 7:6, 11). New conditions seemed to require new applications of this law. For a while all went well. However, gradually men arose the Pharisees, described earlier, and especially their scribes who made the promulgation of regulations, ostensibly based upon the law, their specialty. They delighted in it and made it their hobby. They began to regulate for the purpose of regulating. Highest honor was bestowed upon the most famous rabbis or teachers among them. What they said was passed on from generation to generation. Not only did the scribes, in schools connected with the synagogues, teach the children to read, using the Hebrew Scriptures as the text, but both in synagogue rooms and temple chambers they taught the older disciples or learners how the law had been interpreted by the famous rabbis of the past. The method of teaching that was chiefly relied on was that of repetition. The matter to be learned was repeated tothe pupil by the teacher, and then to the teacher bythe pupil. As the regulations and opinions increased in number so also the amount of material to be memorized snowballed year by year, decade by decade, until at last it became so enormous that Rabbi Jehuda, about the year a.d. 200, committed this tradition of the elders to writing in what is called the Mishnahor Mishna, a word formed from a verb meaning to repeat. There had been previous attempts to do this, but Jehuda's work was at once recognized as the most complete and successful. The Mishna, accordingly, embraces the entire content of that which was considered important Jewish tradition as far as it had been handed down up to the end of a.d. 200. The rabbis of Palestine during the first two centuries a.d. whose views regarding Hebrew oral tradition are recorded in the Mishna and in other works are called the tannaimten, to repeat, to teach . Well known is the fact that the Mishna consists of a.the decisions of the sages on ever so many particular cases, as well as b.the elucidation of the basic texts of the Pentateuch. All these materials are arranged under six Orders, namely, Seeds, Set Feasts, Women, Damages (or Injuries), Hallowed Things (or Consecrations), and Cleansings (or Purifications). Each Order, in turn, is divided into several subsidiary tracts or treatises, these again into chapters, and the latter into paragraphs. So, for example, one of the tracts of the Order Cleansings has something to say about the rinsing of hands. It was soon discovered, however, that the Mishna, in turn, also stood in need of elucidation and augmentation. So Commentaries first oral, later written on the Mishna were produced. The addition to the Mishna is called the Gemara, a noun derived from a verb meaning to complete. The rabbinical school of Jerusalem, combining the Mishna with its Gemara, produced the Jerusalem or Palestinian Talmud. This word Talmudis related to a verb meaning in its simplest form to learn,and in the modified (Pi`el) form which concerns us here, to teach. The rabbinical school centered in Babylonia produced the much bigger (four times as long) and generally considered more authoritative Babylonian Talmud. When Talmud is mentioned without modifying adjective it is the Babylonian work that is generally meant. The language of the Jerusalem Talmud is Talmudic Hebrew; that of the Babylonian Talmud has been described as a barbaric commixture of Chaldaic, Hebrew, and other dialects, jumbled together in defiance of all the rules of composition and grammar. [Greek] -2 _ftnref1 [Greek] For English translations of Mishna and of Talmud see below. The material found in Mishna and Talmud is by no means uniform in character. It is necessary to distinguish especially between (a.halakah, pl. halakoth, a noun derived from a verb meaning to go, to walk,this noun referring therefore to the manner in which one should conduct himself; hence, to the traditional statement of law in its categorical form; and b.haggadah, pl.haggadoth, a noun derived from a verb which in one of its formsHiph il) means to tell,this noun therefore indicating whatever is toldby way of illustration; that is, all such material that is not halakic in character. Among the haggadothwe find legends, folklore, parables, proverbs, and scattered remarks and paragraphs in such fields as philosophy, medicine, natural science, astrology, music, etc. Gems of wisdom are mixed with ideas that by many are regarded, probably correctly, as absurdities. One may find the reading of several pages of the Talmud a rather dreary task. The Talmud is one of the strangest of the Bibles of humanity.& It is drawn from the promiscuous notebooks of students of very diverse attainments and character in which they have scribbled down all the wisdom and all the unwisdom, all the sense and all the nonsense which was talked for centuries in the schools of all kinds of RabbisHistory of Interpretation, p. 91 f. . Both here and in ancient Jewish literature generally many an explanation of a Bible passage is presented. Such a comment is called a midrash, pl. midrashim, a noun related to a verb meaning to search, to examine,and thus to elucidate. The midrashmay, however, cover an entire book. Thus we speak of a Midrash Genesis, meaning a Commentary on the book of Genesis. Such midrashimare often mainly homiletical in nature. Since even the Mishna itself, without Gemara, was not reduced to writing until about the year a.d. 200, it stands to reason that it is not always possible on the basis of its contents to say exactly what were the laws and customs prevailing in the days of Christ's sojourn on earth. It is true that the mention of names of famous rabbis whose opinions are disclosed and whose vital statistics are known or can be approximated, may at times help us to describe the background of the Gospel narrative; but even then, and even when it is taken for granted that the information furnished is correct, it is not always possible to decide whether and if so, in how far the information given applies to the particular time and region of Palestine to which reference is made in [Greek] -2 _ftnref2 [Greek] Nevertheless, study of this tannaitic literature is not only helpful but necessary for the understanding of the New Testament. This is true also with respect to Matt. 15:1ff. In the light of this background literature a few points become clear: a. The criticism of the Pharisees and scribes, reported here in 15:1, 2, had nothing to do with hygiene. These men did not imply that Jesus was allowing his disciples to eat with physically dirty hands. The matter in dispute touched ceremonial purity, not dirt. It did not have anything to do with germs, about which neither the disciples nor their critics knew anything. b. The translation wash in verse 2 and unwashed in verse 20, though favored by many, is probably not the best. According to the Jewish rite the hands were not washed in a basin, but with elevated hand affused from aboveJesus-Jeshua, p. 117 . What the Pharisees wanted was not the normal cleansing of the hands but the washing, or expressed more accurately, the ritual [Greek] -2 _ftnref3 [Greek] of the hands in any case, that is, even though they were cleanop. cit.,p. 239 . c. The expression when they eat bread, the latter being the main dish, simply means when they partake of a meal. On the basis of the then still unwritten but subsequently written tradition of the elders these Pharisees and scribes were of the opinion that any contact with a Gentile, for example by brushing against him on the street or the market-place or by unwittingly touching an object belonging to him, was an impediment to worship in temple or synagogue. That explains their criticism. These men were O so concerned about the tradition of the elders, far more than about the Word of God. They substituted mere legalism for true piety, outward conformity to tradition for the attitude of heart and mind, and a torturing scrupulosity for glad obedience (Farrar). That this is exactly the criticism leveled against these enemies by Jesus is clear from what follows in verse 3. He answered and said to them, And why do you yourselves transgress God's commandment for the sake of your tradition?Note the parallel between: Why do your disciples transgress the tradition &? and Why do you yourselves transgress God's commandment &? The Lord is as it were saying, therefore, Youshould talk! Granted that my disciples are transgressing tradition, you yourselves are transgressing something infinitely more important, namely, God's holy law, which you are subordinating to your tradition, the tradition to which you erroneously attach paramount importance. See further on 5:20. Continued: 4. For God said, Honor your father and your mother, and He who curses father or mother must certainly be put to death.As to the positive commandment to bestow honor on father and mother see Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16; Prov. 1:8; 6:20–22; cf. Mal. 1:6; Matt. 19:19; Mark 7:10 13; 10:19; Eph. 6:1; Col. 3:20. To honorfather and mother means more than to obeythem, especially if this obedience is interpreted in a merely outward sense. It is the inner attitude of the child toward his parents that comes to the fore in the requirement that he honorthem. All selfish obedience or reluctant obedience or obedience under terror is immediately ruled out. To honor implies to love, to regard highly, to show the spirit of respect and consideration. This honor is to be shown to bothof the parents, for as far as the child is concerned they are equal in authority. In Exod. 21:17; Lev. 20:9the death penalty is pronounced on those who curse father or mother, but see also Exod. 21:15; Deut. 21:18 21and Prov. 30:17. What did these Pharisees and scribes do with this clear and definite teaching of the Word of God? The answer is given in verses 5, 6. But you say, Anyone who says to his father or to his mother, It's a gift, whatever it be by which I might benefit you, surely does not have to honor his [Greek] -2 _ftnref4 [Greek] The Pharisees and scribes were telling the children that there was a way to get around the heavy burden of having to bestow honor upon their parents by supporting them. If either father or mother, noticing that a son had something which was needed by the parent, asked for it, all that was necessary was for this son to say, It's dMron(a gift) or corbn(an offering), Mark 7:11. Either way, whether the son uses the Greek word dMronor the Hebrew corbn, he is really saying, It is consecrated to God, and by making this assertion or exclamation he, according to Pharisaic teaching based on [Greek] -2 _ftnref5 [Greek] had released himself from the obligation of honoring his parents here father as also representing the mother by helping them in their particular need. It is even possible that a broader interpretation, favored by some, may be correct. If so, the son would be saying, Whatever it is by which I might benefit you, whether now or in the future, I here and now declare that it is to be considered an offering. Interpreted either way it was a wicked device to deprive parents of the honor due to them. Moreover, what was thus unjustly withdrawn from the parents was not necessarily offered to God at all. The one who shouted, It's a gift or It's an offering could simply keep it for himself! It is not surprising that Jesus adds: (And you have made the word of God null and void for the sake of your tradition.Or, as the parallel passageMark 7:8) has it, You let go [ignore, neglect] the commandment of God in order to cling to the tradition of men. That this was no exaggeration is clear from the passage in the Talmud, To be against the words of the scribes is more punishable than to be against the word of the Bible. [Greek] -2 _ftnref6 [Greek] Exactly opposite was the attitude of Jesus with respect to God's holy law (see on 5:17, 18). Now when people are corrupt enough to teach the younger generation how to evade the requirements of a very important commandment of the Decalogue, and are doing this while pretending to be very pious and devout, they deserve to be called hypocrites. This is exactly what Jesus does in verses 7 9. You hypocrites, Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: This people honor me with their lips But their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, Teaching (as their) doctrines precepts of men. In addition to what has already been said about this passage (see above, pp. 89) note the following: First, Matthew cannot have meant that Isaiah in writing Isa. 29:13was thinking of these Pharisees and scribes. He meant that what the prophet wrote concerning the people of his own day was still very relevant, for both then and now those condemned were honoring God with their lips, while their hearts were far removed from him. History, in other words, was repeating itself. Secondly, the description given is exact: Pharisees and scribes were constantly honoring God with their lips, that is, outwardly, as is clear from such passages as 6:5; Luke 18:11, while inwardly they were corrupt, their heart being far removed from the very One whom they were praising with their lips. Did not Jesus prove this very fact in the immediately preceding context, in which the manner in which these enemies taught the younger generation how to evade the requirements of the commandment regarding duties toward parents was described? Thirdly, the designation hypocrites (see also 6:2, 5, 16; 7:5; 22:18; 23:28; etc.) was apt, for these enemies pretended to be what they were not: they pretended to be very pious but were actually very wicked. Fourthly, their worship was vain, that is futile, neither honoring God nor benefitting either themselves or other men in any way. Finally, when the heart is estranged from God his Word is exchanged for precepts of men, merely human traditions. Having rebuked the Pharisees and scribes Jesus now turns to the multitude: (10. When he had called the people to him he said to them, Hear and understand.& Evidently the people had been standing at some distance away, probably out of respect for those who had come to question Jesus about the conduct of his disciples. It seems that the crowd wanted to give the men who had come from Jerusalem every opportunity to interrogate their opponent. So Jesus, turning away from the critics, asks the people to come closer. He has something of great importance to tell them, something that concerns the very essence of religion and ethics, that they may no longer allow themselves to be misled. To emphasize the significance of what he is about to say he prefixes his remarks with the solemn introduction, Hear and understand. He wants them to listen closely and to ponder thoroughly, so that they will understand properly. Continued: 11. It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles a man.What Jesus is saying in such a simple, terse, and axiomatic way has to do with the contemptuous question of the Pharisees and scribes (see verse 2) about the ritual rinsing of hands in connection with meals. According to the men who had come from Jerusalem to find fault with Jesus, unrinsed hands defiled the food and therefore also the eater. Unless ceremonially clean, whatever it was that came into the mouth from the outside defiled a man. Jesus shows that the very opposite is true: not what goes into but what comes out of the mouth defiles a [literally the ] man! Defilement, in other words, issues from the heartMark 7:19 23). That inner storehouse, according to the rule laid down in 12:35, employs the mouth as its instrument for the outward expression of all kinds of thoughts and sentiments that are really defiling. What Jesus is doing here is placing the emphasis where it belongs, not on that which is physical but on that which is spiritual and abiding, just as he had done previously (see 5:3, 4, 6, 17; 9:13; 12:7, 50). In our own day and age, in which understandably and rightly many warnings are being issued against air pollution and water pollution, Christ's implied warning against the incalculably more ominous evil of mouth pollution and heart pollution is certainly needed. At this point Christ's disciples come into the picture again: 12. Then the disciples approached him and said, Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard what you said?Are these disciples referring a.to the immediately preceding line, It is not what goes into the mouth&, a statement which had been addressed to the people; or b.to the entire contents of verses 3 9, addressed to the Pharisees and scribes? Some prefer the [Greek] -2 _ftnref7 [Greek] It is, however, very doubtful whether Christ's bitter opponents had heard this rather brief remark that had not even been directed to them. But whether or not they heard it, is it not more reasonable to believe that they took offense at, were repelled [Greek] -2 _ftnref8 [Greek] the very sharp reprimand to which they themselves had been exposed, and in which they had been characterized as transgressors and hypocrites? My own preference is for b.therefore. It is implied that in the hearing of the disciples the Pharisees had given vent to their hot displeasure. Had the disciples become somewhat afraid? Were they shaken with a measure of awe for those men who by many were regarded as venerable leaders? Were they perhaps fearful of the possible consequences of the sharp rebuke their Master had administered? However this may have been, one fact stands out: the wrath of the religious leaders had made a deep impression upon the disciples. These Pharisees must have been very indignant, and this perhaps not only because of the fact already stated, namely, that they had been publicly stigmatized as transgressors and hypocrites, but also for a different reason: If the word of God ranked infinitely higher than the tradition of the elders (see verses 3, 6 and 9), and if that judgment as to comparative values took root among the people, these leaders knew that in that case they might as well go home. Was it not exactly this tradition which they had made their hobby, their specialty? So they were offended and repelled, to the extent that because of their own corrupt heart they began to think and to utter wicked sentiments about Jesus. The disciples having taken cognizance of this bitter resentment on the part of the leaders want Jesus to know about it, so that in his future words and actions he may figure with it. As if the Lord needed their advice! 13, 14. He answered and said, Every growth that my heavenly Father has not planted shall be uprooted. Let them go. They are blind leaders. Now if a blind man leads a blind man both shall fall into a pit.The underlying figure seems to be that of a growth or planting. The original does not here use the word commonly employed to indicate a plant. It says planting or growth, a growth of any size and found anywhere, whether in a garden, field, vineyard, grove, along a stream, or anywhere [Greek] -2 _ftnref9 [Greek] God's people may be viewed as a well-watered garden (Isa. 58:11), as God's field or acreage (I Cor. 3:9), as Jehovah's vineyard (Isa. 5:7). The believer is at times compared to a luxuriant tree (Ps. 1:3; 92:12). Under any figure the thought is emphasized that for a planting to thrive God must be the Planter. For human beings to fulfil their task to the glory of God and to enter heaven at last they must have been so firmly rooted that they have become one plant with Christ, grown together [Greek] -2 _ftnref10 [Greek] in the likeness of his death and subsequently in the likeness of his resurrection. However, in the present passage Jesus speaks of growths which his heavenly Father (John 5:17, 18) has not planted. Such growths remind us of the tares which the devil planted (Matt. 13:25, 39). They were destined to be uprooted and thrown into the fire (Luke 17:6; John 15:5; Jude 12). That is to happen at the time of the final judgment. Christ's critics belong to this group. Those who place their confidence in them are going to be uprooted along with them. This explains Christ's exhortation to the disciples, Let them go, thus literally. One might also render his command: Ignore them, Pay no attention to them, dissociate yourselves completely from them. Following these men will lead to disaster, for as leaders they are blind, says Jesus. Their blindness, moreover, is of a very tragic kind: (a.It is self-inflicted,the result of hardness of heartJohn 3:19). In that respect these Pharisees differ from people afflicted with physical blindness. (b.It is self-deluding,for these would-be guides imagine that they, they alone, are able to seeJohn 9:40, 41). This deplorable fact points up another striking contrast between them and those who are blind in the literal sense. How sad is the lot of the person who follows such a leader. The leader is blind and so is the follower. Shall not both fall into a pit? In this connection was Jesus thinking of a pit as the symbol of hell? We can say no more than that this may have been the case. Jesus has addressed a.the Pharisees and scribes (verses 3 9); b.the people in general (verses 10, 11); and c.his disciples (verses 12 14). He now receives response: 15. Peter answered and said to him, Explain the parable to us.The term parable is here used in the sense of pithy saying, mashal, the aphorism of verse 11. That Peter was the spokesman for The Twelve is clear from Christ's answer: 16. He said, Are you also even yet without understanding?Jesus seems to be saying, That others for example, the Pharisees and scribes, the people in general do not grasp my teaching (cf. verse 11) is not strange, but that you, who have associated with me for so long a period and so closely, even [Greek] -2 _ftnref11 ([Greek] are without insight into its meaning is inexcusable. We find something similar in John 14:9, So long a time have I been with you, and yet you have not learned to recognize me, Philip? Continued: 17, 18. Do you not know that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and passes into the latrine? But what comes out of the mouth issues from the heart, and that is what defiles a man.Even the best modern science can find no fault with Christ's statement as to what happens to whatever enters the mouth. Whether rather directly, as in the case of such intake as is not assimilated by the body, that is, which does not enter into the formation of new cells, or indirectly, as is true with respect to foods that are assimilated, in view of the fact that anabolism is constantly followed by catabolism, in the end elimination is what happens to whatever enters the mouth. None of it in any way defiles the heart and thus the person. On the other hand, the words that proceed from the lips have their source in the heart, the latter being the core and center of man's being, the mainspring of his thoughts, words, and actionsProv. 4:23). All these things proceed from within (Mark 7:21). The words, if wicked, defile the man. This point is made even clearer in verse (19. For from the heart issue wicked schemes, murders, adulteries, sexual sins, thefts, false testimonies, abusive speeches.As to these schemes or deliberations, the word used in the original gave rise to our English word dialogue. Although the dialogue that a person has with himself need not be sinister see Luke 2:35in which passage the deliberations referred to are not necessarily bad yet it is worthy of note that in nearly every passage in which the word is used the activity described is clearly of a sinful natureLuke 5:22; 6:8; 9:46, 47; Rom. 1:21; 14:1; I Cor. 3:20; Phil. 2:14; I Tim. 2:8). In I Tim. 2:8these deliberations are associated with wrath. Here in Matt. 15:19they are called evil; hence evil deliberations or wicked schemes. Wicked schemes reveal themselves in wicked words and deeds. Matthew mentions several of these, arranging them more or less according to their sequence in the second table of the Ten Commandments. By no means all of the items mentioned are necessarily associated with spoken words, but all of them come from within, from the heart. The action is from within outward. The manner in which Pharisees and scribes were teaching the younger generation to evade responsibility toward parents (see verses 3 9) furnishes an excellent illustration of a wicked scheme in connection with the fifth. [some would say the fourth ] commandment. The rest of the list is self-explanatory. Mark's list (7:21, 22) is twice as long. The important point is the same in both Gospels, recorded most fully by Matthew in these words: 20. These are the things that defile a man, but to eat with unrinsed hands does not defile a man, which is a direct answer to the charge made by the enemies (verses 1, 2). Let them therefore pay attention to the things that really matter instead of immersing themselves in ritualistic trivialities. Let them stop making the word of God null and void for the sake of their tradition! Summary of Chapter 15:1–20 Since the fame of Jesus is spreading, having reached even the palace of the king, and since the variety of miracles is increasing, the feeding of the five thousand having now been added to the many healings, it is not surprising that the Pharisees and scribes are becoming concerned lest they should lose their hold upon the people. So they come from Jerusalem, with sinister purpose. They soon find an issue. Approaching Jesus they demand to know why it is that his disciples neglect ceremonial hand rinsing before meals. They are not talking about washing physically dirty hands, as if the disciples were neglecting this, but about rinsing the hands, whether they were physically dirty or not, rinsing them in any event since they might have touched something or someone considered unclean. They are referring to a human tradition. In his answer Jesus points out that these Pharisees and scribes should refrain from criticizing, since what they themselves are doing is really bad, for they are transgressing (not a man-made regulationbut God's commandto honor father and motherExod. 20:12). You are telling the children how to evade the obligation of supporting their parents. You are saying to them: If your parents want anything from you, just tell them: Whatever it is you want me to hand over to you, is a gift,an offering to God. The Lord continues, You have made the word of God null and void for the sake of your tradition. He shows his critics that Isaiah's description of the hypocrites of his own day also applies to them: This people honor me with their lips But their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, Teaching (as their) doctrines precepts of men. Jesus then points out to them that it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles him. When in a fearful mood the disciples say to their Master, Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard what you said? he answers, Every growth that my heavenly Father has not planted shall be uprooted. Let them go. They are blind leaders, etc. Finally, in answer to Peter's request, Explain the parable to us, Jesus sheds further light on the fact that not what enters the mouth defiles the man, but the evil things that issue from the mouth and in the final analysis come out of the man's heart, constitute that which defiles him. CHAPTER XV: 21 39 Outline of Chapter 15:21–39 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him to Do B. The Retirement Plus Perean Ministries 15:21–28 The Faith of the Canaanite Woman Rewarded 15:29–31 Healing Great Multitudes 15:32–39 The Feeding of the Four Thousand 15:21–28 The Faith of the Canaanite Woman Rewarded Cf. Mark 7:24 30 21 Jesus went away from there and retired to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22 Then, lo and behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out, constantly crying, Take pity on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely tormented by a demon. 23 But he did not answer her a word. His disciples came and kept urging him, Send her away, for she is shouting after us. 24 But he answered, Only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel was I sent. 25 She, however, came, was falling at his feet and saying, Lord, help me. 26 He answered and said, It is not proper to take the children's bread and throw it to the house dogs. 27 Right, Lord, she said but even the house dogs eat some of the scraps that drop from their masters table. 28 Then Jesus answered and said to her, O woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you desire. And healed was her daughter from that very moment. The theme of the Synoptics, including Matthew, we may conceive to be The Work Which Thou Gavest Him to Do. The first division under this theme is Its Beginning or Inauguration(1:1 4:11). The second is Its Progress or Continuation(4:12 20:34). The first subdivision of this second division, namely, The Great Galilean Ministry(4:12 15:20) has now been completed. The second subdivision, The Retirement plus Perean Ministries, begins at this point (15:21) and continues through [Greek] -2 _ftnref12 [Greek] Justification for the name of this subdivision and also a brief characterization of its contents are found on pp. 8, 9. Tentativedates (certainly is impossible) are as follows: Retirement Ministry a.d. 29, April to October; Perean Ministry a.d. 29, December to a.d. 30, April. For the intervening Later Judean Ministry, a.d. 29, October to December, see especially the Gospel according to John (7:2 10:39). 21. Jesus went away from there and retired to the district of Tyre and Sidon. (This time Jesus retires or withdraws himself to definitely Gentile territory. It is clear that he leaves the land of Israel. This time it is not a case of outsiders coming to him (4:24, 25); he himself goes out to them. But this action of going out to them does not begin immediately. First he enters a house for the purpose of temporary seclusion, but he could not be hidMark 7:24). 22. Then, lo and behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out, constantly crying, Take pity on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely tormented by a demon.Note first of all her reverential attitude toward Jesus. She calls Jesus Lord (see on 7:21 and 8:2) and adds Son of David, honoring him as being indeed the promised Messiah, as has been shown in connection with 9:27 where the same title occurs (see also on 21:9, 15, 16; 22:41–45). The great contrast between the unbelief of the Jews (see the preceding paragraph: 15:1–20) and the faith of this woman, born a Gentile, stands out. Secondly, consider (her agony. She is crying out constantly, or again and again, as the Greek tense implies. The reason for her near despair is the fact that her dear little daughterMark 7:25) is demon-possessed. On Demon-Possession see above, pp. 436, 437. Moreover, the child's affliction is very serious, very grievous. What was Christ's immediate reaction? It is stated in verse 23. But he did not answer her a word.There was absolute silence on his part. He acted as if he had not even heard her. A little later more will be said about this seeming (never real!) indifference on the part of Jesus. Continued: His disciples came and kept urging him, Send her away, for she is shouting after us.The theory according to which the disciples meant, Grant her request and then dismiss her, is not supported by any solid argument. These men evidently considered this woman, who was constantly crying out after them, an intolerable nuisance (see on 14:15). 24. But he answered, Only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel was I sent.In this connection it is important to take note not only of the fact that Jesus seems to remain adament in his refusal to help this woman, but also of the fact that neither did he heed the urgent request of his disciples. The latter is sometimes forgotten. Yet, it is very important. One might even say that the Lord's refusal to give heed is aimed at the disciples far more than at the woman. Though the words addressed to her may seem harsh, at least he continues to deal with her. He even breaks his silence and is now talking to her. But as to the suggestion of the disciples, he does not even consider it worthy of an answer! One might also say: Granted that the words of the Lord recorded here in verse 24 were also meant for the ears of the disciples was this not the very ministry during which, in a special way, Jesus was teaching them? it remains true that Jesus by his very action as here recorded rejects their urgent request! But he does not reject the woman's request, though it seems as if he does. Jesus wishes to make it perfectly clear to all concerned that the wide-opening of the doors for the influx of the Gentiles into the kingdom of heaven is a matter that pertains to the future. For the present, in total harmony with 10:5, 6 (see on that passage), his mission is to those whom he tenderly calls the lost sheep (see on 9:36; 10:6) of the house of Israel. 25. She, however, came, was falling at his feet and saying, Lord, help me.The woman's a.attitude of reverence and b.bitter agony, both of which were mentioned in connection with verse 22, are clear also from verse 25. Matthew vividly pictures her in the act of worshipping Jesus, perhaps even prostrating herself at his feet again and [Greek] -2 _ftnref13 [Greek] A third feature is now added to those already enumerated, namely, her intense love for her little daughter. In verse 22 she had spoken about her daughter. Now, here in verse 25, in the heat of her agonizing appeal she says, Help me. She and her daughter are inseparable. It is in that sense that we can say that she identifies herself with her child. Is not this one of the chief characteristics of effective intercessory prayer, namely, to so immerse oneself into the trials and afflictions of others that these experiences become in a sense our own? Did not Jesus teach Saul (=Paul) that by persecuting Christ's followers he was persecuting Christ himself? See Acts 9:4; 22:7; 26:14. See also on Matt. 8:17. For the moment the Lord's answer was anything but encouraging: (26. He answered and said, It is not proper to take the children's bread and throw it to the house dogs.The word for dogs is not that used in 7:6Phil. 3:2). Not the large, savage, and ugly dogs prowling about the garbage thrown into the streets are meant here but the dogs kept in the homes as pets. Jesus had already fixed the attention of the woman upon the fact that he had not been sent to those outside of Israel (verse 24). In the same vein he now adds that it would not be proper to give Israel's blessings the blessings that belong to the children to those who do not belong to Israel. After all, dogs, no matter how dear to the owner, are not children, and have no right to be treated like children. This is probably the proper place to take up the question, Why did Jesus delay so long in giving this poor woman the help she needed so desperately? The answers that are given to this question vary rather widely. The old answer is to test her faith. Whether or not this answer satisfies depends on what is meant by testing faith. Another answer is that since only toward the end of the story (verse 28) Jesus becomes willing to grant this woman's emphatic request, he must have changed his mind at the last moment; hence the delay. This answer is unacceptable for the following reasons: a.If that had been the case why did he not heed the repeated advice of the disciples to send her away? Also, b.No other case is recorded in which Jesus refused to heed an earnest, humble, and sincere appeal for help. For him to have intended from the very start to reject this woman's plea would have been totally unlike Jesus as he is revealed to us in Scripture. After all he is the Lord who spoke the words of 7:7, 8; 11:28–30; John 7:37. In order to reach the right answer to our question it is probably necessary first of all to take note of the fact that Christ's delay if we may call it that in granting this woman's request is not unique. It is one of the many instances in which requests are not immediately answered. Abraham and Sarah had to wait a long time before they finally received Isaac (Gen. 21:1–5; Rom. 4:18–21). When the father of all believers (Rom. 4:11) was ordered to make Isaac a burnt-offering, it took what must have seemed a very long time indeed before he discovered that his son, whom he loved intensely (Gen. 22:2), was not going to be literally sacrificed. Did not David express dismay because God did not immediately answer his prayers? See (Ps. 22:2. And, turning now to the New Testament and calling attention to only a few of the many instances that could be cited, did it not seem as if Jesus was going to arrive at the home of Jairus too lateMark 5:35)? Did it not for the moment appear to the two blind men as if the Lord was indifferent to their cry (Matt. 9:27, 28)? If Jesus knew exactly what he was going to do about feeding the hungry multitude and Scripture affirms that he did indeed know this, then why did he not immediately tell Philip all about it, instead of saying to him, How are we to buy bread-cakes that these people may eat (John 6:5, 6)? And why do we read, So when he [Jesus] heard that he [Lazarus] was ill, (he then remained two days in the place where he wasJohn 11:6)? In several cases the reason is either plainly stated or at least suggested in the context; for example, Abraham waxed strong through faith (Rom. 4:20). Jairus is told, Fear not, only believe (Mark 5:36). In connection with Philip we read, This he was saying to test him (John 6:6). And in connection with Lazarus, the Lord says to his disciples, For your sake, that you may believe I am glad that I was not present (John 11:15). Evidently, raising a dead Lazarus would be a more effective means of strengthening faith than healing a sick Lazarus. The same reasoning should, in all probability, be applied in connection with the Syrophoenician or Canaanite woman. Jesus delayed to heed her request in order to test her faith, that is, to refine it as silver is refined, purified. He wanted to give her faith an opportunity for more glorious expression. He aimed to strengthen it by means of the very answer he had given her in verses 24 and 26; for she would now begin to realize, far better than if he had immediately healed her daughter, what an extraordinary blessing she was receiving. The more glorious expression of the woman's faith is found in verse 27. Right, Lord, she said, but even the house dogs eat some of the scraps that drop from their masters table.To the three things said about her in the preceding a fourth is now added, namely, her humility. She does not even resent being compared with a house dog as contrasted with a child. She accepts her inferior position. Fifthly, note also her quick-wittedness. She turns the very word of seeming reproach into a reason for optimism. She transforms impending defeat into jubilant victory. She is saying as it were, Am I being compared with a house dog? I accept what is implied in this comparison. I not only accept it, I rejoice because of it, for certainly good masters do not allow their pet dogs to starve to death. They permit them to eat the crumbs that fall from the table. Basic to all her words and actions is, sixthly, her unswerving God-given faith in Jesus,whom she has confessed as her Lord and Messiah. Seventhly and finally we shall ever remember this woman because of her perseverance,a quality that can be viewed either by itself or in combination with her faith (hence, her persevering faith). As to this perseverance the following should be noted. It has been said that Jesus is here departing from the principle that he has himself expressed. He is making an exception as if this were bad! to the rule, Only to the house of Israel was I sent. Well, in a sense, he was making an exception, a marvelous exception indeed (see p. 456), for certainly this woman was a Greek, a Gentile (Matt. 15:22; Mark 7:26). In a different sense, however, this was no exception at all, as will become evident when we consider that she triumphed in spite of (a.the initial silence of Jesus, b.his seeming (never real!) coldness and his words of seeming reproach, and c.the indifference of the disciples. Now was it not a very similar manifestation of determined perseverance in the face of oppositionGen. 32:26) that changed a Jacob into an Israel (Gen. 32:28)? This woman, then, was in that sense a true Israelite! 28. Then Jesus answered and said to her, O woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you desire. And healed was her daughter from that very moment.Divine love is so infinite and marvelous that it even praises a human being for exercising a gift in this case faith with which this very divine love has endowed her, and which apart from that divine activity could not have gone into action at all. The praise which this woman receives cannot fail to remind us of the eulogy with which Jesus lauded the centurion (8:10). Here as well as in 8:10, 11 is there not a prediction of the fast approaching wide-opening of the door for the reception of the Gentiles into the kingdom of heaven? Note also that the blessing bestowed on the woman cannot even be conceived of apart from that with which her daughter was favored. When the woman received what she desired this implied that the daughter likewise was given what she needed. The latter was healed immediately and completely! Moreover, these blessings did not rob children of their bread. 15:29–31 Healing Great Multitudes Cf. Mark 7:31, 37 29 Jesus left that place and went along the Sea of Galilee. He climbed a hill and was sitting there. 30 Large crowds came to him, having with them (the) lame, blind, crippled, those lacking the power of speech, and many others. They laid them down at Jesus feet, and he healed them, 31 so that the people were astonished when they saw (the) dumb speaking, (the) crippled restored, (the) lame walking, and (the) blind seeing; and they glorified the God of Israel. 29. Jesus left that place and went along the Sea of Galilee. He climbed a hill and was sitting there.Both in Matthew and in Luke there is no time indication. How long Jesus stayed in the district of Tyre and Sidon is not known. Even the place to which the Lord now wended his way is only very vaguely described. All we read is that he went along the Sea of Galilee. He spent at least three days on the eastern or southeastern, the less densely populated, shore of the sea. So much is clear from verse 32 and from Mark 8:2. Cf. Matt. 4:25. Here, then, near the sea, Jesus climbed a [Greek] -2 _ftnref14 [Greek] on which (not necessarily on its very top) he is pictured as sitting down. Continued: 30, 31. Large crowds came to him, having with them (the) lame, blind, crippled, those lacking the power of speech, and many others.Soon the news of Christ's arrival began to spread throughout the entire Decapolis (League of Ten Cities), described in connection with 4:25. As had happened before so also now, from the entire region roundabout people flocked to Jesus bringing their afflicted relatives, friends, and neighbors. The crowds knew that Jesus was able to help in every need, it mattered not whether people were merely sick (14:35, 36), sick and/or demon-possessed (4:24; 8:16), or, as catalogued here in 15:30, 31, mainly handicapped, that is, blind, crippled, etc., Jesus was willing and able to heal them all. They laid them down at Jesus feet, and he healed them.The very simplicity of the account makes it all the more touching. As far as the record goes no questions were asked as to whether a person happened to be Gentile this was Gentile territory or Jew. There is nothing at all to indicate whether the handicapped individual had already accepted Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior (which seems improbable) or whether perhaps he or his sponsor believed in him only as a worker of miracles. All that mattered was that this man or woman or child needed help, and that Jesus was able and was eager to provide this help, this healing so that the people were astonished when they saw (the) dumb speaking, (the) crippled restored, (the) lame walking, and (the) blind seeing. It all happened at once. This was not a case of oneastounding miracle; no, miracles were being performed on every side, wherever one might look. That many of the people on whom these miracles were being performed were Gentiles by birth is clearly implied in the manner in which their thanksgiving and praise is described: and they glorified the God of Israel.This certainly reads as if it means that they ascribed honor to the God who originally was not theirs but the God of another people. Something truly wonderful was happening. There had been a time when many people from this region made a trek to Galilee to be healed by Jesus (4:23, 25). But now the Prophet from Galilee had actually come nearer to them. What a blessing! In this connection it is certainly unnecessary to construct arguments in defense of Christ's manifestation of mercy toward those who for the most part were Gentiles by birth. For example, to say that Jesus had a right to work among these people because the Decapolis was considered part of Galilee and therefore belonged to the Jewish [Greek] -2 _ftnref15 [Greek] so that in performing his ministry of mercy among them the Lord was not really violating the principle expressed in 15:24, [Greek] -2 _ftnref16 [Greek] is, to say the least, unnecessary. To include all of these people in the group designated the lost sheep of the house of Israel, is not this stretching the meaning of that designation somewhat beyond its proper limits? When during an Alpine avalanche a rescue team is sent out to save the life of a skier, the order to do this mentioning onlythat one person; but the team, having arrived at the scene, saves not only his life but also that of three others, are not the rescuers lauded for having done this? So also the rule expressed in 15:24 must not be construed as a restriction so rigid and confining that Jesus would not have been able by word and deed to provide a foreglimpse of the entrance of the Gentiles into the kingdom of heaven. If that had been the case he could not have healed the centurion's servant (8:5–13). Or shall we say that the centurion's request was granted because he happened to be living on Jewish soil and therefore belonged to the lost sheep of the house of Israel? This would be impossible. In fact in the very context he is viewed as a forerunner of those who shall come from east and west, and not as belonging to the children of the kingdom. Nevertheless, his prayer was answered! Were the people of the Decapolis, etc., given instruction in the way of life, the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven? This is not recorded. Nevertheless, I would join Lenski in opining that we can hardly imagine that the Lord would have spent three days (verse 32) with these crowds without ever teaching them about the God of Israeland his kingdom of salvation. [Greek] -2 _ftnref17 [Greek] Applicable to verses 29 31, as well as to similar passages (especially 14:34–36) are the words of E. H. Plumptre: Thine arm, O Lord, in days of old Was strong to heal and save; It triumphed o er disease and death, O er darkness and the grave. To thee they went: the blind, the dumb, The palsied, and the lame, The leper with his tainted life The sick with fevered frame. And lo, thy touch brought life and health, Gave speech and strength and sight; Lo, youth renewed and frenzy calmed Owned thee, the Lord of light. And now, O Lord, be near to bless, Almighty as of yore, In crowded streets, by restless couch, As by Gennesareth's shore. 15:32–39 The Feeding of the Four Thousand Cf. Mark 8:1 10 32, Then Jesus summoned his disciples and said to them, I am moved with compassion for the multitude, because already for three days they have remained with me and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, lest they collapse on the way. 33 And the disciples said to him, Where in this uninhabited region would we get bread enough to feed such a crowd? 34 Jesus asked them, How many bread-cakes do you have? They answered, Seven, and a few small fishes. 35 So, having ordered the people to take their places on the ground, 36 he took the seven bread-cakes and the fishes, and having given thanks he broke them and kept giving them to the disciples, and the disciples (kept giving them) to the people. 37 All ate and were filled. What was left over of the pieces they picked up, seven hampers full. 38 The number of those who ate was four thousand men, not counting women and children. 39 Now after he had sent the crowds away he stepped into the boat and came to the region of Magadan. 32. Then Jesus summoned his disciples and said to them, I am moved with compassion for the multitude, because already for three days they have remained with me and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, lest they collapse on the way. (A human being in need or a crowd in need always filled the heart of Christ with compassion(on which see footnote 425, p. 439). See, for example, 9:36; 14:14; 20:34. Also, he wants his disciples to be similarly affectedJohn 6:5). So he summons them and reveals to them that his heart is going out to the multitude. In this connection it must not be overlooked that, as indicated earlier, this is the very ministry during which Jesus in a special way gave instruction to his disciples. A strange thing was happening in this Gentile region. The crowds would be with Jesus in the morning hours and also in the afternoon. When it became time to go home they, instead, would stay on. Evidently they did not wish to miss out on any of Christ's marvelous deeds. They were still there the next day, and even the next. Finally their food supply had dwindled down to nothing. If under these circumstances they should be dismissed they might well [Greek] -2 _ftnref18 ([Greek] on the way, so the Lord informs his disciples. This must not happen. Continued: 33. And the disciples said to him, Where in this uninhabited region would we get bread enough to feed such a crowd?The uninhabited region, evidently to the east or southeast of the Sea of Galilee, was a desolate place, a veritable wildernessMark 8:4; II Cor. 11:26; Heb. 11:38). To say that the disciples meant, Where would weget bread enough for this crowd, but what wecannot do thoucanst do, and that these men show that they have taken to heart the lesson of the feeding of the five thousand, and therefore deserve credit for their question, seems somewhat unnatural. The more usual interpretation, namely, that the disciples were at a loss what to do about the situation, is certainly far more in keeping with the impression which their words make upon the average reader. Besides, this second interpretation is in harmony with 16:8–10. 34. Jesus asked them, How many bread-cakes do you have? They answered, Seven and a few small fishes.This strongly reminds one of 14:17. To say that what the Lord is about to do is less important than the feeding of the five thousand, because this time it took more bread-cakes to feed less people, is an error. Humanly speaking it is just as impossible to cause seven bread-cakes and a few fishes to be sufficient for four thousand than to make five bread-cakes and two fishes enough for five thousand. It takes a miracle to do either. The reason for Christ's question, which required a detailed answer, was probably this, that the complete and accurate knowledge of the (humanly speaking) totally inadequate supply would make the miracle stand out all the more strikingly. The miracle itself is now related: 35, 36. So, having ordered the people to take their places on the ground, he took the seven bread-cakes and the fishes, and having given thanks he broke them and kept giving them to the disciples, and the disciples (kept giving them) to the people.With a few minor exceptions this is the same as what is found in 14:19; hence, for explanation see on that passage. Exceptions: a.The phrase on the grass of 14:19 is replaced by on the ground. It is later in the season now. The grass has withered away. b.There is no mention now of looking to heaven, but that is understood. c.A different verb is substituted for the action of the host generally the father of the family but in this case Jesus in invoking the blessing upon the food, but, as was pointed out previously (see on 14:19), the two verbs are synonymous. d.The substitution of kept giving for gave [Greek] -2 _ftnref19 [Greek] makes the present account even more vivid than the former. The greatness of the miracle is shown in the next two verses. To bring out their almost verbal resemblance to 14:20, 21 (see on that passage for explanation), the two accounts will be placed side by side: 1 All ate and were filled. They picked up what was left over of the pieces: twelve baskets full. The number of men who ate was about five thousand, not counting women and children. All ate and were filled. What was left over of the pieces they picked up: seven hampers full. The number of those who ate was four thousand men, not counting women and children. Note the twelve basketsof broken pieces that were picked up in connection with the feeding of the five thousand, as compared with the seven hampersfilled with such pieces that were collected [Greek] -2 _ftnref20 ([Greek] There is, after all, a difference between a basket, be it ever so strong, and a large basket or hamper. One can easily carry a baby in a basket, but it took nothing less than a hamper to lower Paul from the wallActs 9:25). Once this point is grasped it also becomes clear that it is not at all sure that after the feeding of the four thousand less broken pieces were picked up than after that of the five thousand. The seven hampersmay have contained no less bread than the twelve baskets. Is the account of the feeding of the four thousand a near-repetition of the earlier miracle, so that had it been omitted entirely from Holy Writ we should not have been the poorer for this omission? Definitely not. Two additional points are now made clear: a.Jesus is able not only to performbut also to repeathis mighty works. He is always ready to help; and b.His sympathy is shown not only to the people of the covenant but even to those outside of it. The story concludes with the words: 39. Now after he had sent the crowds away he stepped into the boat and came to the region of Magadan.Having been amply fed, the crowds are now sent home. Besides, the people must not be given an opportunity to give concrete expression to erroneous and dangerous deductionsJohn 6:15in connection with the feeding of the five thousand . The Lord then stepped into the boat the one in which he had arrived on the east side of the sea, though this boat was not mentioned earlier and crossed over to the region of Magadan, or, as a variant reading has it, Magdala -2 _ftnref21 (A.V.). (Mark 8:10has Dalmanutha. Since the crossing must now have been from the eastern to the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, and since south of the Plain of Gennesaret a cave bearing the name Talmanutha was found, it would seem that it was at or near this spot on the western shore of the sea that Jesus landed. This interpretation also enables us, without great difficulty, to obtain an intelligible view of Christ's further travels, namely, recrossing the sea to the northeastern side (i.e., to Bethsaida Julias), and from there proceeding to the villages of Caesarea PhilippiMark 8:13, 22, 27). Summary of Chapter 15:21–39 For a long time perhaps from December of the year 27 to April of the year 29 Jesus had labored mostly in and around Galilee. Now at last the Great Galilean Ministry is ended. Jesus retires to the district of Tyre and Sidon. The Retirement Ministry has begun. It will probably last until about October of the same year. Jesus, then, has now definitely entered Gentile territory. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XVI Outline of Chapter 16 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him to Do 16:1–4 Renewed Craving for Signs and Renewed Rebuke 16:5–12 The Yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees 16:13–20 Peter's Confession and Christ's Reply 16:21–28 The First Prediction of the Passion and the Resurrection 16:1–4 Renewed Craving for Signs and Renewed Rebuke Cf. Mark 8:11 13; Luke 12:54 56 16 1 Now the Pharisees and Sadducees came and, tempting him, asked him to show them a sign from heaven. 2 But he answered and said to them, In the evening you say, Fair weather, for the sky is red; 3 and in the morning, Bad weather today, for the sky is red and lowering. You know how to interpret correctly the appearance of the sky, but the signs of the times you cannot interpret. 4 An evil and adulterous generation is looking for a sign, but no sign shall be given it except that of Jonah. And having left them, he went away. Now that Jesus has arrived once more on the western, more densely populated, and more Jewish side of the Sea of Galilee, another confrontation of himself and his bitter opponents is not surprising. Had these enemies been anxiously waiting for his arrival so that they could begin their sinister attack? We read: 1. Now the Pharisees and Sadducees came and, tempting him, asked him to show them a sign from heaven.Had they heard about his miracles of providing food for the hungry and physical restoration for the handicapped on the eastern side of the sea? Was it this that had nourished afresh their ever-present envy? As before (see on 12:38) so also now the sign-value of Jesus miracles, the idea that these marvelous works indicated that he had been sent by God, was challenged. The Pharisees could not very well deny his extraordinary powers but they tried hard to convince themselves and others that these were nothing but black (magic, straight out of hell. Besides, were they not merely earthly signs? What they are once again asking for is a sign from heaven. Let him cause manna to drop from the sky, as (according to their view) Moses had doneExod. 16; cf. John 6:32). Or, like Joshua, by means of prayer let him cause the sun and the moon to stand still (Josh. 10:12–14). Or again, as in the days of Deborah and Barak, let him make the stars to fight for Israel (Judg. 5:20). Or, in imitation of Samuel, let him, by means of a fervent petition, draw down a thunderstorm to discomfit the Philistines of his own day, that is, the Romans (I Sam. 7:10). Let him at least not lag behind Elijah whose imploration brought an instantaneous response of fire from heaven (I Kings 18:30–40). As if, had he done any of these things, or anything of a similar sensational nature see on 12:38, 39 these bitter foes, driven by envy, would not have ascribed also such a sign to Beelzebul as its source! See Luke 16:31. This time (contrast 12:38, 39) we are told specifically that the purpose of the enemy was to temptJesus, to put him to the test, in the hope and with the expectation that he would fail, and would thus be publicly discredited. There is another difference between 12:38, 39 and the present account. This time, as Matthew not only states but repeats and stresses (16:1, 6, 11, 12), the Pharisees are joined by the Sadducees in their efforts to expose Jesus to public embarrassment and loss of face. The marked contrast between these two parties and the reason why they were able, nevertheless, to form a united front against Jesus, have already been indicated; see pp. 201–204. This very combination of forces shows that the effort to destroy the One whom they considered their enemy was becoming more and more determined. The Pharisees, single-handedly most of the time (Mark 3:6), had frequently attacked Jesus. But now we see Pharisees and Sadduceesallied against him. In asking for a sign from heaven did these men not realize that thesign from heaven was standing right in front of them? See Matt. 24:30; Luke 2:34. Had he not already provided abundant proof of the genuine character of his mission? Had he not done so by word and deed, in fulfilment of prophecy? See Matt. 11:4–6. 2, 3. But he answered and said to them, In the evening you say, Fair weather, for the sky is red; and in the morning, Bad weather today, for the sky is red and lowering. You know how to interpret correctly the appearance of the sky, but the signs of the times you cannot [Greek] -2 _ftnref1 [Greek] Jesus rebukes these men because they pay far more attention to constantly changing weather conditions than to events that usher in epoch-making historical changes. Did not the coming into this world of the Son of man, with his emphasis on the power, grace, and love of God, rather than on man-made often silly regulations, and with his exhibition of power over everything, including even disease, death, demons, and destructive storms, foretell the downfall of legalistic Judaism? Did it not spell the rise of a church gathered out of both Jews and Gentiles and consisting of all those who believed in salvation by grace through faith and in a life of gratitude to God and of service to man? Was not this coming and that manifestation of power and grace a clear prediction both of the doom of Satan and of the significant strengthening of the kingdom that can never be destroyed? Were these critics utterly blind? Could they not read the handwriting on the wall? Did they not understand that their days, including their quibbling about nonessentials, were numbered, and that the gospel that was being proclaimed by the Prophet from Galilee, even the Son of God, would begin to spread and spread until it covered the earth? But no, the signs of the [Greek] -2 _ftnref2 [Greek] do not seem to interest them. Theyprefer to concentrate on the weather! Along with ever so many people who observe the sky, these Pharisees and Sadducees knew how to differentiate between and judge [Greek] -2 _ftnref3 [Greek] the varying aspects of the sky. They knew that in their country a bright red [Greek] -2 _ftnref4 [Greek] sky was a frequent indicator of a clear [Greek] -2 _ftnref5 ([Greek] the cloud masses and mists having moved to the west. When the sunset is clear, there's nothing to fear. On the other hand when, during the night, the wind, coming from the west, that is, from the Mediterranean, had driven clouds and vapors across the country, so that at dawn the eastern sky was a brilliant red mixed with threatening bands of darkness, they knew that a rainy or stormy day might well be in the offing, for, When clouds move down and turn dark gray, one may expect a stormy day. Of course, all such predictions are subject to many variables: vision may be obscured and distorted by dust clouds, winds may changeJohn 3:8), etc., but by and large the weather predictions made by Pharisees and Sadducees were correct. How deplorable that these men were majoring on minors! As to their request for a sign, as if none had been given, Jesus answers: (4. An evil and adulterous generation is looking for a sign, but no sign shall be given it except that of Jonah.By means of that sign, Christ's atoning death and glorious resurrection from the grave, he would triumph completely over them, and would prove himself to be the MessiahRom. 1:4). This was going to be the sign of his complete victory over all his enemies (Matt. 26:64; Mark 14:62) and a forecast of his triumphant return upon the clouds of heaven (Phil. 2:9–11; 3:20; Rev. 1:5, 7). For the rest, see the explanation of 12:39, where these same words are found. For generation see on 1:17. What a sign this death and resurrection would be for the Pharisees, who were constantly planning Jesus death, with no fear that he would ever be able to conquer death; and for the Sadducees, who did not even believe in any resurrection! And having left them, he went away.They are abandoned to their fate, the destiny they, by their hardness of heart, have chosen for themselves. 16:5–12 The Yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees Cf. Mark 8:14 21 5. And when the disciples went to the other side they forgot to take along bread. 6 Jesus said to them, Look out for and be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees. 7 They began to reason among themselves, saying, It's because we didn't take any bread. 8 When Jesus noticed this he said, Why do you reason among yourselves, you men of little faith, that you have no bread? 9 Do you still lack understanding, and do you not remember the five bread-cakes for the five thousand and how many baskets you picked up? 10 Or the seven bread-cakes for the four thousand and how many hampers you picked up? 11 How is it then that you do not understand that I was not talking to you about bread but (said to you), Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees? 12 Then they understood that he had not told them to be on their guard against yeast used in bread but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. 5. And when the disciples went to the other side they forgot to take along bread.Jesus and his disciples had spent a little while on the western shore of the sea (15:39). Now they recross the same body of water, this time going back to the east or northeast side. As they went [Greek] -2 _ftnref6 ([Greek] or started out (Beck's rendering), they forgot to buy bread. One solitary bread-cake is all they had with them in the boatMark 8:14). Continued: 6. Jesus said to them, Look out for and be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.The Master is still thinking about his recent experience with these two groups (see verses 1 4). Since these two had combined in their assault against him he speaks of them as if they were not two but one, onedefinite article preceding Pharisees and Sadducees. Well, they were indeed one, namely, in the basic principle that governed their lives as shown in their effort to attain salvation or security by their own efforts. Religion in both cases was outward conformity to a certain standard. They were one in dislike of single-hearted devotion to truth and righteousness. [Greek] -2 _ftnref7 [Greek] They were one, accordingly, in their philosophy of life and therefore also basically in their teaching. Thus, although the outwardly pious Pharisees may be contrasted with the worldly Sadducees, yet when the Pharisees were teaching the younger generation how to evade the requirement of honoring their parents (15:3–9) were they not just as worldly as the Sadducees? It is against this teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees that Jesus is here earnestly warning his disciples. He calls their teaching yeast, for like an increasingly penetrating principle it influenced their own as well as other lives. In view of the fact that the disciples had already heard the parable of the yeast which a woman took and put into three measures of wheat flour, until the whole batch had risen (13:33), there was really no good reason for misunderstanding what Jesus meant. Nevertheless, the disciples misunderstood it: 7. They began to reason among themselves, saying, It's because we didn't take any bread.They interpreted yeast literally, and thought that Jesus was warning them against accepting any bread from Pharisees and Sadducees. Here, then, we have another instance of what was happening repeatedly, namely, that human minds, by nature superficial, failed to grasp the deep and often figurative meaning of Christ's sayings. For other instances of erroneously literal interpretation see John 2:19, 20; 3:3, 4; 4:13–15; 6:51, 52; 11:11, 12. The disciples, in saying, It's because we didn't take any bread, were guilty also of another error, as is clear from Christ's reaction as recorded in the following verses. They thought that the Lord was very displeased with them for having forgotten to buy bread; at least, they were worried about this lack of bread-cakes. Note how in verses 8 10 Jesus reflects on this irresponsible worry; in verse 11, on the misinterpretation of his words of warning. 8 10. When Jesus noticed this he said, Why do you reason among yourselves, you men of little faith, that you have no bread? Do you still lack understanding, and do you not remember the five bread-cakes for the five thousand and how many baskets you picked up? Or the seven bread-cakes for the four thousand and how many hampers you picked up?Again, as before see on 6:30; 8:26; and for the singular see 14:31 Jesus calls the disciples men of little faith, that is, men who were not sufficiently taking to heart the comfort which they should have derived from the presence, promises, power, and love of their Master, and were not applying to the present situation the lessons received in the past. The Lord reminds them of the time when five bread-cakes more than fed five thousand, and of that other occasion when seven bread-cakes more than sufficed for four thousand. Do the disciples remember how many baskets full of broken pieces were collected afterward in connection with the first miracle, and how many hampers in connection with the second? For the distinction between baskets and hampers see footnote 592 on p. 630. The failure of the disciples to apply to the present situation the lesson of the multiplication, not once but twice, of the bread-cakes was certainly inexcusable. But when it is argued, as has happened, that this part of the story is so unnatural as to warrant the conclusion that it is also unhistorical, the answer is that such behavior, though inexcusable, is after all not entirely inexplicable. The idea that a few rolls will suffice for only a few people is so deeply embedded in the human mind that the presence of anxiety when only a single one is available must not be regarded as impossible or unnatural. Besides, for the person who accepts God's Word as true there is no insuperable difficulty in believing that the event as here recorded took place in every detail as recorded. As to the misinterpretation of Christ's words of warning the story continues as follows: 11. How is it then that you do not understand that I was not talking to you about bread but (said to you), Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees?If the disciples had reflected on the fact that concern with reference to bread for a small company,though understandable, was totally out of place on the basis of the fact that Jesus with a few bread-cakes had twice fed thousands,with plenty of bread left on both occasions, their minds would have turned in a different direction in attempting to interpret the Master's warning with respect to the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees. I was not talking to you about bread, says Jesus, but I was warning you to beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The result of Christ's explanation, an explanation recorded only by Matthew, was favorable: 12. Then they understood that he had not told them to be on their guard against yeast used in bread but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.Finally, the light dawned on them so that they [Greek] -2 _ftnref8 [Greek] that Jesus was warning them against the teachingof the Pharisees and Sadducees. 16:13–20 Peter's Confession and Christ's Reply Cf. Mark 8:27 30; Luke 9:18 21 13 Now when Jesus arrived in the district of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, Who do the people say that the Son of man is? 14 They said, Some (say) John the Baptist; some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. 15 But you, he asked, Who do you say that I am? 16 Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 Jesus answered and said to him, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for it is not flesh and blood but my Father who is in heaven who has revealed this to you. 18 And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. 19 I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 20 Then he gave the disciples strict orders not to tell anyone that he was the Christ. Jesus continues to instruct his disciples. During this Ministry of the Retirement he has already (by exampletaught them to help those in need, whether Jew or Gentile (15:21–39); and by preceptto be on their guard against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees (16:1–12). Of course, this teaching was simply a continuation of that which had been given earlier, but could now be imparted with greater emphasis since the Master was spending more time alone with his disciples. Beginning with 16:13 he is going to teach them matters concerning himself. As Kinghe is in complete control of every situation, as he shows throughout; as Prophet,he is about to set forth that he is indeed the long expected Messiah, and that as such, in fulfilment of prophecy he must suffer, be put to death, and rise again, truths which before had been conveyed to the disciples in a veiled manner only (10:38; 12:40) but were now going to be revealed to them clearly. Now was the right time, for as Highpriestthe Son of man will soon be bringing himself as an offering in exchange for manyMark 10:45). To bring about the right atmosphere of quietness, serenity, and privacy, the Lord decides to go with his disciples to the district of Caesarea Philippi: 13. Now when Jesus arrived in the district of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, Who do the people say that the Son of man is?If the other side to which the little company had arrived previously (16:5) was anywhere in the neighborhood of Bethsaida Julias, then from there almost straight north to Caesarea Philippi was a distance of approximately twenty-four miles. By Philip the tetrarch this place had been enlarged, beautified, and named in honor of Caesar Augustus. Near it was a sanctuary to the pagan god Pan, which gave rise to the name Paneasto mark the general site where Caesarea was subsequently located. The very designation Panis still reflected in Bniys, as it is called today. It is located near the northern tip of that small section of S.W. Syria that is now occupied by Israel. To distinguish Caesarea to which reference is made here in 16:13 from its namesake, the far more important seaport south of Mt. Carmel, and to indicate its founder, it was called Caesarea Philippi. Situated near one of the sources of the Jordan River, with 9,232 feet high majestic Mt. Hermon, snow-covered throughout most of the year, in the immediate background, it was truly a landscape of unforgettable [Greek] -2 _ftnref9 ([Greek] a place exactly suited to the purpose for which Jesus wished to use it, namely, for prayerLuke 9:18) and for imparting instruction to his disciples. Having been strengthened through fellowship with his heavenly Father, Jesus now asks his disciples, Who do the people say that the Son of man is? For a detailed study of the term Son of man see on 8:20. The disciples knew that Son of man was their Master's self-designation, which explains why both (Mark 8:27and Luke 9:18record the question in the form &that Iam. Already Jesus knew that at the appropriate moment, that is, after the disciples reply, he would ask an even more important question, the one found in verse 15. What had been veiled heretofore must now come out into the open, not as yet for announcement to the general public, but so that the disciples may know who this Jesus really is and what is going to happen to him. Then, when the dramatic events do actually take place these men will not remain as thoroughly perplexed as would have been the case had they not been pre-informed about themJohn 14:29; 16:1, 4, 33). Continued: (14. They said, Some (say) John the Baptist; some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.They graciously omit that some identified Jesus with Beelzebul (10:25). This omission may also be explained by the fact that Jesus was not asking what envious scribes and Pharisees thought of him but what name the people in general applied to him. The answer was that some were of the opinion that Jesus was John the Baptist, brought back to life (cf. 14:2). Others held him to be Elijah. Now, although John had gone forth in the spirit and power of ElijahLuke 1:17), and was therefore going to be called Elijah by no one less than Jesus himself, as Matthew's next chapter indicates (17:12), yet he was not literally Elijah, and it was the literal, personal forerunner Elijah whom many of the Jews expected and confused with Jesus, partly as a result of their misinterpretation of Mal. 4:5. These first two groups seem to have viewed Jesus as a forerunner of the Messiah. Still others identified Jesus with Jeremiah, as another forerunner perhaps? Did they i (magine that, in the person of Jesus, Jeremiah had returned in order to bring back the tent, the ark, and the altar of incense, which, according to a legend recorded in II Macc. 2:4–8, that prophet had hid in a cave? Finally, there were those who considered Jesus to be neither the Messiah nor even his forerunner but simply one of the prophets risen againLuke 9:19). And now the far more important question: 15. But you, he asked, Who do you say that I am?On a previous occasion (see on 14:33) the disciples had already exclaimed, Thou art indeed God's Son. Had this been merely a momentary reaction to a mighty miracle, the giving vent to a conviction that had just as quickly disappeared? Or had the truth that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, the very Son of God, become permanently lodged in their hearts and minds? In the original enormous stress is placed on But you. This personal pronoun, second person plural, stands at the very head of the question. It appears first as a word all by itself, and is then included again as an element in the verb. In the translation an attempt has been made to retain this tremendous emphasis. Salvation is a very personal matter. The people all around us may have their various opinions about Jesus, but what do wethink of him? That is the question. It must be borne in mind that this question had been addressed to all these men, not just to one of them; hence, you, not you. Accordingly when oneof the Twelve now answers it, he does so as the spokesman for the entire group, and the answer which Jesus gives him must therefore also be regarded as not being altogether without significance for the group. 16. Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.The personality of Peter and his position of leadership has received earlier comment (see on 4:18–22; 10:2; 14:28, 29). In the present passage note: a. Probably to add solemnity and clarity to the record of the event this disciple's full name is here used: Simon Peter. This appellation is the usual one in John sGospel, but not in the Synoptics. It occurs in Luke 5:8, in connection with another context of deep emotion and humble reverence. b. In the Gospels and in the book of Acts Peter frequently represents The Twelve, as is clear not only from the present context but also, among others, from Matt. 15:15, 16; 19:27, 28; 26:35, 40, 41; Luke 8:45; 9:32, 33; 12:41; 18:28; John 6:67 69; Acts 1:15; 2:14, 37, 38; and 5:29. Nevertheless, his identity is not lost. It is Peter who speaks and Peter who is going to be addressed in verses 17 19. c. Even before this time Peter had made soul-stirring declarations concerning Jesus (Luke 5:8; John 6:68, 69), but the present profession of faith is the most complete of them all. d. As to definiteness, in this concise statement, containing only ten words, the original uses the definite article no less than four times. e. When Peter declares Jesus to be the Christ he means the long awaited Anointed One, the One who as Mediator was set apart or ordained by the Father and anointed with the Holy Spirit, to be his people's chief Prophet (Deut. 18:15, 18; Isa. 55:4; Luke 24:19; Acts 3:22, 7:37); only Highpriest (Ps. 110:4; Rom. 8:34; Heb. 6:20; 7:24; 9:24); and eternal King. (Ps. 2:6; Zech. 9:9; Matt. 21:5; 28:18; Luke 1:33; John 10:28; Eph. 1:20–23; Rev. 11:15; 12:10, 11; 17:14; 19:6). f. Peter's declaration that Jesus is the Son of the living God can mean no less than that in a unique sense, a sense not applicable to any mortal, Jesus is, was, and always will be the Son of that God who not only is himself the only living One, over against all the dead so-called gods of the pagans (Isa. 40:18–31), but also is the only source of life for all that lives. Immediate, definite, warm, and commendatory is Christ's response to Peter's confession: 17. Jesus answered and said to him, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for it is not flesh and blood but my Father who is in heaven who has revealed this to you.The literature on the interpretation of 16:17–19, as a whole or in part, is [Greek] -2 _ftnref10 ([Greek] The designation Simon Bar-Jonah, that is, Simon, son of JonahJohn 1:42), was for the person addressed a reminder of what he was by nature, simply a human son of a human father. He was a man who of himself could not have contributed anything worthwhile, just one human being among many. This reminder is going to be followed shortly (verse 18) by an affirmation of that which by grace this same Simon Bar-Jonah had become, namely, a worthy bearer of the name Cephas (Aramaic) or Peter (Greek). Jesus pronounces this Simon Bar-Jonah, alias Peter, blessed,pouring into this word all the depth of meaning which it has in the beatitudes (see on 5:1–3). Naturally, all who agree with Peter are also blessed. In continuing his address to Peter, Jesus emphasizes that flesh and blood, that is, merely human calculation, cogitation, intuition, or tradition, could never have produced in this disciple's heart and mind the insight into the sublime truth that he had just now so gloriously professed. On the expression flesh and blood see also -2 _ftnref11 N.T.C.on Gal. 1:16and on Eph. 6:12. It was, says Jesus, my Father who is in heaven who had disclosed this truth to Simon Bar-Jonah and had enabled him to give buoyant expression to it. To this disciple, and to all those similarly minded, he, this Father in heaven, had revealed it (11:25, 26); and this not necessarily directly, by whispering something into the ear, but by blessing to the heart the means of grace, not the least of these means being the lessons which issued from the words and works of Jesus. In speaking about (to) the One who sent him, not only the eternal essence-relationship but certainly also the warmth of love existing between the persons of the Holy Trinity are disclosed by Christ's preference for the designation myFather. In several passages his use of this phrase is recorded (11:27; 20:23; 25:34; 26:39, 42, 53). In a number of instances the fuller appellation my Father (who is) in heaven is used (in addition to 16:17 see also 7:21; 10:32, 33; 12:50; 18:10, 19), or else my heavenly Father (15:13; 18:35). Jesus continues: 18. And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.& The interpretation of this passage varies widely. As I see it, the first three of the following views must be rejected, the fourth one appreciated, the fifth adopted: 1. The passage is unauthentic. It must have been inserted or interpolated, eingeschoben(W. Soltau), at a later time. It was written, perhaps, to enhance the authority of Peter. It is hard to believe that Jesus himself ever spoke these words. Neither Mark nor Luke has them. Answer.Since the passage is found in the best and earliest manuscripts as well as in those of later date it cannot be dismissed so lightly. Was it not natural for Jesus, with the cross so near, to have made predictions and issued orders concerning the future of the church? As to Mark's omission of the praise which Jesus bestows upon Peter because of the latter's confession, it should be borne in mind that Mark was, according to reliable tradition, Peter's interpreter, and that it is reasonable to suppose that Peter, the fiery post-resurrection preacher, who had become a humble man, in telling the story of Jesus downgraded his own contribution to the memorable event described in 16:13–20. So his interpreter, Mark, does the same. And Luke, as so often, follows Mark's account. 2. This passage (especially 16:17–19) proves that Peter was the first pope. The pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven, of earth, and of hell. He wields the two swords, the spiritual and the temporal. [Greek] -2 _ftnref12 [Greek] The Catholic Church teaches that our Lord conferred on St. Peter the first place of honor and jurisdiction in the government of his whole church, and that same spiritual authority has always resided in the popes, or bishops of Rome, as being the successors of St. Peter. Consequently, to be true followers of Christ all Christians, both among the clergy and laity, must be in communion with the See of Rome, where Peter rules in the person of his successor. [Greek] -2 _ftnref13 [Greek] Answer.The passage does not support any such bestowal of well-nigh absolute authority on a mere man or on his successors. 3. The expression this rockdoes not signify the apostle Peter, since Jesus had already finished with Peter. [Greek] -2 _ftnref14 [Greek] Answer.Throughout verses 17 19 Jesus is addressing someone whom he indicates by using the second person singular personal pronoun. The phrase to you (Greek [Greek]) occurs once in each of these three verses, in harmony with the pronoun you ([Greek]) in verse 18, and with the use of the second person singular form of the verbs in the statements: You are blessed (verse 17), you are Peter (verse 18), and you shall bind &you shall loose (verse 19). According to verse 17 that person is Simon Bar-Jonah; according to verse 18, Peter. It is natural to assume that the subject of you shall bind and you shall loose (verse 19) is still Peter. It is hard to believe, therefore, that when Jesus said, And upon this rock I will build my church (verse 18) he had already finished with Peter. 4. Jesus purposely uses two Greek words which, though not identical, are closely related in meaning. What he said was, You are petros, and upon this petraI will build my church, meaning, You are a rock, and upon the rocky ledge (or: cliff) of the Christ, the Son of God the living who was revealed to you and whom you confessed, I will build my church. If Jesus had intended to convey the thought that he was going to build his church on Peter he would have said, and on you I will build my church. When it is argued that the Lord spoke these words in Aramaic and that in that language the two words petrosand petrawere the same, the answer is that we do not know enough about Aramaic to make this assertion. We have the inspired Greek text and we must be guided by [Greek] -2 _ftnref15 [Greek] Evaluation.The argument sounds rather convincing and, in fact, as I see it, has some merit. Granted that Jesus generally addressed his audiences in Aramaic, it still cannot be proved incontrovertibly that in that language petrosand petrawere represented by one and the same word. It is also true that in certain contexts petramay differ in meaning from petros. What I like especially about the theory is this, that those who advocate it are deeply concerned about the danger that the man Peter or even his confession, viewed apart from God's revelation, shall be considered the rock upon which the church is built. My inability to accept the theory in its entirety is based on the following: a. On the basis of what is known about Aramaic it must be regarded as very probable that the same word was used in both cases. The question will be asked, Then why not the same word in Greek? Answer: for the simple reason that petra, the common word for stoneor rock,being feminine, had to be changed to a masculine hence to petrosto indicate the name of a male person, Peter. As to petrosand petradiffering in meaning, this is not always true. A very frequent meaning of petrais rockor stone. It does not always mean rocky ground, rocky ledge, or rocky cliff. See the entries petra, petrosin -2 _ftnref16 L.N.T. (A. and G.), p. 660. b. Even in Greek, regardless of whether one translates petraas rockor as rocky ledgeJesus is saying, You are Rockand on THIS rockor rocky ledgeI will build my church. The word THIS makes reference to anything else than the immediately preceding petrosvery unnatural. In the sentence, You are Margaret [meaning pearl] and on thispearl I am about to bestow a favor, it would be very difficult to interpret this pearl in any other sense than as referring to Margaret, even though the word pearl has more meanings than one. It indicates a gem but can also refer to a kind of printer's type. It would be rather unnatural to conclude that this pearl had reference to something that someone had said to Margaret or had shown her, or to something she had just said. 5. The meaning is, You are Peter, that is, Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter, I will build my church. Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church. [Greek] -2 _ftnref17 [Greek] Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him!I accept this view. Having said this, it is necessary to qualify this interpretation as follows. Jesus promises to build his church: a. Not on Cephas as he was by nature but on him considered as a product of grace. By nature this man was, in a sense, a weakling, very unstable, as has been indicated; see p. 602. By grace he became a most courageous, enthusiastic, and effective witness of the truth which the Father had revealed to him with respect to Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God. It was in that sense that Jesus used Peter in buildinggathering and strengthening his church. b. Not on Cephas considered all by himself, but on Cephas as first (Matt. 10:2) among equals, that is, on Peter taking his stand with the eleven (Acts 2:14). The authority which in 16:19 is entrusted to Peter is in 18:18 given to The Twelve (John 20:23). In fact, in the exercise of this authority the local congregation must not be ignored (18:17). When the Lord spoke the words recorded here in 16:18, 19 he certainly did not mean that Peter could now begin to lord it over the other disciples. The others did not understand it in that way (18:1; 20:20–24), and Jesus definitely rejected any such interpretation (Luke 22:24 30). If Peter himself had conceived of his own authority or that of others as being that of a dictator, how could he have written the beautiful passage I Peter 5:3? c. Not on Cephas as the primary foundation. In the primary or basic sense of the term there is only one foundation, and that foundation is not Peter but Jesus Christ himself (I Cor. 3:11). But in a secondary sense it is entirely legitimate to speak of the apostles, including Peter, as the church's foundation, for these men were always pointing away from themselves to Jesus Christ as the one and only Savior. Striking examples of this are found in (Acts 3:12and 4:12. In that secondary sense Scripture itself refers to the apostles as the church's foundationEph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14). In this connection emphasis should also be placed on the fact that in the passage now under consideration Jesus speaks of himself not of Peter as the Builder and Owner of the church. He says, Iwill build mychurch. The figure of a building to represent the church is found also in such passages as I Cor. 3:9; Eph. 2:21, 22; I Peter 2:4, 5. Little by little the building goes up. It increases in strength, beauty, and usefulness, its members being considered living stones. In building his church Jesus makes use of Peter and of the other apostles. In fact, he makes use of all the living members of the church to accomplish this purpose. The expression my church refers, of course, to the church universal, here especially to the entire body of Christ or sum-total of all believers in its New Testament manifestation, wherever it is truly represented on earth (Acts 9:31; I Cor. 6:4; 12:28; Eph. 1:22, 3:10, 21; 5:22–33; Col. 1:18; Phil. 3:6). It is a great comfort that Jesus considers this church his very own. Did he not come from heaven in order to purchase his church with his own blood (Acts 20:28)? The history of the early church as recorded in the first twelve chapters of the book of Acts abundantly proves that Christ's prophecy regarding Peter was fulfilled. Or, phrasing it differently, it confirms the given interpretation. In that large section of Acts the name of Peter occurs more than fifty times. Here it is found everywhere except in chapters 6 and 7, which contain the story of Stephen. Let me stress once again that I am not referring to Peter as he was in himself, nor to that apostle acting all by himself, but to him as Christ's instrument for the establishment of his church in its New Testament manifestation, and taking his stand as one of The Twelve. During that very early period (before Paul comes mightily to the fore, in Acts 13 28) Peter was the most powerful and effective human link between Jesus and the church, the most influential means of the latter's inward and outward growth. It was Peter who preached the sermon on Pentecost, as a result of which no less than three thousand people were converted (Acts 2:41). It was again through the testimony of Peter and John (3:11; 4:1), chiefly of Peter (3:12), that two thousand were subsequently added to the membership (4:4). Other events in which Peter took a leading part were: the election of Matthias to take the place of Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:15 22), the healing of the lame begger (Acts 3:4 6), and the heroic proclamation of Jesus Christ before the Sanhedrin (4:8–12, 29). See also 5:15; 8:20; and chapters 9 and 10. It has been pointed out earlier that in every listing of The Twelve Peter's name occurs first of all. Besides, according to reliable tradition, was not Mark Peter's interpreter? And was not Mark's Gospel, in turn, one of the main sources used by Matthew and Luke in writing their Gospels? Add Peter's epistles, in which he so beautifully sets forth the meaning of Christ's life and death (I Peter 2:21–25). Christ's prophecy was fulfilled in the labors of Peter. The One whom Peter describes as the Shepherd and Overseer of our souls (I Peter 2:25), the Chief Shepherd (I Peter 5:4) had said to this apostle, Feed my lambs, Shepherd my sheep, Feed my dear sheep (John 21:15, 16, 17). That there were also sheep that did not belong to the Jewish fold (John 10:16) was going to be vividly impressed upon Peter (Acts 10:9 16, 34 48; 11:17, 18). Though in the life of this apostle there was a momentary, sad departure from the implications of the great principle that they all may be one (John 17:21), there is every reason to believe that Peter took Paul's reprimand to heart (Gal. 2:11–21). He labored on faithfully until at last the Lord delivered him according to (John 21:18, 19and early tradition (I Clement, chap. 5) by means of martyrdomfrom this earthly scene and bestowed upon him the promised inheritanceI Peter 1:4). Christ's prophecy, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church had been amply fulfilled by means of his witness-bearing. Continued: and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.For the argument showing that in the Gospels Hades means hell see on 11:23, 24. Besides, those who favor the meaning the realm of the dead experience great difficulty in their attempt to show in what sense the gates of that realm are striving to overpower the church, and are failing in their assault. When Hades is interpreted as indicating hell the assurance given here by the Lord can be readily understood. Gates of hell, by metonymy represents Satan and his legions as it were storming out of hell's gates in order to attack and destroy the church. What we have here is an oft-repeated promise of the [Greek] -2 _ftnref18 [Greek] of Christ's church over the forces of evil. See John 16:33; Rom. 16:20; Eph. 6:10–13; Rev. 12:13–16; 17:14; 20:7–10. Misuse is often made of this passage, as if Jesus meant, Do not be concerned about the doctrinal purity of the denomination or congregation to which you belong. Have I not promised to see to it that the gates of hell shall never prevail against the church? As if Jesus promised that this or that particular denominationor local congregationwould never lose its doctrinal purity! The real meaning of church as here used has already been indicated. Jesus promised that he would always cause his peopleto triumph over the devil and his army. This promise is given not to lukewarm Laodiceans but to Christian soldiers. In the midst of the battle their consolation is: Crowns and thrones may perish, Kingdoms rise and wane, But the Church of Jesus Constant will remain; Gates of hell can never Gainst that Church prevail; We have Christ's own promise, And that cannot fail. Sabine Baring-Gould The words addressed to Peter, as representing the group, are continued in verse 19. I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.& The one who has the keys (Rev. 1:18; 3:7) of the kingdom of heaven determines who should be admitted and who must be refused admission. Cf. (Isa. 22:22. That the apostles as a group exercised this right is clear from the entire book of Acts. Alldid this on an equal basis (4:33): there was no boss or superintendent. Nevertheless, as has already been shown, the influence of Peter was outstanding. By means of the preaching of the gospelhe was opening the doors to someActs 2:38, 39; 3:16–20; 4:12; 10:34–43), closing them to others (3:23). In answer to the question, How is the kingdom of heaven opened and shut by the preaching of the holy gospel? the Heidelberg Catechism (Lord's Day 31, Answer to Question 84) states: By proclaiming and openly witnessing, according to the command of Christ, to believers, one and all, that, whenever they receive the promise of the gospel by a true faith, all their sins are really forgiven them of God for the sake of Christ's merits; and on the contrary, by proclaiming and witnessing to all unbelievers and such as do not sincerely repent that the wrath of God and eternal condemnation abide on them so long as they are not converted. According to this witness of the gospel God will judge, both in this life and in that which is to come. Discipline (was also exercised by The Twelve, and here again the role played by Peter is emphasized (5:1–11). Somewhat later Paul, too, very effectively used both keys: the preaching of the gospel and the exercise of discipline. The former requires no proof, for it is evident from all of his epistles as well as from chapters 13 28 of the book of Acts. As to the latter, discipline, both the shutting and the opening or at times reopening of the door, are beautifully illustrated, respectively, in Cor. 5:1–5 and II Cor. 2:8. As the first passage indicates, the shutting took place with a view to reopening. Paul, moreover, did not act apart from the church but in conjunction with itI Cor. 5:3, 4). Though church in Matt. 16:18and kingdom in verse 19 may not be identical in meaning, the latter also here being perhaps the broader concept, nevertheless A. T. Robertson's questionWord Pictures, Vol. I, pp. 133, 134 whether Jesus does not here (verse 19) mean the same thing by kingdom that he did by church in verse 18, is definitely in order. Excommunication from the visible church is possible (I Cor. 5:5a; Titus 3:10); so is exclusion from the kingdom (8:12). From the manner in which, with divine approval, the apostles carried out their ministry and asserted their authority it would appear, therefore, that the rather popular view, according to which the term the keys of the kingdom of heaven refers to the preaching of the gospel and the exercise of discipline, is correct. From such passages as Matt. 11:30; 15:19, 20; Acts 15:10; Gal. 5:1; Col. 2:14, 16, 20 23; Rev. 2:24, it is very clear that it was not the purpose of Jesus and of the apostles after him to replace one kind of hierarchical despotism (that of Jewish hair-splitting legalism) by another. Nevertheless, in order that the Christian's way of life might be clearly understood and discipline properly exercised certain basic principles of conduct had to be set forth. It is in this connection that Jesus continues: and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.It is immediately clear that these words are still addressed to Peter. It is unmistakable that Peter is described as exercising on the earththe power of the keys of the kingdom. [Greek] -2 _ftnref19 [Greek] But see also 18:18. The very wording note whatever, not whoever shows that the passage refers to things, in this case beliefs and actions, not directly to people. Bindingand loosingare rabbinical terms, meaning forbiddingand permitting. Naturally if a person continued to do or to believe what was forbidden, refusing to repent, he would be disciplined; conversely, if he repented from his evil way, he would be forgiven: the ban would be [Greek] -2 _ftnref20 [Greek] Hence, indirectly the passage also has implications with respect to the good standing, or lack of good standing, of church members, as a comparison of Matt. 16:19with John 20:23indicates. The assurance is given that whatever Peter, representing The Twelve (Matt. 16:19), or The Twelve (John 20:23), ultimately whatever the church (Matt. 18:18), binds on earth shall be and shall definitely remain bound in heaven; and similarly whatever Peter (etc.) looses on earth shall be and definitely remain loosed in [Greek] -2 _ftnref21 [Greek] It should hardly be necessary to add that such authority over faith and morals, and consequently also over the membership, can be exercised only when this is done in thorough harmony with the teachings of Jesus, or, phrasing it differently, with the Word of God. Jesus definitely condemned any arbitrary binding and loosing, such forbidding and permitting, such excluding and admitting or re-admitting, as amounts to a transgression of the commandment of God (15:1–20; 23:13). When a person is unjustly excommunicated the Lord welcomes him (John 9:34 38). Peter, as spokesman for The Twelve, had confessed Jesus to be the Christ (verse 16). In logical relation with this is Christ's warning found in verse (20. Then he gave the disciples strict orders not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.The people would have interpreted the term Messiah = Christ in the political senseJohn 6:15). This might have fanned the flames of enthusiasm about him, as a potential Deliverer from the Roman yoke, to such an extent that the opposition and envy roused by such widespread attention might have brought his public ministry to an untimely end. This must not happen. When an open announcement must finally be made to the Jewish religious authorities Jesus himself will make it (Matt. 26:63, 64). We should also bear in mind that it would not have been proper for Jesus, during the days of his humiliation, to encourage (publicacclaim. That must be postponed until after his death and resurrectionMatt. 17:9; Luke 9:21, 22). See also on 8:4. The very fact of this death, followed by resurrection and ascension, will shed light on the character of his messiahship (Acts 2:36; I Peter 1:3). 16:21–28 The First Prediction of the Passion and the Resurrection Cf. Mark 8:31 9:1; Luke 9:22 27 21 From that time Jesus began to say plainly to his disciples that he must go away to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised up. 22 And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, Mercy on thee, Lord, this shall never happen to thee! 23 But he turned around and said to Peter, Get out of my sight, Satan. You are a trap to me, for you are looking at things not from God's point of view but from men's. 24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, If anyone wishes to come behind me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. 25 For whoever would save his life shall lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake shall find it. 26 For what good will it do a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life, or what shall a man give in exchange for his life? 27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his angels, and then shall he render to each according to his deeds. 28 I solemnly declare to you that there are some of those that are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of man coming in his royal dignity. Previously, in veiled utterances, Jesus had predicted his death (9:15), and even his death and resurrection (12:39, 40; 16:4). Now there was going to be a change. We see the Anointed One, as our chief Prophet, in plain unfigurative language foretelling his own demise; as our merciful Highpriest, preparing to lay down his life, that he might take away the sin of the world (John 1:29); and throughout it all, as our eternal King, being in complete control of every situation, so that the plan of God Triune, made before the foundation of the world, was being carried out in every detail, yet in such a manner that all the human agents who took part in carrying out this plan elders, chief priests, scribes, the common people, the soldiers, the presiding judge, the betrayer, etc. were fully responsible for their actions (Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23). 21. From that time Jesus began to say plainly to his disciples that he must go away to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised up.From that time, because Jesus had now told the disciples that he accepted Peter's confession as being the result of the Father's revelation. Accordingly, he had made clear to The Twelve that he was indeed the long expected Messiah. Therefore the next lesson was now very definitely in order. He must now convey to this little company the shocking truth, which at first seemed entirely unbelievable, that this Messiah must suffer and be killed!To be sure, Jesus added and the third day be raised up, but it is doubtful whether the first clear announcement of the resurrection even fully registered in the disciples minds, so utterly painful and inconceivable did the news of their Master's fast approaching suffering and death seem to them. Stranger still, this suffering will be climaxed in Jerusalem, that is, in the very place known from of old as the holy city, the city of the Great King (4:5; 5:35). Note: he (mustgo to Jerusalem to suffer and to die, etc. He must satisfy the demands of the law, that is, he must pay the penalty for his people's sin, in perfect obedience to his Father's will, and in fulfilment of prophecyMark 10:45: Luke 12:50; 13:33; 22:37; 24:26, 27, 44; John 1:29; 17:4; II Cor. 5:21; and last but not least Isa. 53). He must do what he himself also wanted to do (John 10:11; II Cor. 8:9; Gal. 2:20). Here in Jerusalem, the place to which Jesus will soon be wending his way, the Sanhedrin sits enthroned. There was an earlier reference to this body (see on 2:4), but now (16:21) not only its chief priests and scribes are mentioned but also its elders, so that here we have the full listing of all the units that constituted this highest Jewish tribunal. In ancient Israel the elders were the heads of tribes or heads of a tribe's main subdivisions. In fact, every city or town of any importance began to have its elders. When the Sanhedrin came into existence the more prominent local elders became members of this august body, jointly with the chief priests and the scribes. What Jesus is saying, then, is this, that Israel's very leaders, who should have been the foremost to honor and worship the Christ, were going to afflict him and put him to death. Note also the lack of gruesome details in this, the first of the three lessons on the cross. All Jesus says at this time is that he must suffer many things. He knows that the little group has already received such a shock that it cannot now bear to hear more (John 16:12). For the references to the two lessons that were to follow see p. 9. The Lord added, and the third day be raised up. Although the present passage does not mention the remaining items that belong to Christ's exaltation, verse 27 refers to the glorious return. If this impliesthe ascension and the coronation (the sitting down at the Father's right hand), as it seems to do, then in this paragraph (verses 21 28) Jesus is giving us a complete summary of the steps that belong to his exaltation. It is clear that the third day must be interpreted as shown previously (see on 12:40), a part of a day being counted as a day. That not only now but even later the disciples did not grasp just what Jesus meant by this resurrection on the third day whether, for example, the resurrection to which reference was made belonged to the general resurrection at the close of the world's history is clear from 17:9, 10. Shall we say then that these words of Jesus were futile, since they were not understood? Not at all. Because of the very fact that the disciples did, after all, hear these predictions, and heard them not just once but with increasing clarity three times in the three lessons on the cross, it was possible, after the resurrection, for the angel(s) and for the resurrected Lord himself to refer to them (Matt. 28:6; Luke 24:6 8, 45, 46). Those reminders served, as it were, to pull the rope that caused the bell of memory a memory deeply rooted in the subconscious area to ring forth, so that faith was strengthened (John 16:4). 22. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, Mercy on thee, Lord, this shall never happen to thee.If in verse 16 we saw Peter at his best, were it not for the event recorded in 26:69–74 we would be ready to say that we see him here at his worst. For a summary of Peter's vacillations see on 14:30. We assume that Peter had been walking behind the Master. Now he tries to pull Jesus aside and begins to [Greek] -2 _ftnref22 [Greek] him. Jesus had not as yet turned around to face Peter. Peter beganto rebuke: he did not get very far. Mercy on thee, Lord, is about as literal a translation as is possible in English. Peter meant, May God be merciful to thee, for this must not, shall not happen. For a somewhat similar expression see II Sam. 20:20; 23:17; I Chron. 11:19. For Peter the very idea of messiahship, which he had just now ascribed to Jesus, excluded that of suffering and death, violent death at that! The reaction of Jesus to Peter's rash, though well-meant, action is described in verse 23. But he turned around and said to Peter, Get out of my sight, Satan.Now Jesus turns around so as to face Peter. The latter had spoken his words in the hearing of all. Verses 24 28 seem to imply that Christ's answer, too, was heard by all. Literally Jesus said to his erring disciple, Get behindme.& However, this rendering is rather ambiguous, and has even been interpreted to mean that the Lord was merely telling Peter that he has committed a breach of etiquette when he grabbed hold of Jesus and tried to pull him aside, and that he must now assume his previous position in the lineup and start walking behind Jesus again. Also, it should be borne in mind that a somewhat similar expressionexactlyidentical according to a variant reading is far more forceful than such a literal rendering might seem to indicate. The true interpretation, as I, along with many others, see it, is this, that the Lord recognizes that Satan is using Peter as his agent in an attempt to seduce Jesus to try to obtain the crown without enduring the cross (see on 4:8, 9). So Jesus, in speaking to Peter, is actually addressing Satan, or if one prefers, is addressing whatever in Peter has been perversely influenced by the prince of evil. What is needed here, accordingly, is a translation like Be gone, Satan, or Get out of my sight, Satan. Jesus continues: You are a trap to me, for you are looking at things not from God's point of view but from men's.Jesus immediately recognizes the trap [Greek] -2 _ftnref23 [Greek] Satan is setting. Not for a moment does he entertain the devil's suggestion. He knows that he is being confronted by the same tempter who at a previous occasion tried to inveigle him with a false promise (4:8, 9). So with finality he rejects the implied inducement to sin. By doing so he is himself carrying out the advice he gave to others, namely, not to dilly-dally with sin but to take drastic action against it (5:29, 30). Literally Jesus said, You are not thinking the (things) of God but the (things) of men. From God's point of view it was necessary for the Savior to suffer, die, rise again, etc., in order to save his people. From the human point of view the two concepts (Messiahand sufferingwere wholly incompatible. Peter, allowing himself to be influenced by Satan, was speaking from the foolishly human point of view when he said, Mercy on thee, Lord, this shall never happen to thee. He did not realize that he was asking for his own eternal damnation. How quickly the rock of verses 16 18 had become a stone of offense. By God's grace he did not remain such but became a most effective preacher of the very cross which he is here trying to dismiss forever from his own and from the Master's consciousness. The transforming power of the Holy Spirit in the heart and life of Peter produced such a remarkable result that among all the inspired writers there is none who at a later time more clearly set forth the pre-ordained necessity of Christ's atoning death. See Acts 2:23; 3:18; 4:11, 12; I Peter 1:11; 2:21 24Isa. 53:4–8). Jesus now turns to the entire little group of disciples, and shows them that the inevitable law of Christian life is that the servant is not above his master: what happens to Christ, though it is indeed unique, must nevertheless be reflected also in his followers: 24. Then Jesus said to his disciples, If anyone wishes to come behind me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.Christ's death will be of value only to those who are willing to die to sin and self. Since verses 24 and 25 closely resemble 10:38, 39 the reader is referred to the explanation there. A few additional words may be in order. By doing justice to the tenses of the verbs in the original verse 24 may be paraphrased as follows: If anyone wishes to be (counted as) an adherent of mine, he must once and for all say farewell to self, decisively accept pain, shame, and persecution for my sake and in my cause, and must then follow and keep on following me as my disciple. To deny oneself means to renounce the old self, the self as it is apart from regenerating grace. A person who denies himself gives up all reliance on whatever he is by nature, and depends for salvation on God alone. He no longer seeks to promote his own predominantly selfish interests but has become wrapped up in the cause of promoting the glory of God in his own and in every life, and also in every sphere of endeavor. The best commentary on Matt. 16:24is Gal. 2:20: I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who lives, but Christ who lives in me; and that (life) which I now live in flesh I live in faith, (the faith) which is in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself up for me. Denying self means subjecting oneself to Christ's discipline. The expression take up his cross refers to the cross that is suffered because of union with Christ. One follows Christ by trusting in him, walking in his footsteps (I Peter 2:21), obeying his commandments out of gratitude for salvation through him, and being willing even to suffer in his cause. Only then, when he is willing and ready to do this can he truly be Christ's disciple, his adherent. Continued: 25. For whoever would save his life shall lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake shall find it.This is the grand paradox of 10:39 and similar passages. It is held by some that the substitution of save here in 16:25 for find in the first clause of 10:39 [Greek] -2 _ftnref24 [Greek] makes the present passage even fuller and more forceful, as if, in distinction from merely trying to find his life, that is, attaining to what he considers a richer, happier life, the man described in 16:25 puts forth every effort to save, that is, rescue his self, and having done so, to cling to it by every possible means. Whether this distinction can be sustained is debatable. In view of the fact that in both passages the antonym is lose, it may well be that the difference between finding and saving is very slight. At any rate we may be sure that in both cases the person who is condemned is the selfish person, the individual who is turned in upon himself, and the one who is commended is the outgoing person, the one who, for the sake of the love of Christ shown to him, now in turn loves the Lord and all those whom the Lord wants him to love, and who, in the process of doing this is even willing to suffer extreme personal affliction and, if need be, even death. That person's life shall be marvelously enriched, says Jesus. A few examples of the persons here condemned: envious Cain (Gen. 4:1–8; I John 3:12), greedy Ahab and Jezebel (I Kings 21), haughty Haman (Esther 3:5; 5:9–14), vengeful King Herod I (Matt. 2:3, 16), perfidious Judas Iscariot (Matt. 26:14–16; Luke 22:47, 48). See also the story of the rich young ruler (Matt. 19:16–22). A few examples of those here commended: self-negating Judah (Gen. 44:18–34), noble Jonathan (I Sam. 18 20), the Good Samaritan of the parable (Luke 10:29 37), men like Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25–30) and Onesiphorus (II Tim. 1:16; 4:19), who were willing to risk everything for the sake of Christ's cause, and humble, self-sacrificing Paul (Rom. 9:3; Gal. 4:19, 20; 6:14). In all of these the spirit of Jesus Christ himself was reflected (II Cor. 8:9). With an earnest appeal that his disciples may always be willing to lose their lives for the sake of Christ's cause, Jesus continues: (26. For what good will it do a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life, or what shall a man give in exchange for his life?It is clear from verses 25 and 26 that even though verse 24 places man before a choice he himself must make, and God does not make for him, that nevertheless the Lord, in his infinite tenderness and love, encourages man to make the right choice. Whoever thinks only or even mainly of his own ease, comfort, popularity, prestige, opulence, etc., lacks love, outgoingness. It is love that causes the soul to expand, imparts riches, usefulness, joy, satisfaction. Love for the Lord does this, and love for his children, his causes, his kingdom; in a sense even love for the enemy, that he may be saved. So, if a person should gain the whole world when Jesus said this, was he thinking of the offer which the devil once made him? (4:8, 9) and in the process of doing so should forfeit (lose the right to possess) his own life or soul, that is, should lose or forfeit himselfLuke 9:25), what good will such an exchange do him, for What shall a man give in exchange [Greek] -2 _ftnref25 [Greek] his life? This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XVII Outline of Chapter 17 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him to Do 17:1–13 The Transfiguration of Jesus on a High Mountain 17:14–20 The Healing of an Epileptic Boy 17:22, 23 The Second Prediction of the Passion and the Resurrection 17:24–27 The Payment of the Temple Tax 17:1–13 The Transfiguration of Jesus on a High Mountain Cf. Mark 9:2 13; Luke 9:28 36 17 1 Six days later Jesus took with him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain (to be) alone (with them). 2 And he was transfigured before them; his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as the light. 3 And look, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, engaged in conversation with him. 4 Then Peter spoke up and said to Jesus, Lord, how good it is for us to be here! If you wish, I will make three shelters, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah. 5 While he was still talking a bright cloud suddenly covered them, and a voice from the cloud was saying, This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him! 6 Upon hearing this the disciples fell on their faces and were terribly frightened. 7 Then Jesus approached, touched them, and said, Get up and do not be afraid. 8 And when they raised their eyes they saw no one but Jesus only. 9 And when they were coming down the mountain Jesus warned them, saying, Never tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of man is raised from the dead. 10 The disciples asked him, saying, Then why do the scribes say that first Elijah has to come? 11 He answered and said, Elijah is coming and is going to restore everything. 12 But I say to you that Elijah already came, but they failed to recognize him, and treated him as they pleased. Similarly the Son of man is about to suffer at their hands. 13 Then the disciples understood that he had spoken to them about John the Baptist. The exaltation of Jesus, from resurrection to second coming, is foreshadowed in the transfiguration, recorded here in 17:1–13; especially in verses 1 8. This transfiguration served the twofold purpose of: (a.preparing the Mediator to face with courage his bitter trial, by reminding him of the Father's constant love (17:5) and of the glory that would follow his sufferingHeb. 12:2); and (b.confirming the faith of Peter, James, and John and indirectly of the entire church afterward in the truth that had been revealed to and confessed by Simon Peter, as spokesman for The TwelveMatt. 16:16). 1. Six days later Jesus took with him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain (to be) alone (with them).The expression six days later is not in conflict with Luke 9:28, about eight days after these sayings. Luke may have included both the day of Peter's confession and that of Christ's transfiguration when he wrote as he did; besides, he does not intend to be precise, for he says abouteight days. Matthew and Mark may have used the exclusive method of time computation, referring only to the six intervening days. Most of the events pertaining to Jesus sojourn on earth could be safely witnessed by all the twelve disciples. There were others, however, that took place in the presence of only three of these men. Exactly why this was we can only guess. Did Jesus allow only three disciples to enter the room where the resurrection of the daughter of Jairus took place (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), because the presence of the entire group would not have been in accord with proper decorum and might have disturbed the child when she reopened her eyes? Was the Master's Gethsemane agony too sacred to be witnessed by more than three of the disciples (Matt. 26:37; Mark 14:33), and was it for this reason that even then it was witnessed by these three to only a very limited extent? And is it possible that the transfiguration, described here in (Matt. 17and its parallels, could have only three disciples as eye-witnessesMatt. 17:1; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28), because otherwise the injunction mentioned in Matt. 17:9would have been more difficult to enforce? Such may have been the reasons, but we do not know. Neither do we definitely know why Peter, James, and John were the ones chosen. Some say, Because these were the three disciples most capable to understand and sympathize. [Greek] -2 _ftnref1 [Greek] Others, Because these were among Jesus first disciples. [Greek] -2 _ftnref2 [Greek] See on 4:18, 21; also -2 _ftnref3 N.T.C.on John 1:35 37, 40, 41. Both of these answers may be true; at least, may contain an element of truth. That Peter was among the three does not surprise us, in view of (Matt. 16:16–19. It is entirely possible that John's spiritual affinity with His Master he was the disciple whom Jesus lovedJohn 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 10) accounted for his inclusion in this innermost circle. But what about James, John's brother? Was it not considerate of the Lord to grant to him, who was going to be the first of The Twelve to seal his testimony with his blood (Acts 12:2), the privilege of being included among the three intimate witnesses? These are considerations that may well be taken into account in considering the question, Why these three? Nevertheless, it must be frankly admitted that the answer to this question, as also the answer to the previous one, has not been revealed. It is easier to understand why there had to be witnesses at all, namely, so that, when the proper time arrived, they could testify to the church concerning the things they had seen and heard. Besides, see Deut. 19:15; Matt. 18:16; John 8:17; II Cor. 13:1; I Tim. 5:19. It is impossible with certainty to identify the high mountain to which Jesus brought the three. Some say, It was Mount Tabor. However, in view of the fact that there was at that time a city or fortress on top of that mountain it is not easy to see how the Lord and these three men could here have found the privacy they were seeking. Mount Hermon is favored by others. However, when Jesus and the three descend from the mountain he is met by a great multitude, including scribes (Mark 9:14). This seems to indicate that the Mount of Transfiguration, as it can safely be called, was not in the far north, populated mostly by Gentiles. A far more logical place is (Jebel JermakJermuk) in Upper Galilee, the highest elevation in that entire region, rising 4,000 feet above the Mediterranean Sea, affording a beautiful view in all directions. From this mountain it was but a relatively short distance to Capernaum, which Jesus seems to have reached soon afterward (Mark 9:28, 33). We are, of course, not certain that this was the high mountain to which Matthew refers, but at least it fills all the [Greek] -2 _ftnref4 [Greek] 2. And he was transfigured before them; his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as the light.Some are of the opinion that an actual metamorphosis took [Greek] -2 _ftnref5 ([Greek] Now metamorphoses come in various shapes and degrees. A radical example would be that of an outraged girl changing into a nightingale, or that of a boastful woman into a stoneMetamorphoses). Milder illustrations would be the transformation of a caterpillar into a butterfly, or of a tadpole into a frog. The context here in verse 2 does not point in any such direction. It is necessary, however, also to guard against the opposite [Greek] -2 _ftnref6 [Greek] as if Christ's altered appearance was simply due to an exalted state of mind, and as if Moses and Elijah appeared only in a vision (with an appeal to verse 9, but see on that passage). All the passage under consideration really tells us is that, while the little group was on the mountain, the disciples, who had been sleeping but were now fully awake (Luke 9:32), saw clearly that a change of appearance came over Jesus, so that not only his face began to shine like the sun but even his clothes became white and radiant with dazzling light. The source of the sudden, extraordinary brightness is not indicated. Some i (magine that it was all due to the setting sun (in which case the disciples must have become heavy with sleep rather early!); others, to the divine glory bursting forth from within; and still others, to Christ's exalted state of mind brought about by the fact that he had been in communion with his heavenly FatherLuke 9:29). How this could have affected his clothes is either skipped or else the sun is brought in to take care of that difficulty. Since no explanations are given in the text it is probably best to omit all speculation, and to postpone further elucidation until we reach verse 5. Continued: 3. And look, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, engaged in conversation with him.This was a visible, objective appearance of these two men. For comparable manifestations, perceptible to the senses, see Gen. 18:1, 2; 19:1; Judg. 13:3; etc. How did the disciples know that these two visitors from the other world, who suddenly appeared upon the scene, were Moses and Elijah? Did they introduce themselves? Did the disciples gather this information from the words spoken by each in his conversation with Jesus? Had the appearance of the two been transmitted to the disciples by tradition, whether oral or written, so that for this reason it was easy to distinguish between the two? Was it divinely revealed to them? Did they know it intuitively? Or, last but not the least fanciful, was Moses carrying in his hand a copy of the law, and did Elijah descend from heaven to the mount in his fiery chariot? All we know, and need to know, is that in a manner not revealed to us the three disciples recognized the two visitors. As to Moses, we know that he had died and had been buried (Deut. 34:5, 6). Had his body subsequently been disinterred and translated to heaven, and does (Jude 9indirectly support this theory? Or was his body still buried, and did God equip his soul with another body to be used just for this occasion? As to Elijah, we know that he never died, but was bodily translated to heavenII Kings 2:11). So, here they are: Moses and Elijah, appearing in glory, probably meaning, surrounded with heavenly brightness, and speaking with Jesus about his exodus or departure, which he was to accomplish in Jerusalem (Luke 9:31). That the word departure has reference to the Lord's bitter suffering and especially to his death needs no proof. See also II Peter 1:15. The question has been asked, Does it include the resurrection? The question is, however, not very important, for even if the word in and by itself should not be that inclusive, is it conceivable that the heavenly visitors spoke with Jesus about his death without even mentioning his victory over death? Matthew, however, does not touch upon the topic of conversation between Jesus and the two. He merely states that the two were engaged in conversation with or conversing with Jesus. Why just these two? Leaving aside all useless speculation, the simplest and best answer still seems to be that Moses and Elijah represented respectively the law and the prophets, both of which Jesus had come to fulfil (Matt. 5:17; Luke 24:27, 44). 4. Then Peter spoke up and said to Jesus, Lord, how good it is for us to be here! If you wish, I will make three shelters, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah. (The trouble with Peter was that too often he spoke first and did his thinking afterward, if at all. So also here. Still, we should not be too hard on him, for he had just been awakened out of his sleep and did not know what he was sayingLuke 9:32, 33). Also, he certainly does not evince any selfishness: he wants to make threeshelters, not four (including one for himself) or six (also one for James and one for John). Nevertheless, his suggestion was foolish. As if Jesus and the two visitors had no other means of protecting themselves against the cold. Besides, would branches and shrubbery let us suppose that they were immediately available provide sturdy protection, had it been needed? It might be said in Peter's favor that he at least submits the suggestion to the Lord, so that the latter may decide. On the other hand, this apostle's very desire to prolong the glory-scene shows that he had not yet fully taken to heart what Jesus had taught him (see on 16:23–25). From suffering, from the cross, whether for Jesus or for himself, he wishes to stay far removed. Peter's question did not even receive an answer; either that, or else: the answer was included in the action reported in verse (5. While he was still talking a bright cloud suddenly covered them& In Scripture the presence of God is often indicated by the mention of a cloud. In several cases, as also here, it is a bright, white, or luminous cloudExod. 13:21; 16:10; 40:35; I Kings 8:10, 11; Neh. 9:19; Ps. 78:14; Ezek. 1:4; Rev. 14:14–16). The disciples saw that this cloud of diffused light covered Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. Continued: and a voice from the cloud was saying, This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him.The explanation has already been given, for, with the exception of listen to him, the identical words were spoken also at Jesus baptism. See on 3:17. At that occasion the words were heard by Jesus and by John the Baptist; whether also by others is not definitely stated. Here, in connection with the transfiguration, these words were heard by Jesus and the three disciples: Peter, James, and John, who are urged to keep on listening to the words of the Father's beloved Son, and to take them to heart. It has been pointed out previously, in connection with verses 1 and 2, that many questions with respect to Christ's transfiguration cannot be answered. (Onething is clear, however. When we put together into a composite picture all that has been definitely revealed such as, Christ's radiant countenance, his white garments, the resplendent visitors, the bright cloud, and the love-revealing voice the total impression is exactly that which Peter, inspired by the Holy Spirit, subsequently summarized in these words, We were eye-witnesses of his majesty.& He received honor and glory from God the FatherII Peter 1:16, 17). All in all, therefore, the transfiguration of Jesus was both for himself and for the disciples who witnessed it a definitely positive, encouraging, glorious experience. It was the Father who, in his great love for the Son, clothed him with glory and encouraged him with a bracing re-affirmation of continued delight, in order that this might sustain him in his fast approaching agony. It was this same Father who simultaneously strengthened Peter, James, and John in their faith, enabling them to be worthy and exuberant [Greek] -2 _ftnref7 [Greek] For the moment, however, the voice from the cloud startled the disciples: 6. Upon hearing this the disciples fell on their faces and were terribly frightened.The night, the luminous cloud visible manifestation of the presence of God the sudden voice coming out of the cloud, all these combined to fill the hearts and minds of the three men with fear and trembling. In the presence of that which is holy and filled with majesty sinful men become frightenedGen. 3:10; Judg. 6:22; 13:22; Isa. 6:5; Dan. 8:17; 10:9; Hab. 3:16; Rev. 1:17a . Says Calvin, commenting on this verse, God intended that the disciples should be struck with this terror, in order to impress more fully on their hearts the memory of this vision. Continued: (7. Then Jesus approached, touched them, and said, Get up and do not be afraid.Jesus loves these men. So, to comfort them he walks up to them and tenderly touches themRev. 1:17). He tells them to arise and to stop being afraid. The words Be not afraid in one form or another are found throughout Scripture, showing that God is love (Exod. 14:13–15; Josh. 1:5–7; 11:6; II Kings 19:6; Neh. 4:14; Isa. 40:9; 43:1–7; Matt. 14:27; 28:10; Mark 5:36; Acts 18:9; Rev. 1:17b, 18). How this cheerful negativesaying, Be not afraid reminds us of its affirmativecomplement, Take courage (for which see on 9:2). Such exhortations are either empty or meaningful, either flippant or strength-imparting. When they are uttered by him who is able and eager to supply whatever is needed in any circumstance of life they really help! 8. And when they raised their eyes they saw no one but Jesus only.The Lord not only tells these men not to be fear-filled; he also removes the reason for their fear. He sees to it that the strangeness, brilliance, and majesty of the scene is not prolonged beyond what they can bear. Result: when Peter, James, and John take hold of themselves and raise their eyes, the bright cloud, together with the heavenly visitors, has vanished, so that the disciples see no one but Jesus. Even he does not scare them, for the dazzling brightness has left him. The event has ended. Its memory remains. The scene changes: 9. And when they were coming down the mountain Jesus warned them, saying, Never tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of man is raised from the dead.The reason for this warning has already been given (see on 16:20). The injunction, never tell anyonenaturally implies, not even the other nine disciples. Every danger of a premature public proclamation must be avoided. When the proper time arrives, that is, after the Son of man's resurrection, the story of the transfiguration can, will, and must be proclaimed. The very fact of the resurrection will shed the necessary light on it. Jesus said, never tell anyone what you have seen. In the present context this is a much better rendering than Tell the visionto no man -2 _ftnref8 A.V.and several others . That translation is very ambiguous: it suggests that the transfiguration may not have been historical; that perhaps it never really happened at all, except in the mind of the three apostles. Even an objective vision, one that is not the product of subjective i (magination but of divine revelation, as were the visions which the apostle John was going to receive on the island of Patmos, will not do in the present case. The statement: He [Jesus] was transfigured (verse 2) and Peter's commentaryII Peter 1:16, 17) rule out the vision idea in any form whatever. What the three men had seen was as real as was the voice which they had heard. Moreover, although it is true that the word used in the original frequently does have the meaning vision (Acts 9:10; 10:3, 17, 19; 11:5; 12:9; 16:9, 10; 18:9), that is not always the case. See the footnote for further information on this [Greek] -2 _ftnref9 [Greek] Christ's injunction produced the following reaction: (10. The disciples asked him, saying, Then why do the scribes say that first Elijah has to come?There are several interpretations of this question. In view of the immediately preceding context the simplest would seem to be this: Jesus just now had spoken about his resurrection from the dead, implying his imminent death. But not only does it seem strange to the disciples that Messiah would have to die at all (cf. 16:22), what bothers them also is that such a death would, as they see it, leave Messianic prophecy unfulfilled. Are not the scribes constantly saying that according to Mal. 4:5, 6(3:23, 24 in the Hebrew Bible) Messiah's coming would be preceded by that of Elijah? They were probably even using this prophecy to prove that Jesus could therefore not be the Christ, for Elijah had not yet returned. Now the disciples, by means of their spokesman, have already confessed Jesus to be Messiah (16:16), but the non-fulfilment of prophecy with respect to the sequence of the two comings first Elijah's, then Christ's puzzles them; for even though the TishbiteI Kings 17:1) obviously has not yet reappeared upon the scene of history, turning the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, Jesus, the Messiah or Christ, not only has already arrived but even declares that he is about to die. In view of Malachi's prediction how is this [Greek] -2 _ftnref10 [Greek] In answering the question of the disciples and solving their problem Jesus first of all declares that the scribes were right in maintaining that Elijah's coming would precede Christ's: 11, 12a. He answered and said, Elijah is coming and is going to restore everything.Though Christ's denunciation of the scribes could at times be sharp and cutting (5:20; 12:39; 15:3, 7; 23:13, etc.: the seven woes), he never went to the extreme of condemning all their teachings (see on 23:2, 3a). Here he is saying that the view of the scribes with respect to the sequence of the two comings first Elijah's, then Messiah's was correct; as was also their theory that Elijah had been called in order to bring about a restoration; and their conviction that Elijah's coming is a divine must, because ordered in God's eternal plan and predicted by God's prophet. Nevertheless, the scribes were making a mistake, and so were these three men, for it was the literal Elijah whose return they expected, the Tishbite in person. So, secondly, Jesus directs the attention of Peter, James, and John to the Elijah to whom Malachi actually was referring, and who had already arrived: But I say to you that Elijah already came.& Jesus was thinking of John the Baptist, whose arrival had preceded his (Christ's) own, and who in a worthy manner had been his forerunner, paving the way for his own ministry. In order to understand the sense in which the Baptist was not Elijah, as also the sense in which he was indeed Elijah, all that is necessary is to combine the following three statements: a. When the Jews sent priests and Levites to him [i.e., to John the Baptist] and asked him, Are you Elijah? he said, I am not (John 1:19, 21). b. Jesus said, And if you are willing to accept it, he [John the Baptist] is Elijah who was to come (Matt. 11:14; cf. 11:10). c. He [the promised child; hence, John the Baptist] shall go before his face in the spirit and power of Elijah (Luke 1:17; cf. 7:27). Summary: Malachi's prophecy had actually been fulfilled, not, to be sure, literally but figuratively, namely, in John the Baptist, who, because he went forth in the spirit and power of Elijah, deserved to be called Elijah. There is a slight difficulty that must still be cleared up. The question may be asked, But is it true that John the Baptist had brought about a restoration sufficiently important to satisfy the requirements of Mal. 4:6and Matt. 17:11? [Greek] -2 _ftnref11 ([Greek] In answering this question it should be pointed out, first, that the number of those people for whom, by God's grace, John became a great blessing, must have been considerableMatt. 3:5, 6; 14:5; Acts 19:3). Nevertheless, as Matt. 17:12b indicates, the emphasis should not be placed on the number or quantity of people affected, but on the thorough-going character or quality of the change which John, as God's servant, demanded and was instrumental in bringing about; a turnabout of heart, mind, and life so radical that for those experiencing it all things, including the relation between parents and children, would indeed become new. Viewed in this light Mal. 4:6and Matt. 17:11no longer present any great difficulty. 12b. But they failed to recognize him, and treated him as they pleased. (By and large the people did not take to heart the preaching of the Baptist, completely failing to recognize in him the fulfilment of prophecyMatt. 11:16–18), though they probably continued to regard him as a great man, a prophet (21:26). The religious leaders of the Jews turned against him (21:25). Herod Antipas killed him (14:3, 10). Instead of asking, How does (Godwant us to treat John the Baptist? they did to him whatever theypleased. Jesus adds, Similarly the Son of man is about to suffer at their hands.The same combination the people in general, the religious leaders, the political authorities was about to afflict and kill Jesus. The mob was going to exclaim, His blood be on us and our children (27:25). In demanding that Jesus be crucified the people were going to co-operate with their leaders (27:20–23). From John 19:11it is clear that Pilate too was going to heap guilt upon himself, though in lesser degree than the Jewish leaders. And so was Herod AntipasLuke 23:11), the very man who had ordered the Baptist's execution. The entire world of unbelief was about to combine against Christ (Acts 4:27, [Greek] -2 _ftnref12 [Greek] When Jesus assured the three that Elijah had already come, and had been rejected and killed, 13. Then the disciples understood that he had spoken to them about John the Baptist.In view of the fact that this was not the first time that Jesus had identified the Baptist with the Elijah whose return had been predicted (see on 11:14), and that, as has been shown previously, the two namely, the Tishbite and the Baptist resembled each other in many ways, the truth finally dawned on the three men that their Master had been speaking to them about John the Baptist. Except for the fact that they still experienced difficulty in understanding why the Messiah had to be afflicted and killed, and were in the dark about the resurrection, their problem, the one mentioned in verse 10, was now solved. 17:14–20 The Healing of an Epileptic Boy Cf. Mark 9:14 29; Luke 9:37 43a 14 And when they came to the crowd a man approached him and kneeling before him said, 15 Lord, take pity on my son, for he is an epileptic and suffers severely; for he often falls into the fire and often into the water. 16 And I brought him to your disciples but they couldn't cure him. 17 Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you; how long shall I put up with you? Bring him here to me. 18 And Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him, and from that very moment the boy was cured. 19 Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, Why could we not cast it out? 20 He said to them, Because of your little faith; for I solemnly declare to you, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, Move from here to there, and it shall move; and nothing shall be impossible to you. Raphael's painting, The [Greek] -2 _ftnref13 ([Greek] on which that famous artist worked himself to death, dramatizes the contrast between that which had taken place on the summit of the mountain and what was happening in the plain below. Only, Raphael has united the two scenes that must have occurred at a considerable distance from each other and a day apartLuke 9:37). But in bringing the two scenes together Raphael rendered a real service, emphasizing exactly what the Synoptists also seem to stress, namely, the tremendous contrast between the glory above (represented by the upper half of Raphael's masterpiece) and the shame and confusion below (the lower half). Above is the light, below are the shadows. Nevertheless, there is also similarity: on the summit the Father, in spoken words, had reaffirmed his love to his only, his beloved Son; in the plain a father agonizingly intercedes in behalf of his only child (Luke 9:38), a son grievously afflicted. We are shown how the great, unique Only Son, in his infinite love, revealed his power and compassion to this other only son and to the latter's father, the man who uttered the heart-rending cry: 14, 15. And when they came to the crowd a man approached him and kneeling before him said, Lord, take pity on my son, for he is an epileptic and suffers severely.& This story is found in all three Synoptics, but it is Mark who has given us the most complete account. Luke too supplies certain details not found in the others. Matthew tells us that when Jesus with his three disciples had descended to the plain they saw a.a crowd, b.a man from this crowd stepping up to Jesus and kneeling down in front of him, and c.(implied) this man's son. In verse 16 the nine disciples who had been left behind when Jesus with the three ascended to the summit are also brought into the picture. Mark 9:14adds the scribes, who were arguing with the nine disciples, probably mocking the nine because they had been unable to heal the boy. The man who with reverence and humility is kneeling down before Jesus is in deep agony, for his only child is an [Greek] -2 _ftnref14 ([Greek] The poor child had it bad, suffered severely: for he often falls into the fire and often into the water.He had to be watched all the while; even so, terrible accidents, such as falling into the fire and into the water, would occur again and again, endangering his very life. Symptoms of epilepsy, such as foaming at the mouth, having convulsions, and teeth-grinding, are added in the other GospelsMark 9:18, 20, 26; Luke 9:39). The condition was even more grave than this, for in addition to being an epileptic this boy was also deaf and dumb (Mark 9:25). Worst of all, these afflictions had been brought about by a spirit, that is, the boy was demon-possessed (as Matthew finally states in 17:18; the other evangelists much earlier in their separate accounts: Mark 9:17, 18, repeated in verses 20, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29; Luke 9:39, 40, 42). Demon-possession has been discussed in connection with 9:32. It was the pity or compassion of the Lord to which the tempest-tossed father appealed. He did not doubt the fact that Jesus was indeed filled with mercy and kindness. That is why he pleaded, Lord, take pity on my son. On the other hand, the man's faith in Christ's (powerneeded strengtheningMark 9:22 24). Next, the deeply distressed father said to Jesus: (16. And I brought him to your disciples but they couldn't cure him.Evidently he had brought his boy to the nine disciples in the hope that Jesus was with them, for from the very beginning it had been his purpose to seek the Savior's help, not that of the disciplesMark 9:17). However, when he noticed that Jesus was not among them he had asked the disciples to heal the boy. After all, these men had been commissioned by their Master to cast out unclean spirits and to heal every sickness and every infirmity (Matt. 10:1). That they had also been doing this is evident from Mark 6:13, 30; Luke 9:6 10. This time, however, something had happened that had never occurred previously, as far as the record shows: the disciples had not been able to cure the lad. And now Christ's reaction: (17. Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you how long shall I put up with you?When from the dazzling splendor of the transfiguration Jesus descended to the pitiable situation below he, by means of this exclamation, gave expression to his pain and indignation. The fact that he directed his complaint to the generation shows that he cannot have been thinking only of the nine disciples who had failed in this emergency. He was evidently deeply dissatisfied with his contemporaries: with the father, who lacked sufficient faith in Christ's healing powerMark 9:22 24); with the scribes, who, instead of showing any pity, were in all probability gloating over the disciples impotence (Mark 9:14); with the crowd in general, which is pictured in the Gospels as being generally far more concerned about itself than about others (John 6:26); and, last but not least, with the nine disciples, because of their failure to exercise their faith by putting their whole heart into persevering prayer (Mark 9:29). To a greater or lesser extent all were faithless, lacking in the exercise of true, warm, enduring faith, a faith operating effectively. By and large the minds and hearts of these people were perverted, that is twisted and degenerate, turned in the wrong direction, away from undivided trust in God. When Jesus adds, How long shall I be with you; how long shall I put up with you? he shows that in view of his own trust in the heavenly Father, a confidence that was faultless, and in view of his own love which was infinite and tender, it was painful for him to put up with (the exact meaning of the original) those who lacked these qualities or who failed to exercise these virtues in a sufficient degree. His ministry had lasted almost three years by now. He was longing for the end. By means of the heart-warming and positive command, Bring him here to me,Jesus gave the perfect example of proper behavior during annoying and distressing circumstances. In what he was about to do he revealed not only his power but also, as always his love. The result was: 18. And Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him, and from that very moment the boy was cured.A detailed account of the rage of the demon in being ordered to leave the boy, of the father's prayer for increase of faith, of the boy's final spasms followed by complete physical relaxation and deathlike stillness, and of the manner in which Jesus grasped his hand and lifted him up, is found in Mark 9:20 27; to which Luke 9:43adds a description of the effect of the cure on the multitude: And all were astonished at the majesty of God. A little later the Lord had entered the house (see on 9:28). 19. Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, Why could we not cast it out?The question was natural, for, as shown earlier, the disciples had met with success in casting out demons; so, why not this demon? 20. He said to them, Because of your little faith.& [Greek] -2 _ftnref15 [Greek] They had not sufficiently taken to heart the comfort they should have derived from the assurances which their Lord had given them (7:7–10; 10:8), and had not persisted in prayer. When the demon did not immediately leave they should not have stopped praying. On the subject of little faith see also 6:30; 8:26; 14:31; and 16:8. Continued: for I solemnly declare to you, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, Move from here to there, and it shall move.& For I solemnly declare see on 5:18. A mustard seed (see 13:31, 32), though at first very small, yet, because of its uninterrupted and vital contact with its nourishing environment, grows and grows until it becomes a tree so tall that the birds of the air come and lodge in its branches. Accordingly, faith as a mustard seed is the kind of trust in God which does not immediately give up in despair when its efforts do not meet with immediate success. It maintains its uninterrupted and vital contact with God and therefore continues to pray fervently, knowing that God at his own time and in his own way will bestow the blessing. Such faith links its possessor with the inexhaustible and infinite resources of God's power, wisdom, and love. It operates in harmony with God's revelation in his Word. Consequently, its prayers are not motivated by sinful desires, and it does not tempt God. It is therefore able to remove mountains. This must not be understood literally but figuratively, in harmony with: (a.Christ's very frequent use of figurative language, a striking example of which was given in the preceding chapter (16:6–12), and another in the present (17:12, 13); b.the well-known figure of speech found in Zech. 4:7, What are you, O great mountain? Before Zerubbabel you shall become a plain, referring to the mountain of difficulties that would disappear; and c.the words which immediately follow here in Matt. 17:20: and nothing shall be impossible to you.No task assigned by the Lord is going to be impossible to perform when the person who receives the mandate is and remains in trustful contact with God. No burden will then be too heavy to bear. With God all things are possible (19:26). I can do all things through him who infuses strength into me says PaulPhil. 4:13). The words, But this kind never comes out except by prayer and fasting, cf. verse 21in A.V., are lacking in the best manuscripts and were probably inserted from Mark 9:29. 17:22, 23 The Second Prediction of the Passion and the Resurrection Cf. Mark 9:30 32; Luke 9:43b 45 22 Now while they were moving about together in Galilee Jesus said to them, The Son of man is about to be delivered into the hands of men, 23 and they shall kill him, and on the third day he shall be raised up. And they were deeply distressed. 22, 23a. Now while they were moving about together in Galilee Jesus said to them, The Son of man is about to be delivered into the hands of men.& This is the second prediction of the Passion. For all three see p. 9. It has been shown that the transfiguration and the cure of the epileptic boy probably occurred in Galilee. Here, in verse 22, we are told that the second announcement concerning Christ's impending suffering was made while Jesus and The Twelve were moving about [Greek] -2 _ftnref16 [Greek] in Galilee. From this it is also clear that The Ministry of the Retirement or Withdrawal, during which Jesus spent much time away from the crowds and with his disciples, instructing them, is still continuing: they Jesus and The Twelve were moving about together;hence, not in public; or, as the parallel passage, Mark 9:30, puts it, He would not have anyone know it. This second announcement adds certain details to the one found in 16:21: a. Here (contrast 16:21) the emphasis is not on the necessity but on the certainty of the coming passion. b. The humiliation to which the impending bitter experience will subject Jesus is here emphasized: he who is the glorious Son of man (see on 8:20) is going to be delivered into the hands of men; that is, he, the exalted One, will be given or handed over from one to another, as if he were a mere thing or toy. He will be delivered into the hands of the persons mentioned in the first prediction: elders, priests, and scribes: the Sanhedrin, and by them to Pilate. Note contrast between Son of man and &men, mere men, viewed as wicked, corrupt. Continued: and they shall kill him.Nothing was going to prevent these wicked men from doing away with their enemy. Here, as in 16:21, the resurrection on the third day is also mentioned: 23b. and on the third day he shall be raised up.See on 16:21. As before, so also now, the disciples do not know what to make of this prediction. They understood neither the necessity and certainty of the passion nor the announcement of the resurrection on the third day. Cf. Mark 9:32a: But they did not understand the saying. Their total reaction to the second prediction, taken in its entirety (17:22, 23a) was: And they were deeply distressed.Since they did not know what was meant by being raised up, this part of the prediction was not able to turn their sorrow into joy. They were very, very sad. Besides, as Mark 9:32b adds, They were afraid to ask him. See also Luke 9:45. 17:24–27 The Payment of the Temple Tax 24 And when they had come to Capernaum the collectors of the double-drachma tax came to Peter and said, Doesn t your teacher pay the double-drachmas? 25 He said, Yes, he does. And when he [Peter] came into the house Jesus spoke first to him, saying, What do you think, Simon? The kings of the earth, from whom do they collect toll or tax, from their sons or from foreigners? 26 When he answered, From foreigners, Jesus said to him, Then the sons are exempt. 27 But that we may not ensnare them, go to the sea and throw in a hook; then take the first fish that comes up, open its mouth and you will find a stater. Take that and give it to them for me and for yourself. 24. And when they had come to Capernaum the collectors of the double-drachma tax came to Peter and said, Doesn t your teacher pay the double-drachmas?Jesus and The Twelve had been absent from Capernaum for a long time, traveling from place to place away from the large Jewish crowds, as has been shown. They had visited the neighborhood of Tyre and Sidon and the district of Caesarea Philippi. Three of the disciples had been with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration. And even after the descent from that elevation, the party had not immediately re-entered Capernaum. But now they were back in the place where Jesus had his headquarters and where Peter also lived. So, the tax-collectors arrive! However, the story told by Matthew by him alone has nothing to do with taxes exacted by Rome. It concerns redemption money, the ransom price a ransom for his soul which every Israelite, twenty years and over, was by the Lord ordered to pay, and which was used for the maintenance of the sanctuaryExod. 30:12–14; 38:26; II Chron. 24:6, 9; cf. Josephus AntiquitiesXVIII.312; Jewish WarVII.213 . It amounted to half a shekel, equal in value to the didrachmaor double-drachma. The drachma, a Greek silver coin, was about equal in value to a Roman denar(ius). It amounted to a workman's average daily wage. Consequently the double-drachma was the amount a man would generally earn for two day's work. Since this temple tax was paid in Jewish coin the money-changers profited by making a small charge for exchanging foreign money for Jewish. Now it was this double-drachma or half shekel which neither Jesus nor Peter had as yet paid, perhaps due to absence from Capernaum. So the collectors approach Peter. Why did they not go directly to Jesus? It may have been because they did not wish to embarrass the Master. They may have approached Peter, instead of one of the other disciples, because they regarded him as the leader of The Twelve, or simply because they knew that he at least would be able to answer their question. Speaking to Peter they call Jesus your teacher, the teacher recognized as such by The Twelve, and by many others besides. There was nothing strange about that title used with respect to Jesus (see also 8:19; 9:11). The Lord certainly deserved it in every way. Doesn t your teacher pay the double-drachma? We have no right to assume that any adverse criticism was intended. These tax-collectors probably knew that on many questions such as fasting, sabbath-observance, handling food with hands that had not been ceremonially rinsed, etc. Jesus and the Pharisees disagreed. The collectors probably did not distinguish sharply, as Jesus did, between things commanded in the law and human regulations superimposed upon the law. Accordingly, they may well have been of the opinion that for some reason or other Jesus did not pay the double-drachmas, the half-shekels. 25. He said, Yes, he does.Peter does not hesitate for a moment. He may have remembered what Jesus had said regarding the law of God (5:17, 18). Also, he may have been present on other occasions when the Lord paid the tax. The conversation between Peter and the tax-collectors seems to have taken place on the street. Peter now proceeds on his way, intending to relate his experience to Jesus, and therefore to go to the house where the latter was staying at this time (for this house see on 9:28). He must have been hardly prepared for the surprise he received when Jesus himself opens the conversation and shows that he already knows whatever Peter was about to tell him. And when he [Peter] came into the house Jesus spoke first to him, saying, What do you think, Simon? The kings of the earth, from whom do they collect toll or tax, from their sons or from foreigners?Jesus anticipated [Greek] -2 _ftnref17 ([Greek] Peter, got ahead of him. That apostle received the same kind of a surprise that Cleopas and his companion were going to receive on the Sunday evening of the resurrectionLuke 24:33, 34). In that case the eleven &were the ones who spoke first. As to Christ's penetrating knowledge see John 1:47, 48; 2:25; 21:17. Cf. Ps. 139; Heb. 4:13. By asking Simon, From whom do they [the kings of the earth] collect toll [on goods] or tax [on their [Greek] -2 _ftnref18 ([Greek] from their sons or from foreigners? the Lord wishes to make it very clear that, strictly speaking, he is not under any obligation to pay this tax. The members of the king's family are not taxed but are maintained by the taxes paid by others. Frequently kings will not even tax their own citizens, but will gather tribute from conquered nations. 26. When he answered, From foreigners, Jesus said to him, Then the sons are exempt.Was not Jesus the Son of God by nature? Was not the temple his Father's houseLuke 2:49; John 2:16)? Was he not, in fact, greater than the temple (Matt. 12:6)? And as to Peter? Was he not a son by adoption? Continued: 27. But in order not to ensnare them, go to the sea and throw in a hook; then take the first fish that comes up, open its mouth and you will find a stater. Take that and give it to them for me and for yourself.Jesus means, We must not cause others to become ensnaredin sin. [Greek] -2 _ftnref19 [Greek] After all, the paying of this tax was not a merely human regulation but a divinely instituted requirement. Besides, had he and Peter not paid this tax it would have been interpreted as lack of interest in, and want of esteem for, the temple; perhaps even as irreverence. That must not be. So out of the Father's vast resources Jesus is going to take what is needed to pay the temple-tax for himself and for Peter. Simon must go to the sea. He does not have to cast any net; a mere hook will suffice. The first fish that comes up will have a stater,that is, a four-drachmacoin, in its mouth. That coin, amounting to a shekel, will be exactly sufficient for Jesus and Peter. They will secure freedom from debt that is, that which by the general public might be considered a debt in exchange forthat stater. Needless to say, that is exactly what also happened. One stands in awe before this miracle. A careful reading of the entire account indicates the following with respect to Jesus Christ: his penetrating knowledge (verse 25a), consciousness of sonship (verse 25b), considerateness (verse 27a), authority even over the sea and its denizens (verse 27b), and generosity (verse 27c). Summary of Chapter 17 I solemnly declare to you that there are some of those that are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of man coming in his royal dignity (16:28). There are interpreters who believe that by means of the transfiguration recorded in chapter 17 these words occurring at the close of chapter 16 are beginning to be fulfilled. However that may be, according to 17:1–13 six days after Peter's glorious profession of faith in Jesus as being the Messiah, the latter takes with him Peter, James, and John to a high mountain, so that after Christ's resurrection (see 17:9) the three will be able to bear witness concerning the things which they now are about to see and hear. While on this mountain Jesus is transfigured before their eyes, so that his face shines like the sun and his clothes become radiant with dazzling light. Suddenly Moses and Elijah, surrounded with heavenly brightness the one probably representing the law, the other the prophets also appear. They are speaking to Jesus concerning the departure which, in fulfilment of law and prophecy, he will accomplish at Jerusalem (Luke 9:31). Impulsive Peter, not knowing what he is saying, suggests that he be allowed to make three shelters, one for Jesus, one for Moses, and one for Elijah. Suddenly a cloud of diffused light covers Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. As previously at baptism so now also a voice is heard, saying, This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him. The frightened disciples fall on their faces, but by Christ's touch they are delivered from their fear and at his command they arise. When they raise their eyes they see no one but Jesus only. During the descent from the mount Jesus clears up the mystery concerning John the Baptist being Elijah whose coming, in fulfilment of prophecy, had preceded Christ's own. What a contrast (verses 14 20) between the glory on top of the mount and the misery, shame, and confusion below! Having descended to the valley Jesus and the three are looking at a distraught father whose demon-possessed, epileptic, only son the nine disciples, because of their lack of enduring faith and prayer, had not been able to heal. Probably gloating over this failure scribes are arguing with the nine (Mark 9:14). A crowd of curiosity seekers is looking on. O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I put up with you? Jesus cries. He adds, Bring him here to me, and instantly cures the lad. The Master then explains to his disciples how it was that they had failed, adding that if they have faith like a mustard seed they will be able to carry out any task assigned to them. Verses 22, 23 contain the second clear prediction concerning Christ's approaching passion and resurrection, with emphasis on the certainty and humiliating character of the coming ordeal. Jesus and his disciples had been away from Capernaum a tax collecting center for a long time. So the temple tax had not yet been paid. Doesn t your teacher pay the double-drachmas? It was the question put to Peter by the collector of this tax. Peter answers, Yes, he does. When Peter is at the point of telling Jesus what has happened, the latter speaks first and shows that he already knows. He also knows where the tax money for both himself and Peter can be obtained, namely, from the mouth of the very first fish which Peter, ordered to the sea, is going to catch. For the light which verses 24 27 shed on Jesus see pp. 679, 680. -2 _ftn1 617 A. B. Bruce, Synoptic Gospels, p. 228. -2 _ftn2 618 H. N. Ridderbos, op. cit.,p. 24. -2 _ftn3 N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary -2 _ftn4 619 This location is favored also by W. Ewing in his article Transfiguration, Mount of, I.S.B.E. Vol. V, p. 3006; and by E. G. Kraeling, op. cit.,p. 390. He mentions Jebel Kan an, north of Capernaum, as another possibility. -2 _ftn5 620 The verb [Greek], generally rendered was transfigured, is the one from which our English words metamorphose and metamorphosis are derived. We are told that the morpheelement in the Greek word always denotes the essential form, and that therefore in the present case this essential form was changed. Jesus, then, underwent a metamorphosis: his human nature begins to make use of its divine attributes. The whole body of Jesus for a brief time was allowed to shine with the light and refulgence of its heavenly divinityop. cit.,pp. 632–634 . Now it is true that in certain contexts morpheor formrefers indeed to the inner, essential, and abiding nature of a person or thing, while schemaor fashionpoints to his or its external, accidental, and fleeting bearing or appearance; and that especially when, as in Phil. 2:6, 8; Rom. 12:2, these two are used side by side, we do well to mark this distinction. See N.T.C. on Phil. 2:6, 7a. This does not mean, however, that in every context a verb that is based on the morphestem must refer to an actual change of substance, a metamorphosis. Words have histories, become adaptable to all kinds of situations, and there is no reason whatever why in the present case this verb may not indicate change of appearanceinstead of change of nature or essence. Besides, the context his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as the light does not prove that a change of essence or of nature took place, though it is true that the change in outward appearance here indicated mayhave been due to glory from withinirradiating Christ's whole being. -2 _ftn6 621 See A. B. Bruce, Synoptic Gospels, pp. 228–230. -2 _ftn7 622 The interpretation offered by the theologian-philosopher K. Schilder Christ in his Suffering(translated from the Dutch), Grand Rapids, 1938, pp. 26–34 is different. That author was of the opinion that Jesus had taken Satan along with him to the mountain, and that what occurred there was a temptation for the Mediator, a link in the chain of his humiliation. Jesus was enveloped with the aureole of the glamor of Moses and Elijah. He shone with light reflected from them. While Schilder's work furnishes worthwhile reading material, I believe that II Peter 1:16, 17points in the opposite direction and that the temptation theory cannot be proved. -2 _ftn8 A.V. Authorized Version (King James) -2 _ftn9 623 (The fact that in the present case [Greek] means what has been seen or what you have seen is also confirmed by the verbal forms found in the other GospelsMark 9:9: he charged them not to tell anyone what they had seen; cf. Luke 9:36). Besides, Acts 7:31, using the same noun [Greek], cannot mean that Moses at the burning bush merely saw a vision. On the contrary, he wondered at the sight [the spectacle, that which he saw.] L.N.T. (A. and G.), entry [Greek], p. 580, fails us here. L.N.T. (Th.) and H. G. Liddell and R. Scott are to be preferred in this particular instance. -2 _ftn10 624 Other explanations: There is, first of all, that advanced by C. R. Erdman, op. cit.,p. 139, and by A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. I, p. 141. As they see it, the disciples are thinking of Elijah's appearance on the mount of transfiguration, and are saying, in, effect, How is it that Jesus arrived before Elijah did, whereas according to prophecy Elijah should have come first? Objection: this very brief appearance of the Tishbite could hardly have been regarded by these men as a fulfilment of Malachi's prophecy. W. C. Allen, op. cit.,p. 186, thinks that the disciples are virtually asking, Why death in view of the restorative work of a forerunner? Evaluation: This may well be part of the explanation, but does it do justice to the difficulty which, according to verse 10, confronted the three, that difficulty being one pertaining to the sequencein which according to Malachi's prophecy the two comings (Elijah's and Messiah's) had to occur? -2 _ftn11 625 (Ancient Jewish interpreters gave a variety of interpretations to the restorationapokatastasis) which the literal (as they saw it) Elijah was to bring about; for example, he would promote peace in the familyMal. 4:6a , would establish harmony between God and man, would restore the tribes of Israel, etc. For Jewish source material on all this see J. Jeremias, article [Greek] in TH.D.N.T., Vol. II, pp. 933, 934. -2 _ftn12 626 For a more detailed discussion see my paperback, Israel and The Bible, chap. 1, Who Killed Jesus?, pp. 7–15. -2 _ftn13 627 See A. E. Bailey, op. cit.,pp. 240–246; C. P. Maus, op. cit.,pp. 250–252. -2 _ftn14 628 Greek [Greek]. For a defense of the rendering is an epileptic instead of is a lunatic or is moon-struck see on 4:24. -2 _ftn15 629 On the basis of manuscript evidence this reading must be retained, instead of Because of your unbelief. -2 _ftn16 630 (Textual evidence seems to support [Greek] rather than [Greek]. The word [Greek] is the gen. pl. participle, pres. middle of [Greek]. In the active voice the meaning is to turn together, to gather, collectActs 28:3); hence, here in the middle voice the sense is probably were moving about together. This meaning, though not entirely certain, fits the context, is also in harmony with the cognate noun [Greek]: a gathering, concourse (Acts 19:40), and brings the passage into harmony with (Mark 9:30. ) -2 _ftn17 631 The verb used is [Greek], third per. sing. aor. indic. of [Greek], the only occurrence of this word in the New Testament. See, however, II Clement 8:2. -2 _ftn18 632 The word [Greek] refers to indirect taxation, duty, or custom, gathered at custom-houses by [Greek], publicans. The next word, [Greek], was loaned from the Latin census. The names of those who were obliged to pay it were written on a roll; hence our census. -2 _ftn19 633 The word [Greek] is first per. pl. aor. subj. active of [Greek] See footnote 293 on p. 303. CHAPTER XVIII Chapter 18 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him to Do Kindness toward the Little Ones and The Forgiving Spirit toward All The Fourth Great Discourse 18:1–35 Kindness toward Little Ones and the Forgiving Spirit toward All 18 1 At that moment the disciples came to Jesus, asking, Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven? 2 So he called to himself a little child, had him stand in the midst of them, 3 and said, I solemnly declare to you, unless you turn and become like the little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore whoever becomes humble like this little child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And the person who in my name welcomes one such little child as this, welcomes me. 6 But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it is better for him that a heavy millstone be hung around his neck and he be drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of its temptations.^[634] For temptations must come, but woe to the man who is responsible for the temptation. 8 And if your hand or your foot lures you into sin, cut it off and fling it away from you. It is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the everlasting fire. 9 And if your eye lures you into sin, pluck it out and fling it away from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire. 10 Be careful that you do not scornfully look down upon a single one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven. 12 What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep and one of them goes astray, will he not leave the ninety-nine in the mountains,^[635] and does he not go in search of the wandering one? 13 And if he actually finds it, I solemnly declare to you that he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that have not gone astray. 14 So also it is not the will of your Father in heaven that one of these little ones should perish. 15 Now if a brother sin against you, go and show him his fault while you are alone with him. If he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 But if he does not listen (to you), take one or two other persons with you, in order that by the mouth of two witnesses or three every matter may be established. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as the foreigner and the tax-collector. 18 I solemnly declare to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.^[636] 19 Again I say to you, if on earth two of you agree about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by my Father who is in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name there am I in the midst of them. 21 Then Peter came up and said to him, Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times? 22 Jesus answered, I say to you, not up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. 23 That is why the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. 24 Now when he had begun to settle (accounts), there was brought to him one (servant) who owed him ten thousand talents. 25 But since he did not have the means to pay his debt his master ordered him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. 26 So the servant fell prostrate at his master's feet, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything. 27 The heart of that servant's master was moved with pity, and he let him go free and forgave him the debt. 28 But that same servant, as he went out, came upon one of his fellow-servants, who owed him one hundred denarii. He grabbed him (by the throat) and started to choke him, saying, Pay whatever it is you owe! 29 So that fellow-servant fell at his feet and was begging him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay you. 30 But he was and remained unwilling, and instead had him thrown in jail until he should pay what was owed. 31 Now when his fellow-servants saw what had happened they felt very sad, and went and reported in detail to their master all that had occurred. 32 Then his master, having summoned him, said to him, You wicked servant; all that debt I forgave you when you begged me. 33 Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow-servant, even as I had mercy on you? 34 And filled with wrath his master handed him over to the torturers until he should pay the entire debt. 35 So also shall my heavenly Father do to you if each of you does not heartily forgive his brother. For 18:1–5 cf. Mark 9:33 37; Luke 9:46 48. For 18:6–9 cf. Mark 9:42 48; Luke 17:1, 2. For 18:10–14 cf. Luke 15:3 7. For 18:15–20 cf. Luke 17:3. For 18:21–35 cf. Luke 17:4. Connection That there is a close temporal connection between this chapter and the preceding paragraph (the temple tax) is clear from the words, At that moment (literally, in that hour, 18:1). Evidently Peter had now been joined by the other disciples, all of them grouped around the Savior at his home or lodging place (see on 9:28) in Capernaum (Mark 9:33). There is probably also a material or thought connection. In the last few chapters Matthew has been mentioning Peter far more often than any of the other disciples (14:28, 29; 15:15; 16:16–18, 22, 23; 17:4, 24 27). It was Peter who had walked on the water. It was Peter who had asked Jesus to explain his saying regarding ceremonial versus real defilement. It was to Peter that Jesus had addressed the words, You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church. On the Mount of Transfiguration it was again Peter who was the most vocal of the three accompanying disciples. The tax-collectors, wishing to know whether or not Jesus customarily paid the temple tax, had singled out Peter, evidently thinking that he, rather than anyone else, would have the answer. And it was Peter who by the Lord was ordered to catch the fish with the coin in its mouth. In fact, while Matthew mentions Peter only a few times in the earlier part of his Gospel, and in the final section only in chapter 26 (mainly in the story of Peter's denial), in chapters 14 19 his name (Peter, Simon, Simon Peter) occurs at least a dozen times. Matthew, moreover, reported what was actually happening. It is not surprising, therefore, that the question would arise in the minds of the other disciples, Could it be that in Christ's kingdom Peter is, or is going to be, after Jesus himself the most important person? Nevertheless, they were not sure that this question would receive an affirmative answer. There were the following facts to offset the idea of Peter's superior importance: a. he had been sharply rebuked by Jesus (16:23); b. not only Peter but also James and John had been with Jesus on the Holy Mount (17:1); and c. Peter's suggestion that three shelters be built on that mount had not even received an answer (17:4, 5), as the sons of Zebedee knew very well. So, perhaps Peter was not the greatest after all. But if not Peter, who then? The question of these disciples was by no means an innocent one. In their favor it must be granted that implied in their very question was the faith that Jesus was indeed King, and that his kingdom whatever might be its nature was going to become publicly and gloriously manifested. Nevertheless, the men who were constantly discussing the matter of rank and priority in the kingdom were not free from sinful ambition. Otherwise, why would they have been ashamed of themselves when Jesus asked, What were you discussing on the way? (Mark 9:33, 34). Now it was in answer to the question Who is greatest? that Jesus said, Unless you turn and become like the little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven (18:3). However, it is not merely the lesson of trustful humility that the Master is here teaching his disciples. The sinful yearning to be greater than one's fellowmen and to rule over them is not a merely passive attitude. It is a very active drive. Therefore also its opposite and antidote can be nothing less than the similarly active effort to love all, that is, not only to become like the children but also to love them and to protect them; indeed, to exercise this same loving attitude toward all, gladly forgiving all. Summary The chapter must be considered a unit.^[637] Under the general heading or title Kindness toward the Little Ones and the Forgiving Spirit toward All the subdivisions with their main teachings may be summarized as follows: Be Kind to the Little Ones: Become like them (verses 1 5) Guard them, preventing them and yourselves from falling into temptation (verses 6 9) Regard them highly; and if they wander away, go and find them and bring them home (verses 10 14). Show the Forgiving Spirit toward All: Church Discipline should be a matter of last resort: If a brother sins against you, go and show him his fault while you are alone with him, etc. The steps in discipline (verses 15 20). The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant (verses 23 35), in answer to Peter's question, Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times? 1. Be Kind to the Little Ones (a) Become like them 1. At that moment the disciples came to Jesus, asking, Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven? In the light of (Mark 9:33, 34it is evident that Matthew abbreviates. In all probability the disciples had not intended to reveal to Jesus what they had been discussing on the way to his home. But the Lord knew, and wanted them to make a clean breast of it. For other instances of Christ's penetrating knowledge see 17:25; John 1:47, 48; 2:25; 21:17; but see also Mark 13:32;Matt. 24:36). So Jesus asked, What were you discussing on the way? Embarrassed silence followed. Then they came out with it: they had been arguing (Luke 9:46) about rank or status, and their question had been as it was even now, Who then is greatest^[638] in the kingdom of heaven? It seems strange that almost the first recorded result of Christ's second announcement (17:22, 23a) of his rapidly approaching departure in Jerusalem should have been the disciples quarrelling for the lead ^[639] in the kingdom. How quickly their sorrow (17:23b) caused by Christ's prediction of his deep humiliation had given way to their craving for exaltation! Yet, such men as these Jesus had chosen to be his disciples! For such as these see also p. 246 f. he was going to lay down his life! When we consider this we see more clearly the greatness and sovereign (by men wholly unmerited) character of God's electing love. Cf. Ps. 103:14; 115:1; Ezek. 16:1–14; Dan. 9:7, 8; I John 4:19; and N.T.C. on Eph. 1:4. 2 4. So he called to himself a little child, had him stand in the midst of them.& What Jesus did at this occasion revealed not only his thorough understanding of the nature of the kingdom and of the way of entering it, but also his tenderness toward the little ones. What he said deserved all the praise that has ever been ascribed to it, and far more than that. But was not the amazing glory of the Mediator's soul revealed also in his restraint, that is, in what he did not do and did not say? He did not even scold his disciples for their callousness, their insensibility with respect to his approaching agony, the non-lasting character of their grief, their quickness in turning the mind away from him to themselves, their selfishness. All this he passed by, and addressed himself directly to their question. It is pleasing to note the frequency with which the presence of children around Jesus and/or his love for them is mentioned in the Gospels. See (Matt. 14:21; 15:38; 18:3; 19:13, 14Mark 10:13, 14; Luke 18:15, 16); 21:15, 16; 23:37 (Luke 13:34). Undoubtedly children felt attracted to Jesus, wanted to be with him. Whenever he wanted a child there was always one present, ready to do his bidding, to come when he called him. So also here. To speculate who this child was is useless. The point is that this was indeed a child, endowed with all the favorable and amiable qualities generally associated with childhood in any clime and at any time. The Lord calls this little one to his side, and places him in the midst of all these big men, perhaps in such a position that the child faced them while they were arranged in a crescent before him. The child was not afraid, for it stood by the Lord's very side (Luke 9:47), and was then taken up in his arms (Mark 9:36), where he would feel perfectly at ease and able to look up into the face of Jesus. The Master looked at his disciples and said, I solemnly declare to you, unless you turn and become like the little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. What he meant was this: You have been arguing about the question who will be greatest in the kingdom of heaven, as if you were sure of already being in it and of being destined for its future manifestation in glory. But if you continue in your present state of mind and heart, each of you being eager to be higher than his fellows and to lord it over them, you will be excluded; you will then most certainly^[640] not even enter it. Jesus demands that the disciples turn, that is, that they be converted from their worldly ambition, their coarse selfishness. Of course, they cannot do this in their own power. They must pray the prayer found in (Jer. 31:18, Turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art Jehovah my God. Only when the divine act of causing a person to be reborn has taken place, is conversion, as an act in which man himself takes part, even possibleJohn 3:3, 5). That this turning from self to God; from sin to grace implies becoming like the little children is clear from the juxtaposition of the words, for Jesus said, unless you turn and become like the little children, etc. This poses the question, Exactly what did he mean when he solemnly declared (see on 5:18) that with a view to entrance into the kingdom of heaven (see on 4:23; 13:43) the disciples must become like the little children? Among the favorable qualities which we generally associate with the little ones the following are perhaps the most outstanding: simplicity, frankness, obedience, unpretentiousness, humility, trustfulness. The fact that they are weak, very limited in strength and knowledge, and that they do not deny this, endears them to us. All of these traits may well have been in the mind of the Savior when he told the disciples that if they wanted to enter the kingdom of heaven they must become like the little children. Nevertheless, it is especially humility or, if one prefers, humble trustfulness which the Savior emphasizes in the present passage. This is evident first of all from the preceding context, which requires that the disciples striving to be the greatest make place for willingness to be the least; then also from the immediately following passage (verse 4); note the words: whoever becomes humble like this little child; and finally, from such parallels as 20:20–28; 23:11, 12; (Mark 9:35, 42; Luke 18:14; 22:24–30. See also John 13:1 20and I Peter 5:5, 6. Salvation, whether in its initial, continuing, or final stage, must always be accepted as an undeserved gift, even the faith by means of which it is accepted being also a gift. See N.T.C. on Eph. 2:8. Thus all human boasting is excludedRom. 3:27). God alone receives the glory. Christ's negative statement (verse 3) implies the positive: Therefore whoever becomes humble like this little child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. It was a reaffirmation of a lesson Jesus had been teaching right along. He had taught it by means of the first four beatitudes (see on 5:3–6). He had stressed it in connection with the praise which he had heaped upon the centurion (8:5–13) and upon the Canaanite woman (15:27, 28). He was constantly teaching it by means of his own example (Matt. 12:15–21; 20:28; 21:5; Luke 22:27; John 13:1 20; cf. II Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:5–8). And now there was this humble little child, still looking trustfully into the eyes of the Master! Let the disciples yes, let everyone then become like this child. Let them learn that the only way to ascend is to descend. Do they wish to become great? Then let them become little! Do they wish to rise? Then let them sink! Do they wish to rule? Then let them serve! Or, as a Dutch poem (Te worden als een kindeke), of which I here offer my free translation, has it: Make me, O Lord, a child again, So tender, frail, and small, In self possessing nothing, and In thee possessing all. O Savior, make me small once more, That downward I may grow, And in this heart of mine restore The faith of long ago. With thee may I be crucified No longer I that lives O Savior, crush my sinful pride By grace which pardon gives. Make me, O Lord, a child again, Obedient to thy call, In self possessing nothing, and In thee possessing all. 5. And the person who in my name welcomes one such little child as this, welcomes me. That the truth here expressed applies not only to the lambs of the flock but also to all who by grace have become like them was made clear in 10:40 (see on that passage). By welcoming any of those who belong to Jesus Christ, no matter how insignificant he may appear to the world roundabout, we are welcoming Jesus Christ himself, for it is impossible to separate the Lord from those whom he considers his own (Acts 9:4, 5; 22:7; 26:15; Rom. 8:35–39). (b) Guard them, preventing them and yourselves from falling into temptation Accordingly, Jesus continues: 6. But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it is better for him that a heavy millstone be hung around his neck and he be drowned in the depth of the sea. Here the Savior places the negative (not welcoming the little ones but causing them to sin) over against the positive (welcoming them) of the preceding verse. It is clear that the Lord is speaking about possibilities that may, and often do, arise when some worldly (see verse 7) person, whether within or outside of the visible church, commits the grave sin of trying to lead one of God's true children astray. He is saying that even if the sin be planned against only one of those so precious in God's sight, physical death for such a planner yes, death of the most gruesome kind would be preferable.^[641] The evil to which Jesus here refers, namely, causing someone else, one of God's dear children, to sin, clearly refers to placing in his path enticements to do wrong, traps, beguiling allurements,^[642] as is clear from verse 7. Jesus, then is saying that it is preferable for such an evil person that a heavy (literally donkey-drawn) millstone be hung about his neck and he be drowned in the depth of the sea; that is, that with this heavy millstone around his neck, making drowning doubly sure, he be taken far away from shore to the place where the splashing waters of the turbulent sea or ocean are very deep, and that he there be plunged into this watery grave from which return is absolutely impossible. The millstone of which Jesus speaks is the top-stone of the two between which the grain is crushed. The reference is not to the handmill but to the much heavier stone drawn by a donkey.^[644] In the middle of the top-stone, whether of a handmill or of a donkey-drawn mill, there is a hole through which grain can be fed so as to be crushed between the two stones. The presence of this hole explains the phrase that a heavy millstone be hung around his neck. ^[645] To summarize, what Jesus is saying in verses 1 6 is this, that, instead of striving to become greatest in the kingdom of heaven (verse 1), in the process of attempting this hurting others instead of guarding them (verse 6), the disciples should rather learn to forget about themselves and to focus their loving attention upon Christ's little ones, upon the lambs of the flock and upon all those who in their humble trustfulness (or trustful humility) resemble these lambs. By welcoming them they will be welcoming their Lord (verse 5). This they will learn to do if they themselves also become like the little children, even like this little one whom Jesus has taken into his arms. That is the only way to greatness in the kingdom of heaven (verses 2 4). On the subject of a. hurting others by leading them into temptation (verse 7, cf. verse 6), or b. allowing oneself to be misled (verses 8, 9) Jesus continues as follows: 7. Woe to the world because of its temptations. Those who tempt others to sin and do not repent of this terrible evil show that they belong to the world, to mankind alienated from the life of God.^[646] Not all of these people upon whom this prophetic curse the very opposite of a beatitude (5:3–12) is pronounced are necessarily to be thought of as being from the start outside the kingdom, when the latter concept is taken in its broadest sense. Even the disciples themselves must be on their guard, as Jesus has shown just now (see verses 3, 6), lest they should belong to the world that strives to lure God's children into sin. The seriousness of committing this sin appears from the fact that it was through temptation that sin entered the human realm (Gen. 3:1–6) and is still spreading (I Tim. 6:9; James 1:12). Temptation is of the devil, the great tempter (Matt. 4:1; John 8:44; I Peter 5:8), whose wiles are many (Eph. 6:11). The substance of the curse pronounced upon the world is indicated in verse 8 and verse 9. It is, however, impossible in this present realm of sin to put an end to every temptation, every enticement to sin: For temptations must come.& It is of the very nature of sin that it spreads. It would be easier to stop water hyacinths from clogging the waterways of Florida than to prevent temptations from clogging the tracks of the human race, including even the church. But though it is impossible to eradicate temptations, by God's grace it is possible to prevent oneself from belonging to the company of the tempters. Hence Jesus adds, but woe to the man who is responsible for the temptation, or, more literally, through whom the temptation comes. Neither God's eternal decrees nor the facts of history offer any excuse for the terrible sin of enticing others to do wrong. See Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23. By God's grace it is also possible to overcome temptations in one's own life: 8, 9. And if your hand or your foot lures you into sin, cut it off and fling it away from you. It is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the everlasting fire. And if your eye lures you into sin, pluck it out and fling it away from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire. The admonition found in 5:29, 30 is here repeated, with slight variations; for example, here in 18:8, 9 the reference to hand and foot is followed by that to the eye; in 5:29, 30 the reverse order is followed, the foot is not even mentioned, and instead of eye we find right eye. So also here in 18:8, 9 the punishment is described as being thrown into the everlasting fire &into the hell (Gehenna) of fire; in 5:29, 30 it is pictured as being thrown into or going down into hell (Gehenna). Finally, here in 18:8, 9 it is made very clear that the Gehenna of everlasting fire is the very opposite of life, that is, life everlasting with God in heaven (Matt. 25:46). But it is not upon these minor details that we should especially fix our attention but upon the central meaning which is the same in both places. See, therefore, the explanation of 5:29, 30. Drastic action is necessary to overcome temptation, action made possible by prayer (Matt. 6:13; 26:41). The promise of victory is given in such passages as Matt. 7:7; I Cor. 10:13; Heb. 2:18; James 1:12. It may seem as if Jesus has wandered away from the subject of guarding his little ones, and not tempting them to sin. In reality, however, he has not, for is not taking drastic action against the temptations by which Christ's disciples themselves are assailed one of the best methods of preventing themselves from enticing others? As to these little ones, Jesus further exhorts his disciples as follows: (c) Regard them highly; and if they wander away, go and find them and bring them home 10. Be careful that you do not scornfully look down upon a single one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven. At the root of all self-exaltation lies sinful pride, a looking down, or, as the Greek literally expresses it, a thinking down upon others. The proper attitude is that conveyed so touchingly by Paul: in humble-mindedness each counting the other better than himself (Phil. 2:3). The words of Jesus are very emphatic. He warns the disciples constantly to see to it not to make even a single one of those whom he considers his own the object of scorn or disdain, of belittlement or contempt. Much has been written about the words, for I say to you that in heaven their angels.& As to for, this is easily explained as introducing the reason why no one must despise a single one of these little ones. And as to I say to you, this probably means, I declare to you with all the authority at my command. I solemnly affirm. Now as to the saying itself, on its basis some have affirmed that each of God's children has his own guardian angel who remains with him for life, protecting him from harm and helping him in various ways.^[647] In this precise form, however, the theory has no solid Scriptural support. Passages to which an appeal has been made do not really confirm the theory. So, for example, (Gen. 48:16does not refer to a created angel (see the context, verse 15). Dan. 3:28must be explained in the light of 3:25. As far as text and context are concerned this angel or son of the gods who had been sent for the protection and encouragement of Daniel's friends remains a sublime mystery, and for that very reason can render no service in defense of the above-mentioned theory. The angel who was with Daniel in the lions denDan. 6:22) is said to have been God's angel (an angel sent by God), not Daniel's in the sense of being an angel who remained with and took care of the prophet at all times. And as to Acts 12:15, the apostles outcry It is his angel at the appearance of Peter, who had been imprisoned and securely guarded, but now suddenly stood before them no longer bound, must probably be ascribed to overwhelming amazement coupled with a measure of superstitious fear.^[648] In Heb. 1:14the service which angels render to God's children is ascribed in very general terms. Not a word is said about each believer having his own guardian angel. Finally, even the apocryphal book Tobit (see especially 5:4 ff.; 12:5), if it refers at all to Raphael as guardian angel in the sense defined above, can hardly be regarded as a dependable basis for this doctrine. It may reflect a belief pertaining to Zoroastrianism. So much for the guardian angel notion. Other interpreters, in their explanation of (Matt. 18:10, advocate the view that Jesus is saying that the esteem in which the little ones are held in heaven is so high that the most exalted angels had been commissioned by his Father to watch over them and to protect them.^[649] In favor of this view it has been argued that the words for in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven are probably based on a custom prevailing at the time in Eastern courts, where the men who were said to stand before the king and to see his faceI Kings 10:8; II Kings 25:19) were officers who enjoyed their sovereign's special favor, were near him, were privileged to enjoy close fellowship with him, constantly awaiting his orders. They were the men who were said to sit first in the kingdom (Esther 1:14). If this line of reasoning is followed, then Jesus is saying to his disciples, Do not regard as unimportant those who by my Father in heaven on this touchingly beautiful phrase and other similar ones see pp. 287, 326, 378, 543 are regarded so highly that he has appointed his most illustrious angels, those who as it were stand nearest to his throne and constantly rejoice in his glorious presence, to keep watch over them. It is not entirely certain that this Eastern custom actually underlies Christ's words. Either way, however, the difference in resultant meaning is not very substantial. Two qualifications must, however, be borne in mind: a. the meaning cannot be only his highest angels, for this would bring the passage into conflict with the rest of Scripture, in which angels rushing to the defense and consolation of God's children are by no means always characterized as only the most exalted ones (Ps. 91:11; Heb. 1:14); but rather as his angels, including even the highest ranking ones (Dan. 12:1; Luke 1:26); and b. the modifier their must not, with some interpreters^[650] be explained as indicating the angels of those only who are young in years, for that view fails to do justice to the contextual transition from the expression the little children to those who become like the little children (see especially verses 3 and 4). The little children are included, to be sure! What, then, can be regarded as the correct interpretation? I have not been able to find any better explanation of the passage than that offered by Calvin in his Commentary on A Harmony to the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke. He interprets the words of Jesus to mean, it is no light matter to despise those who have angels for their companions and friends.& We ought therefore to guard ourselves against despising their salvation, which even angels have been commissioned to promote.& The care of the entire Church is committed to angels, to assist each member as his needs require. To this, A. Kuyper^[651] adds two significant thoughts: a. Matt. 18:10does not emphasize that the angels speak to God in our behalf but rather that God through his angels takes care of his chosen ones; and b. nevertheless, the care and watchfulness bestowed upon God's children by the angels is not of a merely mechanical or arbitrary character. On the contrary, as is clear from such passages as Luke 15:10 and 16:22, the angels bear the needs of God's children on their very hearts, are deeply interested in them, and love them. To this I would add: Do not also such passages as Dan. 10:11; Luke 2:13, 14; I Peter 1:12; and Rev. 5:11, 12point in the same direction? According to Scripture ANGELS ARE: A. ttendants of Christ (II Thess. 1:7), their exalted Head (Eph. 1:21; 22; Col. 2:10) B. ringers of good tidings concerning our salvation (Luke 2:14; 24:4; Acts 1:11; I Tim. 3:16) C. horisters of heaven (Luke 15:10; I Cor. 13:1; Rev. 5:11, 12) D. efenders of God's children (Ps. 34:8; 91:11; Dan. 6:22; 10:10, 13, 20; Matt. 18:10; Acts 5:19; II Thess. 1:7–10; Rev. 12:7), though the latter outrank them and will judge them (I Cor. 6:3; Heb. 1:14) E. xamples in obedience (Matt. 6:10; I Cor. 11:10) F. riends of the redeemed, constantly watching over them, deeply interested in their salvation, and rendering service to them in every way, also in executing the judgment of God upon the enemy (Matt. 13:41; 25:31, 32; Luke 15:10; 16:22; I Cor. 4:9; Gal. 3:19; II Thess. 1:7; I Peter 1:12; Heb. 1:14; Rev. 20:1–3) The words, For the Son of man is coming to save that which was lost, cf. verse 11 in A.V., are lacking in the best manuscripts and were probably inserted from Luke 19:10. The fact that God is indeed a loving Father, One who tenderly cares for his flock, using angels and other means to carry out his gracious designs, introduces the parable of The Lost Sheep. In a more extended form this parable is found also in Luke 15:3 7. There, in view of the introduction that mentions the grumbling of the Pharisees and the scribes because Jesus welcomed sinners, and in view of the appended lesson in verse 7, which makes mention of ninety-nine righteous persons, it is clear that a figurative meaning must be assigned to these ninety-nine. This is not difficult, and it is surprising that the question, Who are the ninety-nine? has resulted in so much difference of opinion. However, in Matt. 18this question need not be faced, for here all the emphasis is on the one sheep that got lost. The ninety-nine are mentioned only as a kind of background, making the attention devoted to the one wandering sheep stand out all the more clearly. Jesus says, 12. What do you think? This can be regarded as a device to arouse the undivided attention of the listeners, eliciting their immediate and complete agreement with that which Jesus is about to say, namely, If a man has a hundred sheep and one of them goes astray, will he not leave the ninety-nine in the mountains, and does he not go in search of the wandering one?^[652] The fact that at least some people in the audience were well acquainted with the idea of Jehovah being his people's Shepherd (Ps. 23) must have driven the meaning home immediately. On this general subject and the use Jesus makes of it elsewhere, showing that also in this respect he and the Father are one, see what has been said previously in connection with 9:36; also N.T.C. on the Gospel according to John, Vol. II, pp. 97–132. Certainly the shepherd would leave the ninety-nine in the mountains and would go in search of the one wandering sheep. That is exactly what Jehovah is constantly doing. Is not this also exactly what Jesus himself came to do? Is it not also what the disciples should be doing, instead of focusing their attention upon their own future greatness (verse 1)? Continued: 13. And if he actually finds it, I solemnly declare to you that he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that have not gone astray. Jesus says if, for there are times when a straying sheep cannot be found. It may have been devoured by a wolf, or it may have perished for some other reason. So also not all those who belong to the church visible and for a while were outwardly walking in the way of the Lord, but who afterward show that they do not love the Lord, can be reclaimed. On the other hand, if the shepherd actually finds the wandering sheep he will rejoice over it more than over the ninety-nine that have not gone astray. He rejoices not only because he has found what he had lost. With him it is not a matter merely of recovering a material loss. Far from it! If he has a real shepherd's heart he rejoices also and especially in the joy of the sheep. Christ's statement is not a question, nor even a mere statement; it is a very solemn pronouncement, introduced by Amen (see on 5:18), I say to you. The joy over the rescue of that one sheep is greater than that over the ninety-nine. The elation over being a benefactor is greater than that of being a mere possessor! Jesus continues: 14. So also it is not the will of your Father in heaven that one of these little ones should perish. In close connection with the preceding verses we must conclude that what Jesus is asserting so very emphatically is that the Father in heaven is definitely interested in each of his sheep, yes, even in each of his wandering sheep. By sending his Son into the world he is rescuing sheep that have gone astray. In this the Father delights. See Luke 15:7, 20, 22 24. So does the Son. See Matt. 9:12, 13; Luke 19:10; John 10:11, 14. In this kind of work the disciples too should be engaged. See Matt. 9:36 10:1; John 4:35. It is indeed a very comforting truth that is here revealed. That it is God's revealed will that not a single one should perish but that all be saved, that this is his delight, is the doctrine of Scripture throughout. In line with this see the following passages: (Deut. 5:29; Ps. 81:13; Isa. 45:22; 48:18; Ezek. 18:23, 32; 33:11; Matt. 11:28, 29; John 7:37; II Peter 3:9; Rev. 22:17. See also on Matt. 9:37, 38and 23:37Luke 13:34).^[653] Reclaiming love implies forgiveness. So the next sub-topic is: 2. Show the Forgiving Spirit toward All a. Church Discipline should be a matter of last resort: If a brother sins against you, go and show him his fault while you are alone with him.& The steps in discipline. 15. Now if a brother sin against you, go and show him his fault while you are alone with him. Jesus has been warning against the evil of tempting others to sin. Instead of becoming the cause of someone else's ruin every follower of the Lord should make it his business to find the sheep that has gone astray and to bring it back to the fold. But suppose the shoe is on the other foot. Suppose I myself am not the sinner, the one who causes others to become ensnared in sin, but instead the one sinned against, what then? In answering this question the Lord starts out by saying, Now if a brother sin against you.& Much discussion has centered around the phrase against you. Did Matthew actually write this? Did Jesus actually say this? Or must the phrase be omitted in view of the fact that some of the best and oldest manuscripts omit it? Those who are interested in the textual details should see the footnote.^[654] My own opinion is as follows: retention or omission of the phrase is not the big question. Even though the words as such are left out and the text simply reads, Now if a brother sins, go and show him his fault while you are alone with him, would not the admonition to have a private interview with the erring brother somewhat favor the assumption that the sin referred to was also of a private character? Passages such as I Cor. 5:1 5and Gal. 2:11 14(see N.T.C. on the last reference) show how sins that are not of a strictly private nature should be handled. Cf. I Tim. 5:20. Also, does not the context favor the retention of the phrase against you, whether expressed or implied? Note verse 21, Then Peter came up and said to him, Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? It seems as if he were saying, I know now what I must do when my brother sins against me, but how often must I do this? What may well be the strongest argument is derived from the parallel passage, Luke 17:3, 4. There in verse 3 the phrase against you is omitted, but is nevertheless clearly implied, as verse 4, which has it, indicates. It is my judgment, therefore, that the words against you may well have been in the original text, but that even if they were not actually there, they are implied.^[655] Nevertheless, although Jesus is here speaking about private offenses, the underlying requirement of showing love and the forgiving spirit toward all makes it reasonable to state that whenever the interests of the Church demand or even allow it, the rule of Matthew 18:15should also be applied to public sins. However, the qualification, Whenever the interests, etc. is important! Gal. 2:11 14must not be ignored! See John Calvin on that passage. The word sin is of a very general nature, so that the meaning of the entire conditional clause is this, If a member of the Christian fellowship obviously misses the mark, so that his conduct toward you is clearly not in keeping with the demand of God's holy law, as expressed in 7:12; 22:39; Mark 12:31.& The second and concluding clause is, Go and show him his fault &, ^[656] Jesus means that the offended brother should in the spirit of brotherly love go and show the sinner his fault, and this not certainly not most of all for the purpose of receiving satisfaction for a personal grievance, but rather in the interest of the offender, that he may repent, and may seek and find forgiveness. Whether the offended brother should make only one personal visit or should go more than once is not stated, and may depend on circumstances. To spare the honor of the brother who has sinned Jesus adds that such an interview with the offender must take place while you are alone with him, literally, between you and him alone, that is, privately. There must be a [Greek], a brotherly face-to-face confrontation. The Dutch and the Germans frequently use an expression which, literally translated into English, is (a meeting) between four eyes. If he listens to you, you have won your brother, Jesus continues, in similar loving vein. You have (meaning will have) won your brother: you will have been an instrument in God's hand in saving your brother for the kingdom. Cf. Prov. 11:30; I Cor. 9:19–22; Gal. 6:1; I Peter 3:1. The admonition of verse 15 is all the more appropriate because the brother who has been sinned against is, after all, also himself a sinner, one who should at all times first of all examine himself (I Cor. 11:28; cf. Ps. 139:23, 24). Self-discipline, which if properly performed always leads to humiliation, must precede and accompany mutual discipline. Church discipline, viewed negatively, is a matter of last resort. The objection to this line of exegesis might be that in Matt. 18Jesus proceeds at once to mutual discipline, never even mentioning self-discipline. But is this true? See 18:8, 9; one might even say, see 18:1–14. A sermon based on Matt. 18:1–20, and having as its theme Christian Discipline, and its points or sub-headings self-discipline, mutual discipline, and church discipline, would follow the trend of Christ's discourse. Jesus continues: 16. But if he does not listen (to you), take one or two other persons with you.& If the sinner refuses to admit his guilt and to repent, do not immediately give up, says Jesus as it were. For his own sake continue to work with him. The heart of the One who uttered the words of 23:37 and the parable of The Barren Fig Tree (Luke 13:8) is being openly displayed here in all its wooing love and patience. The offended brother is urged to revisit the offender. He must carefully choose and take along with him one or two exactly how many is left to him other persons. How wise this admonition! The Lord Jesus Christ, foreseeing the church's future course, is stipulating a method of disciplinary procedure that merits whole-hearted admiration and obedience. Anyone, in later years, reading these rules in their entirety (see especially verses 15 17), must be struck by their wise and practical character. For example, a church member who is of the opinion that he has a cause of complaint against his brother, reading these rules, and noticing that if he fails in his private attempt he must then ask one or two others to go with him, will probably ask himself, Is my case really so serious that I can get one or two other persons of sound judgment to go with me; or am I, perhaps, making a mountain out of a mole-hill? The main reason, though, necessitating taking along one or two others is stated in the words quoted from Deut. 19:15: in order that by the mouth of two witnesses or three every matter^[657] may be established.^[658] Cf. John 8:17; II Cor. 13:1; I Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28. Questions must be asked and answered. If it is agreed by the two or three the person who claims to have been wronged plus the witness(es) whom he has with him that a substantial wrong was really committed, firm but brotherly persuasion must again be used to convince the sinner of his error and to bring him to repentance and confession. It may be easier for two or three persons to succeed in this task than for one. It is implied, of course, that also in the present situation, if the effort of the visitors is crowned with success the sinner will have been won. But the possibility remains that he will not be won. In that case the matter will subsequently have to be reported to the church. The person(s) who accompanied the offended brother will then be able to confirm the latter's assertion that the matter is indeed as stated by him: that firm but brotherly methods were used to try to persuade the erring one of his fault and to bring him to repentance and confession, but that these efforts failed. This shows the reason why the visit by two or three must follow the private call. Accordingly, if these two or three do not succeed, the next step, now duly prepared for, regrettably is in order: 17. If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. Church must here be taken in the sense of the locally organized fellowship of believers. On the basis of the principles which Jesus himself laid down, the New Testament carefully avoids two extremes into which some in later years have fallen. On the one hand the extreme of minimizing the office and authority of apostles and elders is guarded against. See (Matt. 10:1, 40; Acts 15:6; 20:28a; I Thess. 5:12, 13; I Tim. 5:17; Heb. 13:17. On the other hand, the extreme of belittling the high standing, in the eyes of God, of the entire congregation, as if it lacked maturity; as if the body of all believers, whether conceived locally (as here in 18:17), denominationally, or universally, had no real say in matters of discipline or otherwise; and as if it were the privilege of the ecclesiastical authorities to rule arrogantly, as so many little tin godsI Peter 5:3in Phillips translation; cf. III John 9.) In the latter connection the following passages merit careful study: besides I Peter 5:3also Matt. 18:1 4(see the explanation given above); 20:20–28; Acts 15:22; 20:28b. To be sure, the church authorities must take the lead. So also here (see verse 18 the apostles in later times the elders must now be informed about the disciplinary matter which so far has not been resolved. But when the proper time arrives, should they not in turn ask the congregation as a whole to be remembered in prayer, along with all the individuals concerned, so that the Lord may provide wisdom and grace in this important matter? Is it not even possible that the consistory or session can think of someone outside its own immediate group, a very wise, experienced, and saintly member of the church, who might render assistance? Certainly not all the wisdom resides in elders, sessions, consistories, presbyteries, classes, special or general assemblies or whatever they may be called. Without in any way shirking their own responsibilities or laying aside their own authority, should not the overseers recognize the entire body of believers (here locally organized) in all important matters? Is not this the clear meaning of, Tell the church? Jesus continues: And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as the foreigner and the tax-collector. Not as if Jesus despised or would have nothing to do with foreigners and tax-collectors. As to his attitude toward non-Israelites see 8:11; and toward publicans see 9:10–13. But just as foreigners and tax-collectors who are still unconverted must be considered as being as yet outside the kingdom of God, so also this impenitent person must now be viewed as being in the same class. Because of his own stubbornness he has lost his right to church membership, and it has now become the church's painful duty to make this declaration in order that even this severe measure of exclusion may, with God's blessing, result in the man's conversion (I Cor. 5:5; II Thess. 3:14, 15). Note: even to the church, indicating the honor the Lord bestowed upon the church (Matt. 16:18my church, cf. Acts 20:28b; Eph. 1:23), and the grievous character of rejecting its admonition. Lack of discipline is a curse to any church. There must be rules regarding faith and conduct. To be sure the church has no right to regiment the life of its members, so that freedom is thrown out of the window, Pharisaism revived, and the Colossian heresy (Col. 2:20, 21) repeated. But there are, after all, certain broad principles, clearly stated in Scripture, and epitomized in such well-known passages as Matt. 5:43–45; 10:32, 33; 11:28–30; 16:24, 25; 22:37–40; John 13:34; Rom. 10:9; 12:1, 2, 21; 13:14; I Cor. 14:1a, and many, many others; principles which, as it were, summarize the whole of God's will for man's life. It is the privilege and the duty of the church to set forth these principles and to demand that its members strive, with the help of God's Spirit, to apply them to their everyday living and thinking. Gross and continued violations without subsequent repentance cannot be tolerated. It is the duty of the church as a whole and as represented by those who by the Lord have been appointed to rule over it to bind, that is, to forbid violation of these principles, and to loose, that is, to permit whatever is in harmony with them. The right of exclusion or excommunication from the church and, upon repentance, of readmission into the church is implied. It is for this reason that Jesus, speaking now in the plural and referring to the apostles as a group (these men in turn representing the church), repeats what he had previously (16:19) said in the singular, to Peter. He says: 18. I solemnly declare to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. The solemn introduction see on 5:18 indicates that the Lord regarded and still regards discipline, as described in 18:15–18, to be a very important matter. Its neglect means the ultimate destruction of the church as a powerful means of spreading the light of the gospel among its members and among the unsaved. See Rev. 2:5. There should be no doubt about the fact that, as in John 20:23(note the expression the disciples in verse 20 and the twelve in verse 24) these words were addressed to the disciples or apostles. Continued: 19. Again I say to you, if on earth two of you agree about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by my Father who is in heaven. Note in verse 18 and again in verse 19 the combination earth &heaven. In both cases there is perfect harmony between that which by a conscientious church is done on earth and that which takes place in heaven, the former action preceding the latter. According to verse 18 the discipline exercised on earth is confirmed in heaven; according to verse 19 the prayer offered on earth is answered by Christ's Father in heaven. On this phrase and similar ones, see pp. 287, 326, 378, 543. In line with the preceding context the symphonious asking to which verse 19 refers, though covering a large territory note anything that they may ask relates especially to prayer for wisdom in dealing with matters of discipline. The assurance is given that even though at a certain place the fellowship of believers consists of only two person, even these two, when in agreement with each other, can definitely figure on the guidance for which they have made request. It should hardly be necessary to add that such a prayer must be in keeping with the characteristics of true prayer which Jesus reveals elsewhere. It must be the expression of humble, childlike faith (7:11; 17:20; 18:3; cf. 21:22). It must be marked by sincerity, absence of ulterior motives (6:5), by perseverance (7:7), and by love for all concerned (5:44). It must be in subjection to God's sovereign will (6:10b), not as we will, but as thou wilt (cf. 26:39). It must be in Christ's name (John 15:16). In confirmation of the words of verse 19 Jesus continues: 20. For where two or three are gathered in my name there am I in the midst of them. The expression two or three is a development of two in the preceding verse. The Lord again assures his disciples that the gathering of believers for prayer and worship need not be one of crowding worshipers. Even two or three will receive a blessing as long as they gather in his name, that is, in close fellowship with him; hence, with his atoning work as the basis of their approach to God, at his direction, and in harmony with that which he has revealed concerning himself. For the concept name see also on 6:9; 7:22; 10:22, 41, 42; 12:21; 18:5. The promise is, There am I in the midst of them. The expression Jehovah in the midst of you is in Scripture generally associated with the impartation of strength, direction, protection, and consolation: to help, to comfort, and to bless. See such passages as Ps. 46:5; Isa. 12:6; Jer. 14:9; Hos. 11:9; Zeph. 3:5, 15, 17; Zech. 2:10. Similar is I am with youGen. 28:15; Deut. 31:6; Josh. 1:5; Judg. 6:16, etc. . We can safely conclude therefore that in the present passage the meaning is the same. It is in that favorable sense that Jesus is spiritually in the midst of his people gathered for prayer and worship. Most comforting is also the fact that Jehovah and this holds also for Jesus Christ though great and infinite, in his tender love condescends to that which is small, weak, humble, and by the world generally despised (Judg. 6:15, 16; 7:7; Ps. 20:7; Isa. 1:8, 9; 57:15; Zeph. 3:12; Matt. 18:10; Luke 12:32; I Cor. 4:11–13). This explains where two or three are gathered, etc. See also on Matt. 1:23, p. 141. The Parable of The Unmerciful Servant Occasion: Peter's Question and Christ's Summarizing Answer 21. Then Peter came up and said to him, Lord, how often shall my brother sin^[659] against me, and I forgive^[659] him? Up to seven times? In the present context the adverb then probably means shortly afterward, since there would seem to be a close connection between the matter presented in verse 15 and Peter's question.^[660] Peter, then, realizes that he must forgive the brother who has sinned against him, that is, that he must take the initiative in bringing about complete reconciliation; but how often must he reveal this merciful attitude, this disposition of sweet reasonableness? Must he forgive up to seven times? Peter may have been of the opinion that Jesus would praise him for his bigheartedness. If so, his expectation was not fulfilled. There was something wrong with Peter's approach. It smacked of rabbinism. It sounded as if the forgiving spirit were a commodity that could be weighed, measured, and counted; as if it could be parceled out little by little up to a certain well defined limit, when further distribution would have to stop. 22. Jesus answered, I say to you, not up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. Jesus, though in manner of expression falling in line with Peter's quantitively worded question, completely destroys that apostle's underlying assumption. He takes the two perfect numbers ten and seven multiplies them together, and then once again multiplies the result by seven.^[661] He does this to show that the spirit of genuine forgiveness recognizes no boundaries. It is a state of heart, not a matter of calculation. One might as well ask, How often must I love my wife, my husband, my children? as to ask, How often shall I forgive?. Everyone immediately senses that when Jesus said, up to seventy times seven times, he did not mean exactly four hundred ninety times, but not four hundred ninety-one. Clearly what he meant was, Forgive without ever stopping. Be kind toward your brother &always. 2. The Parable Proper (a) A king shows mercy to his servant by canceling his huge debt Jesus continues by telling a parable, a story-illustration: 23. That is why the kingdom of heaven is like^[662] a king^[663] who wished to settle accounts^[664] with his servants. Here that is why means: because the matter is as stated in verse 22, therefore in the realm of God's grace through Christ the principle that the forgiven person must always be ready, in turn, to reveal the forgiving spirit to others, may be illustrated as follows. For the meaning of the term the kingdom of heaven see on 4:23; 13:43. The servants with whom the king is about to settle accounts must have been high officials, probably satraps or provincial governors, whose duty it was to collect the royal taxes in their several domains, and to deliver these large sums to the king at the proper time. They could not have been slaves, though the word used in the original frequently has that meaning. One by one the servants were summoned to appear before the king. Continued: 24. Now when he had begun to settle (accounts), there was brought to him one (servant) who owed him ten thousand talents. An Attic talent, the kind probably meant here, amounted to no less than six thousand denarii or denars. At the rate of six denars a week (a denar for each working day, cf. 20:2, 13) it would take a laborer a thousand weeks to earn just one talent. To earn it! To save that amount in order to pay a debt would, of course, take much longer. But even if a laborer were able to save all the money he earned he could not expect during his lifetime to accumulate even ten talents. If a satrap earned a hundred times as much as a common laborer his total income not savings during his lifetime would hardly amount to a thousand talents. But this man already owes the king ten thousand! How did he come to owe so large a sum? Had he been pre-empting the king's treasury, that is, the tax money that had been collected from the province and should have been kept in a safe place until the king asked for it? Had he been using for his own purpose and squandering vast amounts collected over many years? The parable does not answer this question. It is unimportant. The point is: when he appeared before the king he was penniless; in fact, he was burdened with a debt of no less than ten thousand talents! If a talent be figured at a thousand dollars bearing in mind today's inflation it would probably be worth much more the total amount owed would be equal to ten million dollars, a debt impossible to pay off. Continued: 25. But since he did not have the means to pay his debt his master ordered him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. It is often pointed out by commentators that the selling (into slavery) of insolvent debtors was nothing unusual in those days, and is even mentioned in Scripture. The first part of this assertion is true and requires no further comment. The following passages are generally listed in proof of that which appears in italics: Exod. 22:3; Lev. 25:39, 47; II Kings 4:1; Neh. 5:5; Isa. 50:1; Amos 2:6; 8:6. These passages do indeed prove the point, provided that such mention not be confused with unqualified approbation. The facts are as follows: Exod. 22:3speaks of a man who had incurred his debt through burglary. Lev. 25:39describes what amounted to mild indenture or voluntary apprenticeship. II Kings 4:1does not countenance enslavement but merely reports it. In Neh. 5:5(see also verse 6) enslavement for debt is condemned. Isa. 50:1indicates that not God had sold Israel but by means of its iniquity Israel had sold itself. Finally, Amos 2:6; 8:6condemn the selling of insolvents.^[665] Outside of the country of the Israelites the practice of selling those who were unable to pay their debts was common, and it is to this that the parable refers. So by royal decree this official, his family, and all his possessions are ordered to be sold. The proceeds must go toward paying the debt. The words used in the original (pay, payment) indicates that the debtor must give back what he owes: he must pay off his obligation in full. Of course, this was actually impossible. The amount that was to be placed in the king's treasury, the full proceeds of the sale, would be but a drop in the bucket. So huge was the debt! The king had pronounced the sentence, but it had not yet been carried out. What happened next is recorded in verse 26. So the servant fell prostrate at his master's feet, saying.& The servant is completely crushed by the realization of the severity of his impending punishment. He does not deny that he owes the huge amount, neither does he try to explain how he got into this terrible predicament. He was probably well aware of the fact that excuses would have been useless. It is important to note also that he does not offer to make at least a down-payment on his debt. The implication is clearly this: he makes no such offer for the simple reason that he has nothing! Having prostrated himself (thus literally; see on 2:11) he begged, Have patience^[666] with me, and I will pay you everything. He must have known that this promise was absolutely incapable of fulfilment. What a man will not do to escape from a horrible situation! The result of the prayer for mercy was as follows: 27. The heart of that servant's master was moved with pity, and he let him go free and forgave him the debt. For was moved with pity see on 9:36. It was out of sheer compassion that the master granted this servant far more than he had asked, completely canceling his huge debt^[667] and releasing him from punishment. (b) That servant refuses to cancel his fellow servant's petty debt The story takes a turn here. It is no longer the compassion of the king or master that holds our attention but the cruelty of the forgiven servant whose enormous debt had been canceled and whose sentence had been remitted: 28. But that same servant, as he went out, came upon one of his fellow-servants, who owed him one hundred denarii. The very servant to whom such marvelous mercy had been shown, upon his departure from the king's presence happens to meet a fellow-servant who owes him one hundred denars. Compared with the huge debt mentioned earlier this was a mere trifle. The one hundred denars amounted to one six-hundred-thousandth (1/600,000) part of the canceled sum. Now what does the man who had been so kindly treated do to his fellow servant? He grabbed him (by the throat) and started to choke^[668] him, saying.& It should be noted that he started this cruelty of grabbing by the throat, etc., even before speaking to his fellow servant. Then he said to him, Pay whatever it is you owe!^[669] The reaction of the fellow-servant was almost not exactly the same as had earlier been that of the first servant: 29. So that fellow-servant fell at his feet and was begging him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay you. So similar was this second plea (verse 29) to the first (verse 26) that it must have brought back to the mind of the man whose hand was on the throat of his neighbor what he himself a few moments earlier had been doing and saying. There are a few slight changes: a. the substitution of fell for fell prostrate or fell and was worshiping; and b. the omission of all, for the smallness of the sum rendered all inappropriate in the present case. To these two differences may be added a third, touching not upon the wording but upon the changed situation: c. in the previous case the promise, And I will pay you everything was bombast. The present And I will pay you is far more realistic. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XIX Outline of Chapter 19 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him to Do 19:1–12 Teaching about Divorce 19:13–15 Jesus and the Children 19:16–30 The Peril of Riches and the Reward of Sacrifices 19:1–12 Teaching about Divorce Cf. Mark 10:1 12 19 1 Now when Jesus had finished these sayings he departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the [Greek] -2 _ftnref1 [Greek] 2 Great crowds followed him, and he healed them there. 3 Then Pharisees came up to him and tempted him by asking, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason whatever? 4 He answered and said, Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female, 5 and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh? 6 It follows that no longer are they two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. 7 They said to him, Why then did Moses command to give her a divorce certificate and to divorce her? 8 He said to them, It was because of your hardness of heart that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it has not been that way. 9 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife except on (the ground of her) infidelity, and marries another, involves himself in adultery. 10 His disciples said to him, If such is the case of a man with respect to his wife, it is better not to marry. 11 He replied, Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born thus: they were that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs in the interest of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to accept it, let him accept it. Here Matthew's account of what may be called The Perean Ministrybegins. It covers chapters 19 and 20. As the approximate period within which it took place we would suggest December of the year 29 to April of the year 30. Neither Matthew nor any of the other evangelists give us a full biography. See John 20:30, 31; 21:25. In fact, writing a biography of Jesus was not at all their purpose. They are not reproducing a diary or attempting to give us a day by day chronicle (see above, p. 9). From the many incidents they might have covered they select only a few. Each Gospel-writer selects in accordance with his own specific purpose. It should also be borne in mind that during the period of his trans-Jordanic activities the Lord may well have made more than one trip to the west side of the river, that is, perhaps to Bethany. In any event it is clear that toward the ministry's close we find that he has recrossed Jordan and is now in the Jericho (of Judea) region (20:29–34). The time indications in chapters 19 and 20 are sometimes rather indefinite; see 19:1; 20:17, 29. Any attempt to construct a perfect Harmony, so that at a glance one can see exactly in what order the various events recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,occurred, is doomed to failure. On the other hand, the general trend of direction is clear enough. Note: he departed from Galilee (19:1); (he) came to the region &beyond the Jordan (same verse); Jesus was going up to Jerusalem (20:17, 18); and they went out of Jericho (20:29). In the next section, chapter 21 ff., the events relating to the Week of the Passion are introduced by And when they approached Jerusalem (21:1). 1. Now when Jesus had finished these sayings he departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan.See the alternate translation suggested in footnote 677. Whether, with some, one thinks of Judeaas in those days extending politically somewhat beyond (that is, to the east of) the Jordan; or, with others, one interprets the evangelist as saying that Jesus went to the Perean or trans-Jordanic region, bounded by Judea, in either case we find the Lord, together with his disciples (verse 10), as being now no longer in the North i.e., in Galilee and its surroundings where The Great Galilean and Retirement Ministrieshad taken place, but in the region east of the Jordan. The text does not say that from Capernaum (17:24) Jesus, having departed from Galilee, immediatelystarted his ministry in Perea. All we can safely affirm is a.that Jesus soon after he had finished the discourse recorded in chapter 18 entered the region [Greek] -2 _ftnref2 [Greek] of [Greek] -2 _ftnref3 [Greek] and b.that the events selected for narration by Matthew lead straight from Galilee to Jerusalem, and from Jerusalem's temple, via the various stations of The Passion Week(Mt. of Olives, Bethany, Gethsemane, house of Caiaphas, Judgment Hall, Pilate's Palace, Golgotha), to the tomb, from which the Lord arose gloriously. See 19:1; 20:17, 18, 29; 21:1, 10, 12, 18, 23; 23:37; 24:1, 3; 26:6, 36, 57; 27:3, 11, 27, 33, 60; 28:1 ff. There is no mention of any return to Galilee except after the resurrection (28:16). The words Now when Jesus had finished these sayings (18:1) are found also, either in this exact form or slightly altered by reason of the preceding context, at the conclusion of each of the preceding discourses (see 7:28; 11:1; 13:53), and again at the close of the final discourse (see 26:1). The inference drawn by some, namely, that Matthew, imitating Moses, who wrote five books, wanted to divide his Gospel into five parts, or even that he wanted to present exactly five no more, no less discourses which our Lord delivered, is open to serious question. It can only be defended by supposing that the closely knit and uninterrupted sayings called The Seven Woes(chap. 23) are either no discourse at all or should be linked with Christ's sermon on The Last Things(chaps. 24 and 25) as forming one unit. It is not clear how either of these propositions can be successfully defended. See further on 24:1. Matthew surely had other methods of showing that a discourse was ended than the one indicated here in 19:1. He did not need to say, Now when Jesus had finished these sayings. He could also say, And Jesus left the temple (24:1). Continued: 2. Great crowds followed him, and he healed them there.This, then, is the second part of what we have called The Retirement and Perean Ministries. Together with The Great Galilean Ministryit belongs to the division to which we have given the name: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him to Do. Its Progress or Continuation. See the Outline, p. 99. It deserves attention that in its general character this Perean Ministry(chaps. 19, 20) in certain respects resembles The Great Galilean Ministry(4:12 15:20) more closely than it resembles The Retirement Ministry(15:21 18:35). No longer does Jesus generally withdraw himself from the multitudes. In fact, as is evident from 19:2, 13; 20:29, Mark 10:1 (, 13, 46; Luke 18:15, 36, 43), great multitudes assemble to hear him. He heals their sick, just as he had done previously in and around Galilee (4:23–25; chaps. 8 and 9; 11:5, 6, 21, 23; 12:15, 22). Always he was ready to heal, and his love overleaped every boundary. The motive which caused him to reveal his power and love to so very many people is stated beautifully in such touching passages as 8:17 and 9:35–38. There were those, however, whose hearts were not melted by Christ's love. It would almost seem as if the more he loved, the more they hated. We have met the Pharisees before (3:7; 5:20; 9:11, 34; 12:2, 14, 24, 38; 15:1; 16:1) and have become acquainted with their characteristics and their increasing hostility toward Jesus. So here they are again. Whether Matthew is referring to Perean Pharisees, or to Judean Pharisees who, having heard that Jesus was not very far away, have crossed over into Perea, is not very important. The point of emphasis is that, whoever they were, they were as hostile as ever. Note their sinister purpose: (3. Then Pharisees came up to him and tempted him by asking, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason whatever?This temptation(cf. 16:1; 22:35) was, as often, a kind of trap. Answered either way, so the Pharisees thought, Jesus would be in difficulty. The situation was as follows: Among the Jews there was a difference of opinion as to what Moses had taught with respect to the problem of divorce. He had written, When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found erwath dbhrin her, and he writes her a bill of divorce &Deut. 24:1). But what is meant by erwath [Greek] -2 _ftnref4 [Greek] Does it mean a scandalous thing? Other guesses are some indecency, something improper, improper behavior, something offensive, a shameful thing (LXX), etc. According to Shammai and his followers the reference was to unchastity or adultery. According to Hillel and his disciples the meaning was far broader. They emphasized the words, If then she finds no favor in his eyes, and accordingly would allow divorce for the flimsiest reasons, so that the husband could reject his wife if she accidentally served him food that had been slightly burned, or if at home she talked so loud that the neighbors could hear her. If Jesus endorsed the more strict interpretation, favored by Shammai, he would be displeasing the followers of Hillel. Moreover, there seem to have been very many who agreed with Hillel's liberal opinion. Even the disciples may have shared this view; see verse [Greek] -2 _ftnref5 [Greek] Besides, if the Lord sided with Shammai the Pharisees might have accused him, though not justly, of being inconsistent when he nevertheless consorted with sinners and ate with them. On the other hand, if Jesus endorsed the lax anything will do as ground for divorce interpretation, what would the disciples of Shammai think of him? Would not the more serious and conscientious people charge him with tolerating moral looseness? And what would the female part of the population think of him? Jesus does not avoid the question. In verse 9 his specific answer is recorded. The question was, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason whatever?The implied answer is going to be, No, not for any reason whatever, but only for marital unfaithfulness. However, before Jesus even gives this answer he shows that the underlying emphasis of the question is wrong. Why all this talk about the possibility of divorce, as if to say, If this marriage does not work out I can always divorce my wife? Why not go back beyond Deut. 24to God's marriage ordinance recorded in such passages as Gen. 1:27and 2:24? 4 6. He answered and said, Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall be one [Greek] -2 _ftnref6 [Greek] It follows that no longer are they two but one flesh. Have you not read? As if to say, You people who are always boasting about your knowledge of the law, have you not even read Gen. 1:27and 2:24? One is reminded of Gal. 4:21. See -2 _ftnref7 N.T.C.on that passage. Well then, if the Pharisees are acquainted with Gen. 1:27they know that even though Adam was created before Eve, he was at once created male; hence, with a view to intimate union with Eve, who was created later on from the very body of Adam, and as a female. Each, accordingly, was made for the other, with the definite purpose of joining together oneman to onewoman. Those who are eager for divorce ignore this fact. Add to this Gen. 2:24, where God ordains that for this very reason that is, because the union between the two was intended to be so intimate and they were designed for each otherGen. 1:27and 2:23 a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall do this with a view to a more intimate and more lasting attachment, namely, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh; yes, no longer two but one flesh, says Jesus. It is clear that Jesus viewed (Gen. 2:24Gen. 1:27) as a divine ordinance, and not as a mere description of what generally takes place on earth. And since one is not doing injustice to the Hebrew original of (Gen. 2:24by bringing out this divine institution idea in the translation hence a man shall leave &and shall cleave, not merely a man leaves and cleaves what good reason can there be for not expressing it? On this passageGen. 2:24), therefore, the translation adopted by -2 _ftnref8 A.V.and -2 _ftnref9 A.R.V.is to be preferred to some of the more modern versions. That Jesus did indeed so regard marriage, namely, as an indissoluble union, a union until death parts the two, a definitely divine institution that must not be tampered with, is clear from the following: a.Otherwise his argument would lose its force; b.the audience hardly needed to be told that it is customary for men to get married; and c.this is in line with the words immediately following, namely, What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. This does not mean that a man is committing a sin by not getting married. Rather, it means that those who decide to marry must view marriage as a divine institution, a state in which they must so conduct themselves that true union sexual, to be sure; note shall cleave to his wife, but also intellectual, moral, and spiritual is not only established but more and more firmly cemented. It was God who made this union possible (Gen. 1:27); God also who issued the command, Be fruitful &(Gen. 1:28). It was he, again, who said, It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a help fit for him (Gen. 2:18). It was also God who brought Eve to Adam, to be the latter's wife (Gen. 2:22). Indeed, from every angle, it was God who established marriage as a divine institution (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5, 6). Marriage is therefore indeed an honorable estate. Therefore, let not man separate what God has joined [Greek] -2 _ftnref10 [Greek] So accustomed to talking about divorce and neglecting the divine marriage ordinance have the Pharisees become, that even now they refuse to take to heart Christ's exposition of Gen. 1:27and 2:24. They prefer by far to emphasize the possibility of divorce: 7. They said to him, Why then did Moses command to give her a divorce certificate and to divorce her?The reference is, of course, to Deut. 24:1–4. See what has been said about this in connection with 5:32. 8. He said to them, It was because of your hardness of heart that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it has not been that way.It is one thing to say to a man, If you don't like your wife, go right ahead and divorce her. It is an entirely different matter to say, If you are convinced that you have a good reason to reject your wife, you must at least provide her with a bill of divorce. Besides, you better carefully consider what you are about to do; for if you subsequently regret what you have done it may very well be impossible for you to regain what you have lost. As pointed out earlier, Moses had done everything in his power to discourage divorce. It was only because of the stubbornness of the people that Moses had made a concession! In this concessionof Deut. 24the Pharisees are far more interested than in the institutionof Gen. 1:27; 2:24. So Jesus points back once more to the original marriage ordinance, that is, to the way it had been from the beginning. See above on verses 4 6. Jesus now declares that whoever divorces a faithful wife, and adds to his sin by marrying someone else, thereby rendering reconciliation with the woman to whom he had been married impossible, involves himself in or: commits adultery. The form of the statement of verse 9 is such that it is at the same time an answer to the question of verse 3, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason whatever?Jesus said, 9. But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife except on (the ground of her) [Greek] -2 _ftnref11 [Greek] and marries another, involves himself in adultery.Such marital unfaithfulness is an attack upon the very essence of the marriage bond. In the present instance the wife is herself putting asunder what God has joined together. As far as the record goes, this is the only ground Jesus ever mentioned for giving the innocent person in the present case the husband, but see footnote 295 on p. 305 the right to divorce his wife and marry again. The Pharisees have again been defeated. For the present they have been silenced. By an appeal to Moses, to whom they had referred (verse 7), Jesus had proved them wrong. They disappear from the scene. Jesus enters a house, where we find him in the company of the disciples. The Pharisees are no longer mentioned (Mark 10:10). Now it is the disciples turn to speak. They do not deny what Jesus had said, but reveal that they are struggling with a difficulty. These men seem to have been so impressed by the lax ideas about marriage that were current at that time, that Christ's words about marriage as a divine institution that must be kept inviolate had come as somewhat of a surprise to them, perhaps even as somewhat of a disappointment. Jesus loved these men, and appreciated their willingness to sacrifice for his sake (see verse 28). Nevertheless, in some respects they were still weak, far away from the goal (see pp. 246 f.), as is evident from verse 10. His disciples said to him, If such is the [Greek] -2 _ftnref12 [Greek] of a man with respect to his wife, it is [Greek] -2 _ftnref13 ([Greek] not to marry.Yes, better or more profitable. They, along with many other people of that day and age and of today! seem to have been obsessed by the idea, What can I get out of marriage for myself?Their question should have been, How can a man use this marvelous institution for the benefit of his wife, himself, his children-to-be, his fellow men, and God's kingdom? These men did not as yet fully understand that the spirit of love, service, and sacrifice, the very attitude of their MasterLuke 22:27), must be applied to everyrelationship of life, also to that of marriage. See Eph. 5:22–33. 11. He replied, Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it is given.Among commentators there is a difference of opinion as to the connection of thought. In verses 11 and 12 is Jesus making a comment on his own words, found in verses 4 6, 8, 9, or is he referring to the remark of the disciples, recorded in verse 10? Probably to both, that is, to the entire situation that has now developed. The Lord has quoted and explained the divine ordinance of marriage. The disciples have replied, If such is the case &then it is better not to marry. So Jesus now shows that there is actually no reason for despair. To be sure, not all men can accept his statement spoken word, talk, declaration; cf. 15:12; 19:22 with reference to marriage as a divine institution of the highest significance for man, one that must not be violated in any way. For this teaching not all men have [Greek] -2 _ftnref14 [Greek] in their hearts and lives. To properly fulfil the responsibilities of marriage requires grace. This grace is God's gift. Without this divine help true, God-glorifying marriage is impossible. The disciples have suggested that it might be better not to marry. Rather, Jesus implies, let a man ask for the gift of God's grace so that he will be able, properly motivated, to enter the wedded state. Nevertheless, apart entirely from this consideration, there still are situations which make it either impossible or inadvisable for a man to marry. There is that much truth in the observation of the disciples. Jesus is about to mention three situations, each of which applies to a special group. The three have in common: abstinence from the relationships commonly associated with the married state. Truly, what Jesus has said about life within the married state is not applicable to all. (12. For there are eunuchs who were born thus: they were that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs in the interest of the kingdom of heaven.The first group consists of those who are eunuchs because of a congenital defect. The second refers to physically castrated men. This deplorable condition was brought upon them by other men. See II Kings 20:18; Esther 2:14. Such eunuchs frequently were chosen to serve as keepers of the harem. That at times they attained to important positions is clear from Acts 8:26 39. The third class can also be called eunuchs, though the word is now used in a figurative sense. These men are not impotent. They could marry and fulfil all of their responsibilities in that state, if they so desired. Their abstinence from marriage is of a purely voluntary character. They are eunuchs or celibates in the interest of the kingdom of heaven. Being fully aware that, in the course of spreading the gospel, situations will develop that are marked by tremendous hardship and sore distress, but nevertheless being filled with eagerness to spread the message of salvation far and wide, these men, of their own accord not because of any divine or human decree decide not to marry. Cf. I Cor. 7:26. That is their privilege. They are not thereby raised to a higher degree of holiness, as if in the eyes of God the state of celibacy as such would give them extra credit. Such a doctrine is entirely foreign to Scripture, which everywhere exalts the married stateGen. 1:27, 28; 2:24; 9:7; 24:67; Ps. 127:3, 4; 128:3, 8; John 2:1 11; Eph. 5:22–33; I Tim. 5:14), and even pictures it as a symbol of the beautiful love relationship between Christ the Bridegroom, and the Church the Bride (Eph. 5:32; Rev. 19:7). But if Paul wishes to remain unmarried, let him do so. If Cephas prefers to take his wife along in his travels (I Cor. 9:5), he, too, has a right to do this. Having finished his teaching on a.marriage (verses 4 6, 8, 9, and to some extent 11) and on b.refraining from marriage (verse 12 and to some extent verse 11), Jesus adds, The one who is able to accept it, let him accept it.Here, again, as in verse 11, when Jesus speaks about accepting or receiving what he has said, he is not referring merely to intellectual comprehension, but to that plus making room for this teaching in heart and life. He exhorts each of his disciples to carry his words into practice! 19:13–15 Jesus and the Children Cf. Mark 10:13 16; Luke 18:15 17 13 Then little children were brought to him, that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked (those who brought) them. 14 But Jesus said, Leave the little children alone and stop hindering them from coming to me, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven. 15 And he laid his hands on them and went away from there. 13. Then little children were brought to him, that he might lay his hands on them and pray.Although the adverb then does not necessarily mean immediately afterward, yet the connection between a. marriage,ideally described by Jesus in the immediately preceding paragraph, and b. children,is so close that we like to think of the present paragraph as setting forth an event that took place immediately after the discussion about the wedded state, while Jesus was still in the house. Children! How Jesus loved them! See on 18:2–4. It is not at all surprising therefore that certain followers of Jesus brought their little ones to him, so that he might lay his hands on them, blessing them and praying for them. How big were these little ones? There are those who, basing their theory on the fact that the word used in the original for little children is in the New Testament by no means confined to those very young in years (John 21:5; I John 2:18, 3:7), believe that those who were brought to Jesus were children of elementary school age or even older. However, Luke 18:15informs us that these little children were actually infants. See Luke 1:44(an unborn babe). Cf. I Peter 2:2. They or at least many of them must have been carried to Jesus in the arms of their [Greek] -2 _ftnref15 [Greek] Continued: The disciples rebuked (those who brought) them.They [Greek] -2 _ftnref16 [Greek] not the children, of course, but their parents, or more generally all who brought them, probably mostly mothers and fathers; in a few cases perhaps sisters or nurses. Were the disciples standing at the doorway and were they with angry gestures shooing away all those who approached the house carrying children in their arms? Was their reasoning, Jesus must not be bothered; he has things to do that are far more important than blessing babies? 14. But Jesus said, Leave the little children alone and stop [Greek] -2 _ftnref17 [Greek] them from coming to me, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven. The reaction of the disciples was rather characteristic, as has been pointed out earlier (see on 14:15, 16). Yet, this attitude was sinful. It would appear that those who brought their children to Jesus were properly motivated in doing so. They were not superstitious, that is, they did not ascribe some kind of (magical potency to Jesus touch. Had that been the case the Lord would have rebuked them. He does nothing of the kind. To be sure, he was indignantMark 10:14), not at the parents, but at the disciples! It is to them that he says, Leave the little ones alone. The meaning of the verb is indeed Let (them) be. [Greek] -2 _ftnref18 [Greek] The reason Jesus gives for ordering the disciples to stop hindering the little ones from coming to him is: for to suchthat is, to them and to all those who in humble trustfulness are like them (see on 18:2–4) belongs the kingdom of heaven. For kingdom of heaven see on 4:23; 13:43. In the present case the verse means that in principleall blessings of salvation belong even now to these little ones, a fact which was to be realized progressively here on earth and perfectly in the hereafter. 15. And he laid his hands on them and went away from there. (The laying on of the hands was the symbolical act which indicated and accompanied the actual blessing that was then and there bestowed upon these babes. Mark 10:16informs us that lovingly the Master had taken them into his arms. We do not read that Jesus also prayed for them, though this, too, had been included in the wish of the parents when they brought their little ones to Jesus (verse 13). From this omission some have concluded that the Lord, in the consciousness of his own equality with the FatherJohn 10:30), did not feel that he needed to ask the Father to bestow a blessing upon these babes. He himself could bless them. But was not prayer, including certainly intercession, characteristic of the Savior in his state of humiliation? See (Matt. 11:25, 26; 14:19; 15:36; Luke 6:12; John 11:41, 42; ch. 17. And even in the state of exaltation is he not always living to make intercession for his ownHeb. 7:25)? Surely, it is not necessary for the evangelists to spell everything out in detail! The parents had carried their little ones to Jesus for him to lay his hands on them, and, praying for them, to bless them. We believe that Jesus satisfied their desire to the full! The fact that the Lord regarded these little ones as being already in the kingdom, as being even now members of his church, must not escape our attention. He definitely did not view them as little heathen, who were living outside of the realm of salvation until by an act of their own they would join the church. He regarded them as holy seed (I Cor. 7:14). It must be borne in mind that those who brought their little ones to Jesus must have had faith in him. This faith may not as yet have been very far advanced is ours? but it had made sufficient progress so that these people believed that the Master was far more than a Physician for those who were physically ill. We do not receive the impression that these infants were sick or dying. Yet they were brought to Jesus that he might bless them. This he did, in line with all the assurances of divine favor for believers and their seedGen. 17:7, 12; Ps. 103:17; 105:6–10; Isa. 59:21; Acts 2:38, 39, to mention only a few . In the work of salvation it is always God who is first, never man. See (John 3:3, 5; 6:37; I John 4:19. How wonderful that in later years parents would be able to say to their child, now arrived at the age of understanding, Think of it, when you, my child, were just a suckling, Jesus took you into his arms and blessed you. Then already you were the object of God's tender love. And he has been with you ever since. What, then, is your response? On the basis of such passages as Matt. 19:13 15(and parallels) and see also those mentioned at the close of the preceding paragraph, to which add Acts 16:15, 33; I Cor. 1:16; Col. 2:11, 12the belief that since the little children of believers belong to God's church and to his covenant, baptism, the sign and seal of such belonging, should not be withheld from them, must be regarded as well-founded. In later years, through parental instruction, the divine blessing earlier received becomes a mighty incentive to wholehearted personal surrender to Christ. Such individual commitment is, of course, necessaryJosh. 24:15; Matt. 10:32, 33; 11:28–30). God's earnest and challenging invitation, Give me your heart (Prov. 23:26), must be answered by: Take my life and let it be Consecrated, Lord, to thee; Take my hands and let them move At the impulse of thy love. Take my love, my God, I pour At thy feet its treasure store; Take myself, and I will be Ever, only, all for thee. Frances R. Havergal The very prohibition, Stop hindering the little children from coming to me, implies, Let them come to me. It means, As the children grow older, let the parents do all in their power to bring them to the point of voluntarily accepting their great Benefactor, Jesus Christ, to be their Savior and Lord. The objection might be advanced, How was it possible for Jesus to say even now that these sucklings were already citizens of his kingdom, heirs of salvation? Did he not know that at least some of them might in later years turn their backs upon him? Why this distinctly positiveapproach? The answer is that, as is plainly indicated in many of the references given on pp. 720, 721, the Lord as a rule gathers his church from the circle of believing parents and their children. Just as Jesus said many wonderful things about The Twelve (10:29, 30, 40; 19:28, etc.) without always immediately adding, I exclude Judas, so also it must be understood here (19:13–15) that those little ones who in later years reject the Lord and persist in this unbelief are not saved. Having blessed the infants Jesus left the house, perhaps even the place (village or town) where he was. 19:16–30 The Peril of Riches and The Reward of Sacrifice Cf. Mark 10:17 31; Luke 18:18 30 16 And look, a man came up to him and asked, Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may possess everlasting life? 17 He answered him, Why are you asking me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good, and if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 Which ones? he asked. Jesus said to him, You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19 Honor your father and your mother, and You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 20 The young man said to him, All these things have I observed; what do I still lack? 21 Jesus said to him, If you wish to be perfect, go and sell your possessions and give (the proceeds) to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me. 22 But when the young man heard this word he went away sorrowful, for he had much property. 23 And Jesus said to his disciples, I solemnly declare to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. 25 Now when they heard this they were profoundly shocked and said, Then who can be saved? 26 Fastening his eyes on them Jesus said, With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible. 27 Then Peter answered and said to him, Look, we have left everything and followed thee; what then shall we have? 28 And Jesus said to them, I solemnly assure you that in the restored universe, when the Son of man shall be seated on the throne of his glory, you who have followed me shall also be seated on thrones, (on) twelve (of them), judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my name's sake shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. 30 But many that are first shall be last, and (many) last first. 16. And look, a man came up to him and asked.& Although Matthew is very indefinite with respect to the time when the event recorded in 19:16–30 occurred, the parallel account in Mark (see 10:16, 17) leaves the distinct impression that it took place immediately at least very soon after the bestowal of a blessing upon the little children. If so, then Christ's views on marriage, children, and material possessions follow each other in a sequence that commends itself as being very logical. And look, says Matthew, fixing the attention of the reader on something that was indeed quite remarkable. See footnote 133 on p. 131. What was this extraordinary happening? This, that suddenly, right on the open road, as Jesus and his disciples were journeying through Perea, a man came up to the Master with a question that was preying upon him and to which he eagerly desired the answer. It was a very important question, having to do with salvation. The person who came up to Jesus had many things going for him: He was rich, young, and prominent; Clean, keen, and reverent. He was (richMatt. 19:22), that is, in earthly material possessions. He was (youngMatt. 19:20), probably not more than forty years of age, perhaps much younger (I Tim. 4:12). He was (prominentLuke 18:18), being called a ruler, probably one of the officials in charge of the local synagogue (Matt. 9:18), a man of high reputation. This was true all the more because he was (cleanMatt. 19:20), a man of excellent outward behavior, a virtuous individual. He was (keen,eager. He had a problem on his heart and mind. He had not found that which would put his soul at rest. Being anxious to solve that problem he ran up to JesusMark 10:17). Finally, he was reverent,shown by the fact that he knelt before Jesus, as the reference in Mark's Gospel indicates. He asked: Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may possess everlasting life?As to essence the question is the same in all three Gospels. The slight differences a.Teacher in Matthew; Good Teacher in Mark and Luke; b.What good thing in Matthew; what in Mark and Luke; and c.that I may possess in Matthew; that I may inherit in Mark and Luke do not change the substance of the story. They indicate that each Gospel-writer had his own style. A document can be fully inspired and inerrant without being pedantically precise. The evangelists are not reeling off a recording. What each of them is doing is reproducing the happening in his own characteristic manner. For this we should be thankful. It makes the combined account that much more interesting. Besides, it is surely not to be supposed that allthe words of Jesus spoken at each occasion were written down. It is entirely possible that in the course of the conversation with the young man, the latter, in addressing the Lord, used both forms of address, Teacher and Good Teacher. And so also in connection with the other slight differences: an evangelist has the perfect right to substitute a synonym for the actual word that was spoken, as long as this synonym conveys the same meaning. What (isimportant is that this young man realized that he had not as yet attained everlasting life, not even in principle. It was this that had made him restless, ill at ease. By going to Jesus he went to the right source. Just how well the young man understood the nature of everlasting life, we do not know. If life means active response to one's environment, then everlasting life must mean never-ending, active response to the best environment of all, namely, the heavenly. It is fellowship with GodJohn 17:3). Other beautiful descriptions are: the love of God shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy Spirit (Rom. 5:5), the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (II Cor. 4:6), the peace of God that surpasses all understanding (Phil. 4:7), and joy unspeakable and full of glory (I Peter 1:8). Life everlasting is another name for salvation. Now the fact that this young man was in search of salvation must be appreciated. He was not so engrossed in earthly pleasures that he no longer cared for the things pertaining to God. However, he was making a tragic mistake. It is clear from his very question What good thing shall I do &that he believed in salvation by works. This becomes even clearer when verse 16 is read in the light of verse 20. Now since the essence of good works, to the glory of God, is found in the Ten Commandments, and since these commandments were there for all to read, both in complete form (Exod. 20; Deut. 5) and in summary (Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18) we are not surprised to read: 17. He answered him, Why are you asking me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good, and if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.Certainly what God demands in his law is good, for God himself is the Highest Good. Why ask Jesus about that which is good when God the Father has so clearly revealed it? If the enquirer thinks that he will be able to obtain everlasting life by doing good, let him then by all means keep the [Greek] -2 _ftnref19 [Greek] The commandments! But has not the young man been observing every one of them? Let the Master be specific: 18, 19. Which ones? he asked. Jesus said to him, You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your Father and your mother, and You shall love your neighbor as [Greek] -2 _ftnref20 ([Greek] Just why it was that in all three accounts Honor your father and your mother is made the last of the regular Decalog commandments we do not know. Was there a special reason why in this particular case Jesus placed this commandment at the very close (except for the summary in Matthew)? Neither do we know why Jesus mentioned only the commandments of the second table. To the many guesses I wish to add one more: It was not necessary for Jesus to include the commandments relating to man's duty with respect to God; for, failure to observe the second table implies failure to observe the first: He who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seenI John 4:20). That the young man's attitude toward keeping the commandments was of a superficial character, not at all in harmony with Christ's deeply spiritual and penetrating interpretation (for which see 5:21–48), is clear from his reaction: (20. The young man said to him, All these things have I observed; what do I still lack?Here superficial smugness is struggling with deep discontent. This young man tries to make himself believe that all is well; yet on the inside he is pathetically perturbed. Has he really loved his neighbor as himself? Why then this lack of peace of mind and heart that had made him run up to Jesus with the anxious question, What do I still lack? Did his inward monitor echo the truth expressed in 5:20; cf. Rom. 2:15b? Was that why, though he tried hard to believe in his own virtue and respectability, he was actually feeling ill at ease? He seems to be saying, What additional good deed must I be doing over and above all those very many that I have already done, for from my youthMark 10:20; Luke 18:21) I have observed God's law? Jesus, looking upon him, loved this young man who was kneeling before him (Mark 10:21). Not only did he appreciate his regard for virtue and for good outward behavior (Canons of Dort, Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine, article 4), but he must also have pitied him because of the struggle which he was experiencing (Matt. 9:36–38; 11:28). But Jesus also knew that there was something terribly wrong with this rich young ruler. His material possessions enslaved him (see verses 22, 23). Did he really love his neighbor (as himself?He did not. Was he actually willing to follow all the way where God, through the voice of Jesus Christ, would direct him? He was not, as is evident from what follows: 21. Jesus said to him, If you wish to be perfect, go and sell your possessions and give (the proceeds) to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.& The question may be asked, But by thus instructing the young man was not Jesus endorsing the salvation by good works doctrine? Should he not rather have told him, Trust in me? The answer is that Trust completely in me was exactly what the Lord was telling him, for certainly without complete confidence in and self-surrender to the One who was issuing the order the rich young ruler could not be expected to sell all he hadLuke 18:22) and give the proceeds to the poor. Did this young man really wish to be perfect, fully mature (Phil. 3:15)? This was the test. If he sustains it he will have treasure in heaven. The reference is to all those blessings that are heavenly in character, are in full measure reserved for God's child in heaven, and of which we experience a foretaste even now. For more about this concept see on 6:19, 20. It is important to note that Jesus added, (and come, follow me.Such following, to be accompanied by and to prepare for active witness-bearing, would imply that the young man must learn to deny himself and take up his cross (16:24), and would therefore no longer be able to devote himself to the service of Mammon. The reply was tragic: 22. But when the young man heard this word he went away sorrowful, for he had much property.He was sorrowful (cf. 14:9; 17:23; 18:31; 26:22, 37). His countenance fellMark 10:22; cf. Gen. 4:6). Placed before the choice of either surrendering to Jesus or clinging to his material wealth he chooses the latter. The demand which Jesus had made on this bewildered man was suited to his particular circumstances and state of mind. The Lord does not ask every rich person for example Abraham (Gen. 13:2), or Joseph of Arimathea (Matt. 27:57) to do exactly this same thing. There are those opulent individuals who, speaking by and large, are living for themselves. What they contribute to the cause of others is wholly out of proportion to what they keep for themselves. There are other wealthy persons, however, who are willing to go all out in helping others, including even the ungenerous (Gen. 13:7–11; 14:14); and who, motivated by gratitude, are constantly building altars and bringing offerings to God (Gen. 12:8; 13:18; 15:10–12; 22:13). According to Scripture two men were asked to make a sacrifice. The one was Abraham (Gen. 22:1, 2); the other, the rich young ruler. The sacrifice Abraham was asked to make was by far the most enormous. By means of his willingness to make the sacrifice Abraham proved the genuine character of his faith. He believed in Jehovah, and he reckoned it to him for righteousness (Gen. 15:6; cf. James 2:21 23). The rich young ruler, though asked to make a much smaller but still considerable sacrifice, refused, thereby proving that he did not have the faith whereby salvation is accepted as God's free gift. Abraham placed his trust in God; the young man, in his riches. That was the difference. See I Tim. 6:17. The young man had much property. He had it; it had him, holding him tightly in its grasp. In connection with this fact note the continuation: 23, 24. And Jesus said to his disciples, I solemnly declare to you, It will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.For the solemn introduction see on 5:18; for the meaning of the concept kingdom of heaven or of God see on 4:23; 13:43. A comparison of verses 23, 24 with verse 25 shows that the disciples understood entering the kingdom to mean being saved. Another near equivalent, as verse 16 shows, is obtaining everlasting life. With great emphasis, therefore, Jesus is saying that a rich man with difficulty shall enter the kingdom of heaven (thus literally). Difficult? Yes, so difficult that it will even be impossible. Note the climactic arrangement of the thought in verses 23, 24. It is, of course, entirely impossible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. Yet, even this, says Jesus, impossible as it is, would be easier than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of [Greek] -2 _ftnref21 [Greek] To explain what Jesus means it is useless and unwarranted to try to change camel into cable see on 23:24 where a real camel must have been meant or to define the needle's eye as the narrow gate in a city wall, a gate, so the reasoning goes, through which a camel can pass only on its knees and after its burden has been removed. Such explanations (?), aside from being objectionable from a linguistic point of view, strive to make possible what Jesus specifically declared to be impossible. The Lord clearly means that for a rich man in his own power to try to work or worm his way into the kingdom of God is impossible. So powerful is the hold which wealth has on the heart of the natural man! He is held fast by its bewitching charm, and is thereby prevented from obtaining the attitude of heart and mind necessary for entrance into God's kingdom. See on 6:24; cf. I Tim. 6:10. It should be noted that Jesus purposely speaks in absolute terms. A moment ago we used the phrase in his own power. Though in view of verse 26 this qualification does not need to be retracted, yet it should be pointed out that here in verse 24 Jesus does not thus qualify his assertion. He speaks in absolute terms in order all the more to impress upon the minds of the disciples that salvation, from start to finish, is not a human achievement. The fact that man's extremity is God's opportunity is reserved for later (see verse 26). The reaction on the part of the disciples was as follows: 25. Now when they heard this they were profoundly shocked, and said, Then who can be saved?The disciples amazement, according to Mark 10:24already present after Christ's declaration found in verse Matt. 19: (23; Mark 10:23), increases to the point where these men are knocked out of their senses; see on 7:28. As in 7:28 so also here in 19:25 the tense of the verb shows that their state of bewildered astonishment was not just a momentary experience but lasted for a while. They drew the conclusion that if what Jesus had said was true then no one could be saved. To reach this conclusion they probably reasoned that though not all men are rich yet even the poor yearn to become wealthy; hence, all men, rich and poor alike, trust in riches; hence, cannot be saved. The beautiful and reassuring answer is found in verse (26. Fastening his eyes on them Jesus said, With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.In this dramatic moment the eyes of Jesus, as he fixed them on his disciples, must have been filled with deep earnestness and tender love. When he now tells them, With men this is impossible, he means exactly that. At every point, beginning, middle, end, man is completely dependent on God for salvation. Of himself man can do nothing. If he is to be saved at all he must be born again or from aboveJohn 3:3, 5). Even when by faith God-given faith! (Eph. 2:8) he reaches out to God, yet in order to do this he must be enabled and supported every day, hour, minute, and second by God's omnipotent grace. For the religion of the rich young ruler (see verses 16, 20), which was the religion current among the Jews of that day and age, there is no room here. Not only Pelagianism but even Arminianism stands condemned. Glory be to God, however: there is a way out. What is impossible with men is possible with God, with whom all things are possible. It is he who, through Christ, is able to save to the uttermost (Heb. 7:25). His grace extends even to the determined and relentless persecutor Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9:1; 26:9–11; I Cor. 15:8–10; Gal. 1:15, 16; I Tim. 1:15). Just how, through the Mediator, this salvation is brought about, Jesus has already begun to reveal (Matt. 16:21; 17:22, 23). He will continue to do so with increasing clarity (see 20:17–19; especially 20:28; 26:26–29). Peter is still thinking about the words which the Master had addressed to the rich young ruler (see verse 21). Jesus had asked him to sell all he had and give the proceeds to the poor, promising that if he did this he would have treasure in heaven. So Peter answers, that is, he reacts to that statement (that demand plus promise) of Jesus, as follows: 27. Then Peter answered and said to him, Look, we have left everything and followed thee; what then shall we have?Had The Twelve not done exactly what Jesus had asked the young man to do? Had they not left everything and followed Jesus? The answer, then, would seem to be obvious, namely, that The Twelve would have treasure in heaven. Nevertheless, Peter seems not to have been entirely certain about this, for the Master had also declared that with men it is impossible to be saved, and that it is God, he alone, who imparts salvation (verses 23, 24, 26). Peter and the other disciples receive a very comforting answer. It is in the nature of a reassurance (verses 28, 29), and is followed by a warning (verse 30 and 20:1–16). (28. And Jesus said to them, I solemnly assure you that in the restored universe, when the Son of man shall be seated on the throne of his glory, you who have followed me shall also be seated on thrones, (on) twelve (of them), judging the twelve tribes of Israel.For the solemn introduction see on 5:18; for Son of man see on 8:20, pp. 403–407. What a wonderful promise this is, especially when we consider how lacking in perfection were the men to whom it was given. See on 10:2–4. Jesus assures these twelve disciples excluding Judas, but since he would be replaced the number twelve is still correct that even though it is God who is the sole Author of their salvation, they themselves will be richly rewarded for the sacrifice they have made and are making. The fact that God delights in bestowing upon his children the reward of grace is clearly established in Holy WritGen. 22:15–18; Ps. 25:12–15; Dan. 12:3; Matt. 5:1–12; 10:32, 41, 42; 11:28–30; 25:34–40; Luke 12:32, 37, 43, 44; 19:17–19; I Cor. 3:14; 9:17; Col. 2:18; 3:24; II Thess. 1:7–10; Heb. 10:35; 11:6, 26; II John 8; Rev. 2:7, 10, 17, 26 28; 3:5, 10 12, 21; 22:12). Many, many other passages from both the Old and the New Testament could easily be added, for God is love (I John 4:8). The reward to which Jesus refers in the present passage was definitely promised to The Twelve. A broader promise, given to all believers, follows in verse 29. Turning then to the first of these promises, it is to be noted that it pertains to the position of The Twelve in the regeneration, that is, in what we would call the restored (or: renewed) universe, the new heaven and earth described in such passages as (Isa. 65:17; 66:22; II Peter 3:13; Rev. 21:1–5. The time when this promise will be fulfilled is definitely indicated as being the day when the Son of man shall be seated on the throne of his kingdom; in other words the reference is clearly to the period beginning with the day of Christ's return for judgment (see on 25:31–46; cf. on 16:27, 28). Ranged, as it were, aroundthat throneRev. 4:4) there will be twelve other thrones. Upon these thrones The Twelve apostles will be seated, judging probably in the sense of reigning over, being resplendent above (Dan. 12:3; Matt. 20:21; Rev. 3:21) the twelve tribes of Israel. What is meant by these twelve tribes of Israel? In all probability the term refers to the restored new Israel. Whether, as such, it indicates the total number of the elect gathered out of the twelve tribes of the Jews from the beginning to the end of the world's history (Rom. 11:26), or even (allthe chosen ones of both the Jews and the GentilesGal. 6:16), in either case it must refer to those who have been regenerated, for into the reborn universe to which 19:28 refers nothing unclean will ever enter (Rev. 21:27). The Twelve, who have followed Jesus here, having remained loyal to him in his trials (Luke 22:28), are going to receive the special reward that among all the members belonging to the new Israel they will be pre-eminent in reflecting the glory of their Lord and Savior. Those who have been closest to Jesus here will also be closest to him there. See also II Tim. 2:11, 12; Rev. 3:21; 20:4. The general promise, the one intended for all true followers of the Lord, is found in verse 29. And everyone who has left houses or [Greek] -2 _ftnref22 [Greek] or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my name's sake shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.With this compare 10:37. This promise is for all who have in life chosen Christ above everybody and everything else, even above their nearest relatives and most cherished possessions. They have made the sacrifice, says Jesus, for my name's sake, explained in Mark 10:29as meaning for my sake. The name of Jesus indicates Jesus himself as he has revealed himself. See also on 6:9; 7:22; 10:22, 41, 42; 12:21. These loyal followers of the Lord are going to receive a hundredfold, that is, they will be reimbursed many times over (Luke 18:30). For hundredfold see also (Gen. 26:12and Matt. 13:8. Even in the present day and ageMark 10:30; Luke 18:30), that is, before the great day of judgment, and for each believer before his death, these loyal followers receive the blessings indicated in such passages as (Prov. 15:16; 16:8; Matt. 7:7; John 17:3; Rom. 8:26–39; Phil. 4:7; I Tim. 6:6; Heb. 6:19, 20; 10:34; I Peter 1:8. In spite of the persecutions which they will have to endure, they will even be able to enjoy their material possessionsMark 10:30), far more than the ungodly enjoy theirs. Reason? See (Isa. 26:3; contrast 48:22. For the sake of Christ has it become necessary for his followers to forsake close relatives? New relatives will now be theirsMatt. 12:46–50; Rom. 16:13; I Cor. 4:15), for they now belong to the family of God (Eph. 3:15). When Esau boasts about having enough or much, Jacob rather Israel answers that he has all or everythingGen. 33:9 11in the original Hebrew and in the Septuagint . With this compare Paul's exuberant testimony (I Cor. 3:22, 23). These treasures are real. Otherwise how shall we account for Paul's triumphant outbursts of optimism (II Cor. 4:7–18; 12:9; Phil. 4:10–13)? Jesus adds, and shall inherit everlasting life. As meant here this blessing pertains to the age to come (Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30). For the concept everlasting life see on verse 16. All the spiritual blessings that are bestowed upon God's children in the present life in principle will be theirs in full measure in the hereafter. On and after the day of Christ's return in glory material blessings will be added to the [Greek] -2 _ftnref23 [Greek] They shall inheritthem, in the present context implying that a.they are freely given to them, not earned by them; b.the gift is based upon justice: they were earned forthem and are therefore theirs by right; and c.they are theirs forever. To the apostles and to believers in general Jesus has given rich promises. Does this mean now that the pledged blessings will be theirs regardless of how they conduct themselves? Not at all. It is only in the way of trust and obedience that the promised goods are delivered to the children of God (Phil. 2:12, 13; II Thess. 2:13). When Peter said, Look, we have left everything and followed thee; what then shall we have? (verse 27), was his question the product of holy curiosity, or, in whatever slight degree, of a mercantile spirit? The division of opinion among commentators in their attempt to answer this question is most interesting. Some, in their zeal to defend Peter against every charge, go so far as to say that those who distrust Peter's motives are judging others by their own ethical standards. Others go to the opposite extreme and regard Christ's sayings, the one reported in verse 30, as also the parable immediately following (20:1–16), to be inexplicable unless Peter's worldly motivation be taken into account. May not the best procedure be the following: A man is innocent unless his guilt can be established beyond any reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we have no right to charge Peter with anything wrong. On the other hand, it is also true that his question, though purely motivated, may have occasioned the warning that is found in the verse we are about to consider. Jesus may well have meant something on this order: Peter, your question, What then shall we have? is right and proper. Nevertheless, since it is so easy to fall into the error of expecting a reward based on supposed merit, I must warn you, so that you may not be caught unawares. Besides, is it not possible that the undoubtedly mercantile attitude of the rich young ruler (verse 16) may have caused Jesus to issue a needed warning? It should not escape our attention that the words of verse (30.(as well as those of verses 28 and 29) are not addressed to Peter alone but to all the disciples: But many that are first shall be last, and (many) last first.We are reminded of the words of Jehovah addressed to Samuel, Jehovah does not see as man sees; man looks on the outward appearance, but Jehovah looks on the heartI Sam. 16:7). The first are those who because of their wealth, education, position, prestige, talents, etc., are highly regarded by men in general, sometimes even by God's children. But since God sees and knows the heart many of these very people are by him assigned to a position behind the others; in fact, some may even be altogether excluded from the halls of glory. Cf. Matt. 7:21–23. There does not seem to be any good reason for saying that Jesus meant that (allof those who shall be last are going to be lost or outside the kingdom. Fact is: not only are there degrees of suffering in hellLuke 12:47, 48), there are also degrees of glory in the restored universe (I Cor. 15:41, 42). There will be surprises however. Not only will many of those who are now regarded as the very pillars of the church be last, but also many who never made the headlines think of the poor widow who contributed two mites (Mark 12:42), and Mary of Bethany whose act of loving lavishness was roundly criticized by the disciples (Matt. 26:8) shall be first on the day of judgment (Mark 12:43, 44; Matt. 26:10–13). The disciples, who were constantly quarreling about rank (Luke 22:24) better take note! Summary of Chapter 19 In Matthew's Gospel Christ's ministry beyond the Jordan (19:1), often called his Perean Ministry, begins here and continues to the end of chapter 20. It is probable that not much more than three months elapsed between its beginning and the day of the crucifixion. Chapter 19 indicates the Master's teaching on three related subjects: a.marriage and divorce, b.children, and c.material possessions. As to marriage and divorce (Matt. 19and in Mark 10) some Pharisees asked Jesus, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason whatever? In asking this question with sinister intent, to lead Jesus into a trap they are taking their cue from the Mosaic concessionof Deut. 24. Jesus however points back to the divine institutionof marriage, as recorded in Gen. 1:27; 2:24; and accordingly declares, What therefore God has joined together let not man separate.& Anyone who divorces his wife except on (the ground of her) infidelity and marries another involves himself in adultery. When his disciples answer, If such is the case of a man with respect to his wife, it is better not to marry, Jesus replies that grace is needed to properly fulfil one's marriage responsibilities: Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it is given. He adds that there are indeed situations which make it either impossible or inadvisable for a man to marry. He mentions three kinds of eunuchs: a.the congenitally defective; b.the physically castrated; and c.the voluntary abstainers (in the interest of the kingdom of heaven). In the latter case eunuchs is used in a figurative sense. In the short paragraph about Jesus and the children (verses 13 15) Jesus says to the disciples, who were trying to prevent the little ones from being brought to Jesus, Leave the little children alone and stop hindering them from coming to me, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven. It was an important lesson not only for the disciples then, but for all parents, educators, and children (when arrived at the years of discretion) both then and now. In the section on the peril of riches and the reward of sacrifice (verses 16 30) a rich young ruler is described as asking Jesus, Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may possess everlasting life? This young man seems to be convinced that he has already observed the entire law, but wonders whether perhaps there is an additional good work he must perform in order to be saved. His understanding of what is involved in obedience to God's law is very superficial. When Jesus tells him that in his particular case the required love toward the neighbor means that he must sell all his goods and give the proceeds to the poor, the young man, deeply disappointed, departs. He was not willing to entrust himself and all his belongings to Jesus. This causes the Master to say to his disciples, I solemnly declare to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.& When they ask, Then who can be saved? he answers, With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible. In answer to Peter's question Jesus assures the disciples that in view of their voluntary sacrifice a rich reward awaits them in the restored universe; in fact, a reward of grace, both here and in the hereafter, is given to all who have made sacrifices for Christ's sake. Only, they must be on their guard lest the mercantile spirit gains the mastery over them; for, Many that are first shall be last, and (many) last first. -2 _ftn1 677 Or: to the boundaries of Judea, beyond the Jordan. -2 _ftn2 678 Is Lenski's westward, op. cit.,middle of p. 706, a printer's error? -2 _ftn3 679 Since Mark 10:1also lends itself to at least two different interpretations it cannot be of much help in establishing the exact sequence of events. -2 _ftn4 680 (The word is derived from a verb meaning basically to be naked, bare. According to Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of The Old Testament, Boston and New York, 1906, p. 789, the meaning of erwath dbhris probably indecency, improper behavior. ) -2 _ftn5 681 See also Josephus AntiquitiesIV.253. -2 _ftn6 This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XX Outline of Chapter 20 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him to Do 20:1–16 The Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard 20:17–19 The Third Prediction of the Passion and the Resurrection 20:20–28 The Request of the Mother of the Sons of Zebedee 20:29–34 The Healing of the Two Blind Men at Jericho 20:1–16 The Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard 20 1 For the kingdom of heaven is like an owner of an estate who went out early in the morning to hire workmen for his vineyard. 2 And having come to an agreement with the workmen for a denarius a day he sent them into his vineyard. 3 And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing in the market-place with nothing to do. 4 He said to them, You go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right I will give you. 5 So they went. And he went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth, and did the same thing. 6 Then about the eleventh hour he went out and found other men standing about, and he said to them, Why do you stand here all day doing nothing? 7 They said to him, Because nobody has hired us. He said to them, You go into the vineyard too. 8 So when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to the foreman, Call the workmen and pay them their wages, beginning with those (that came) last and ending with the first. 9 And when those came who (had been hired) about the elventh hour, each one received a denarius. 10 And when those who (had been hired) first came, they expected to receive more, but each of them also received a denarius. 11 They took it and began to grumble against the owner of the estate, 12 saying, These late-comers have worked (only) one hour, yet you have put them on a par with us, who have endured the arduous toil and the sweltering heat of the day. 13 But he answered one of them, Friend, I am not doing you an injustice; didn't you come to an agreement with me for a denarius? 14 Take what is yours and go home. I want to give this late-comer as much as I give you. 15 Don t I have the right to do as I please with what is mine? Or are you envious because I am generous? 16 So the last shall be first, and the first last. 1. For the kingdom of heaven is like an owner of an estate who went out early in the morning to hire workmen for his vineyard. The very use of for as well as the modified repetition of 19:30 in 20:16 show that the parable that begins here is meant as an elucidation of the immediately preceding rule: But many that are first shall be last, and (many) last first. One might say, There should have been no chapter division between 19:30 and 20:1. When Jesus says, the kingdom of heaven is like an owner of an estate &he means something like this, What happens when the reign of God in its final phase see on 4:23; 13:43 is unfolded, on judgment day, may be compared to what took place, in the following story-illustration, between an owner of an estate and his employees, when the latter at day's end received their reward for the work they had accomplsihed. The owner of an estate is literally a house-lord. [Greek] -2 _ftnref1 [Greek] He is here pictured as a wealthy man, one who owns an estate consisting of a homestead plus a large vineyard. This vineyard is the object of his special care. It requires the labor of many hands. The very fact that Jesus here links the concept kingdom of heaven with house-lord or owner of an estate (cf. 13:27; 21:33; 24:43) shows that he calls attention immediately to the fact that God is the owner of all, and therefore also the sovereign Disposer of men's destinies. Of course, even the very term kingdom of heavenor of Godstresses the same thought: the right to rule is his, not ours. Salvation in all its phases is his free gift. It is not the product of human effort. Now although this estate-owner has a steward or foreman (verse 8), to whom he has assigned the care of the vineyard and the oversight over those who labor in it, he himself takes such interest in it that he goes out at dawn of day to [Greek] -2 _ftnref2 [Greek] workmen. 2. And having come to an agreement with the workmen for a denarius a day he sent them into his vineyard.The point to note in this connection is that a conversation apparently takes place between the owner and these prospective employees. Whether or not there was any haggling the parable does not state. It is entirely possible that when the owner proposed a denar(ius) a day the unemployed men immediately consented, realizing that this was the standard daily wage for both soldier and laborer. Of course, there may have been some arguing about terms. One point, however, is clear: these men who consent to go into the vineyard and to do the work that is required of them are definitely working for wages, not also for the joy of working at such a good place for such a noble owner and for such a worthy purpose. The one and only thing mentioned with reference to these laborers in verse 2 is that the estate-owner came to an agreement (cf. 18:19), made a wage contract, with them! So, imbued with this mercenary spirit, these men go off to work in the vineyard. Due to constant fluctuation in the value of money one year a dollar or a pound will buy much more than another year it is well-nigh impossible to express in up-to-date terms what a denar(ius) today would be worth. Some say sixteen (American) pennies or cents; others, seventeen cents, etc. For the understanding of the parable it is sufficient to know that for that day and age a denar -2 _ftnref3 A.R.V., say shilling? a day was considered fair remuneration for a day's work. Moreover, in the present case both employer and employees must have considered it fair, for they agreedon it. Since the vineyard must have been large and in need of constant attention, and/or since just at this particular time much work by many hands was urgently necessary, we are not surprised that the owner wanted more workmen: 3. And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing in the market-place with nothing to do.At 9 A.M. he goes perhaps returns to the place where the unemployed generally gathered, namely, the market-place, and saw others standing without work, [Greek] -2 _ftnref4 [Greek] thus literally. 4. He said to them, You go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right I will give you.It should be noted that these men do not enter into any wage agreement with the owner. They trust him, thoroughly convinced that when he promises to give them whatever is right he will do exactly that. 5. So they went. And he went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth, and did the same thing.Both at noon and at 3 P.M. the owner returns to the marketplace and hires more workers. They were glad to be hired so that they would be able to work, even if it be only part of the day. With respect to them the owner did the same thing. Does this simply mean that he hired them or also that to them too he said, Whatever is right I will give you? Taken either way, they offer no objections. They ask no questions but with joy of heart go to work. The day wears on until it Isaiah 5 P.M., an hour before quitting time: 6, 7. Then about the eleventh hour he went out and found other men standing about, and he said to them, Why do you stand here all day doing nothing? They said to him, Because nobody has hired us. He said to them, You go into the vineyard too.What a gracious man this estate-owner is. It is clear that he is interested not only in his vineyard but also in the unemployed. He hires them when they, and everyone else, must have thought that for such men as these all hope of working in the vineyard on that day was baseless. What a strange thing to hire men at 5 o clock P.M., for one hour's work! There is no bargaining. Gladly the men accept the invitation to enter the vineyard. Have they not made plain to the owner that the only reason for their standing about in the market-place, doing nothing, was that nobody had hired them? Finally, quitting time arrives. Then something even stranger happens, as is apparent all the way from verse 8 through verse 15. In these eight verses we find the first surprise at the end of verse 8. So when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to the foreman, Call the workmen and pay them their wages, beginning with those (that came) last and ending with the first.When evening had come! Here the real meaning, the one main lesson, begins to come through; for this evening of the day indisputably points to the evening of the world's and of the church's history, the great day of the final judgment and of the manifestation of God's kingdom in all its glory. See the context, 19:28. We are beginning to be told what will happen when that day arrives. It is tempting to indulge in allegorizing, and, with some commentators, to see in the command of the (ownerto the foreman,Call the workmen and give them their wages, a symbolical indication of the fact that the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the SonJohn 5:22). The owner, then, would symbolize the Father; the foreman, Jesus Christ. It is very questionable, however, whether such a procedure is legitimate, especially since from verses 11 15 the foreman has moved out of the picture entirely! It is far better, therefore, to accept the fact that this figure of the foreman, and much more besides, belongs to the parable, not to the lesson to be learned from it. It makes the story more interesting and vivid. Wages were generally paid when the working day was done (Lev. 19:13; Deut. 24:15). What is strange, though, is that the foreman is told that when he calls the workers to pay them he must first pay those who had started to work last of all, at 5 P.M.; next, those who had begun at 3 o clock, and so on until he finally paid those who had started first. Clearly this surprising order is in harmony with the rule laid down in verse 16 (cf. 19:30): the last are going to be first, and the first last. Besides, those who had come first must be given an opportunity to see what happened at the close of the day to those who had come later. Had the far more usual rule first come first served been applied, those first-comers would have taken their money and gone home before seeing what happened to the others. Were the men who had been working since early dawn disappointed by being paid last of all? Undoubtedly, but there is another unwelcome surprise awaiting them: 9, 10. And when those came who (had been hired) about the eleventh hour, each one received a denarius. And when those who (had been hired) first came, they expected to receive more, but each of them also received a denarius.When the late-comers receive an entire denar for just one hour's work, the first-comers expect to receive more than had been agreed upon between themselves and the owner. But each of them receives exactly the same amount as did each of the late-comers: one denar. Thus not only do they get paid last but also they receive less than by now they had come to expect. On the other hand, those who had worked only one hour receive a glad surprise: a whole denar for an hour's work! Nothing is said about those who had been hired at 9 o clock, noon, and 3 o clock. We may assume that they are satisfied perhaps even more than satisfied with what they receive. But they are no longer mentioned. The disappointed men take their money and give vent to their feelings: 11, 12. They took it and began to grumble against the owner of the estate, saying, These late-comers have worked (only) one hour, yet you have put them on a par with us, who have endured the arduous toil and the sweltering heat of the day.During the distribution of the wages the owner is himself also present. The employees readily understand that it is he, rather than the foreman, to whom they must bring their complaint if they have any. And, indeed, the early arrivals have a complaint. We are told that they began to grumble, or were grumbling. The very tense of the verb (imperfect) shows that the emphasis is either on the beginning of their act or else on its persistence. The word used in the [Greek] -2 _ftnref5 [Greek] is an onomatopoeia, that is, a sound-imitation, as are our equivalents: mutter, mumble, murmur, grumble. The nature of their grumbling, moreover, showed what kind of men they were. They did not say, You have put us on a par with the late-comers, but you have put them on a par with us. In other words, they were not only dissatisfied with what they themselves had received; they were also perhaps especiallyenvious of what had been given to the [Greek] -2 _ftnref6 [Greek] They talk about the arduous toil [Greek] -2 _ftnref7 [Greek] and the sweltering or scorching heat [Greek] -2 _ftnref8 [Greek] which they have borne. Their grievance amounts to this therefore: In spite of the fact that we have worked much longer than these late-comers, and have toiled under conditions that were far more oppressive, look what you did for them,how generously you treated them. The main reason for their sullen dissatisfaction is that others, though last, were made to be first, and that they themselves, the first, had been made last. But for this dissatisfaction they were themselves to blame, their sin being a triple one: a.the mercantile spirit that had marked them from the very beginning; b.their failure to recognize the rights of the owner; and c.loathsome envy. Note how in that exact order this threefold root of their unhappiness is now exposed: 13 15. But he answered one of them, Friend, I am not doing you an injustice; didn't you come to an agreement with me for a denarius? Take what is yours and go home. I want to give this late-comer as much as I give you. Don t I have the right to do as I please with what is mine? Or are you [Greek] -2 _ftnref9 [Greek] because I am [Greek] -2 _ftnref10 [Greek] This triple exposure is here represented as a heart-to-heart address earnest, disapproving, yet not entirely unfriendly by the owner to one of the complainers, probably one who represented all the others. The refutation of the complaint was complete and crushing. All that was left for the grumbler was to take his denarius and go home. In harmony with the explanation given it is now possible to state that the real point of the parable is clearly implied in verse 16. So the last shall be first, and the first [Greek] -2 _ftnref11 [Greek] The point or main lesson of the parable is therefore this: Do not be among the first who become last. This may be subdivided as follows: a.Avoid falling prey to the work-for-wages spirit with respect to matters spiritual (besides 20:2, 13 see also the context, 19:16, 22, and what was said in connection with 19:27). b.Do not fail to recognize God's sovereignty, his right to distribute favors as he pleases (in addition to 20:14b, 15a see again the context, 20:23). c.Be far removed from envy (see not only 15b but also the general context, 18:1; 20:20–28). Was not each disciple's yearning to be the greatest a next-door neighbor to gruesome soul-destructive envy? In this parable Jesus is not condemning his audience. He is not taking back anything of the promise found in 19:28, 29. It is exactly in the way of sanctification (II Thess. 2:13), which includes also heeding this admonition, that the promise of 19:28, 29 is fulfilled, as are also all the other promises. But neither is he erasing 19:30. On the contrary, he is confirming it in a form suitable to the present parable, so that the reference to the last who become first is now mentioned first, for it was exactly the generosity extended to the last that had aroused the envy of the [Greek] -2 _ftnref12 [Greek] 20:17–19 The Third Prediction of the Passion and the Resurrection Cf. Mark 10:32 34; Luke 18:31 34 17 And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem he took the twelve disciples aside and on the road he said to them, 18 Listen, we are now going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be handed over to the chief priests and scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, 19 and hand him over to the Gentiles, to mock and to scourge and to crucify (him); and on the third day he shall be raised up. 17. And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem he took the twelve disciples aside and on the road he said to them.& Here we have the third and final prediction of the Passion and the Resurrection. For the first see 16:21; for the second, 17:22, 23; for all three in Matthew and its parallels in Mark and Luke see p. 9. As the second prediction added certain particulars to the first, so this third announcement is more detailed than those that preceded it. We now learn that not only was the Sanhedrin going to cause Jesus to suffer, as even the very first prediction had already declared, and not only was he going to be delivered overto that body, which action had been stipulated in the second announcement; but also that a.this highest court of the Jews, after condemning Jesus to death, would b.hand him over to the Gentiles, with the result that c.they, in turn, would mockMark 10:34has mock and spit upon and scourge him, and that'd.his death would be by crucifixion. The climax is glorious, just as in the first two predictions: and on the third day he shall be raised up. Shall we say, then, that as the Lord drew nearer to Jerusalem, the details of his rapidly approaching passion began to stand out more vividly in his own human consciousness? Shall we add, however, that another reason why these announcements became more and more detailed was that in his infinite love the Master wished to spare his disciples, breaking the news to them bit by bit in the realization that they would not have been able to endure the full story all at once? See John 16:12. There is probably some truth in both of these suggestions. As to the reason why there were predictions at all, see John 14:29; 16:4. The time and place indication is very indefinite: as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem. Combining verse 1 with verse 29 we are probably correct in assuming that the third prediction was made while Jesus and his disciples were on their way to Jerusalem via Jericho. In view of 19:2 it is not surprising that in addition to The Twelve there were also others who followed Jesus. Since the Lord knew that it would not be wise to make the announcement of his suffering and death to all those followers (see on 16:20), he took the twelve disciples aside, so that in private he might give them this detailed information. He said to them: 18, 19. Listen, we are now going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be handed over to the chief priests and scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and hand him over to the Gentiles, to mock and to scourge and to crucify (him); and on the third day he shall be raised up. As to listen, showing that an important statement is about to follow, see footnote 133, p. 131. For an explanation of the term Son of man, Christ's self-designation, in which he often describes himself as the One who, according to God's decree and prophetic prediction, moves from a humble beginning to exaltation at the Father's right hand, and who, in reality, was glorious from the beginning, see on 8:20, pp. 403–407. The expression the chief priests and scribes here replaces the fuller designation of the first prediction, the elders and chief priests and scribes (16:21). In both cases the reference is to the Sanhedrin of the Jews. The prediction that the members of this supreme court would condemn Jesus to death indicates that there was going to be a trial, and that at this trial the death penalty would be pronounced upon Jesus. The fulfilment is described in 26:57, 59 66; 27:1; Mark 14:53 64; Luke 22:66 71. Since the Romans did not allow the Jews to carry out the death sentence, the Jewish authorities were going to hand Jesus over to the Gentiles, that is, in the present case to Pilate and those who carried out his commands. Fulfilment: see 27:2; Mark 15:1; Luke 23:1. Jesus also predicted that these Gentiles would mock him. Fulfilment: 27:31; Mark 15:16 20. For the mockery by Herod see Luke 23:11. The scourging of which Jesus speaks was definitely in connection with the crucifixion that was to follow, as is clear from the fulfilment, for which see 27:26. Scourging, however, was not always a prelude to crucifixion. On this see 10:17; Luke 22:16, 22; II Cor. 11:25; Heb. 11:36. The prediction, in all three cases, ends on a note of triumph: the resurrection on the third day. For this see on 12:39, 40. Fulfilment: Matt. 28:1–10; Mark 16:1 8; Luke 24:1 12; I Cor. 15:1–20. Mark 10:32, in language filled with pathos, depicts the disciples state of mind as they followed Jesus on his way toward Jerusalem, and as they listened to this third prediction of his fast approaching suffering, death, and resurrection. These men were filled with amazement and anxiety. Luke 18:34emphasizes that they were also thoroughly bewildered, not being able to digest the words spoken by Jesus. 20:20–28 The Request of the Mother of the Sons of Zebedee Cf. Mark 10:35 45 20 Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to him with her sons. She was kneeling before him and asking him to do her a favor. 21 He said to her, What do you wish? She said to him, Say that these two sons of mine shall sit one at thy right and one at thy left in thy kingdom. 22 Jesus answered and said, You do not know what you are asking for yourselves. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink? They said to him, We are able. 23 He said to them, My cup you shall drink, but to sit at my right and at my left is not for me to grant, but is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father. 24 Now when the ten heard (what had happened) they were angry at the two brothers. 25 But Jesus called them (all) to him and said, You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men keep them under their despotic power. 26 Not like that shall it be among you; rather, whoever wishes to become great among you let him be your servant, 27 and whoever wishes to be first among you let him be your humble attendant; 28 just as the Son of man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom in the place of many. Jesus had been emphasizing that in his kingdom greatness is measured by the yardstick of humility (18:1–4), that salvation belongs to the little ones and to those who have become like them (19:14), that trusting fully in the Lord, denying oneself, and giving instead of getting, is the mark of his true followers (19:21). He had taught that eagerness to labor for the Master without always asking, What is there in it for me? is the characteristic of the last who in the final days are going to be first (19:30; 20:16). James and John, the sons of Zebedee, had heard all this. But had they taken it to heart? One might be inclined to ask, How was it possible that, in spite of all this teaching about humility and service, teaching constantly reinforced by the example of Christ himself (Luke 22:27), the mother of these two disciples comes to Jesus with her two sons, and asks him to assign to them, next to himself, the two highest positions in the kingdom? But is it not true that, speaking in general, more than nineteen hundred years of gospel proclamation have not succeeded in teaching men the lesson of self-denial and willingness to be least in the kingdom? Besides, it would be unfair to this mother if we failed to grant that in some respects her request was to her credit. Her story begins as follows: 20. Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to him with her sons.There is nothing precise about then, nor does Matthew state exactly where the event took place. From a comparison of verse 18 with verse 29 we may, however, conclude, with a fair amount of probability that it occurred on the way to Jerusalem via Jericho. And as to the time? The third and by far the most detailed prediction of Christ's imminent ordeal has just been recorded (verses 18, 19). The present story (verses 20 28) concludes with another very pointed reference to the cross (verse 28). It would seem, therefore, that the request of this mother was made soon after the third lesson on the cross had been delivered and very shortly previous to the week of the passion. Who was this mother of the sons of Zebedee? Why is she not simply called Zebedee's wife? As to the last question, Zebedee, still definitely alive and active in 4:21 (Mark 1:20), may have died. It is also possible that the designation results from the fact that this mother's request concerns her sons, not her husband. We simply do not know. As to the first question, though certainty is lacking here also, the theory that she was Salome, the sister of the Mary who was the mother of Jesus, and that she was accordingly an aunt of Jesus, so that James and John, her sons, were his cousins, can be called a reasonable inference from a comparison of three Gospel references (Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:40; and John 19:25). For further details see on 27:56. From Mark 10:35 41it is very clear that the request which this mother is about to make is definitely also the request of her sons. In fact, Mark does not even mention the mother, and even Matthew, though telling us that the request was made by the mother, represents Jesus as directing his answer to the sons (verses 22, 23). To conclude from this that Matthew contradicts Mark at this point is wholly without justification. Mother and sons were in perfect agreement. Together they came to Jesus. Continued: She was kneeling before him and asking him to do her a favor.Literally: kneeling [Greek] -2 _ftnref13 [Greek] (him) and asking something from him. Very respectfully she waits until Jesus encourages her to state her request, to make it definite: 21. He said to her, What do you wish? She said to him, Say that these two sons of mine shall [Greek] -2 _ftnref14 [Greek] one at thy right and one at thy left in thy kingdom.Her request is evidence of her faith. It was a remarkable faith. The basis for it may well have been the saying of Jesus reported in 19:28, according to which he promises that one day he would be seated on the throne of his glory, and that each of The Twelve would then also be seated on a throne. She believes that this is actually going to happen. She is convinced of this in spite of the fact that right at this moment there is very little to show that events are moving in that direction. Nevertheless, she was guilty of confusing earthly realities with heavenly, as if what generally happens on earth, when men who, after a tremendous struggle, have finally reached the top, will then from their lofty perch look down upon and hold down all those below them, also applied to the kingdom of heaven. She wanted (hersons, and not Andrew or Philip not even Peter! no, no one but her two sons, James and John, to occupy the two pre-eminent positions. She was ignoring all that Jesus had said so clearly in 18:1–4 and 20:1–16. We can hardly imagine that her own sons had not reported this teaching to her. So big! was still her slogan, if not for herself, at least for her sons. She probably thought that her request must be made now,without any delay, because the kingdom of God in all its glory might be established at any momentLuke 19:11). Besides, if our assumption that she was probably Jesus aunt should be correct, this family relationship may also have encouraged her to make her request. But even if this should not be correct, at least she knew very well that within the largest circle of Christ's followers there was another, smaller circle, namely, The Twelve; that concentric with these two, but still smaller, was the circle of The Three; and finally, that two of these three were her own sons, James and John. Now then, if the reign of God in all its splendor should be established next month or perhaps even next week, and Jesus should be enthroned in majesty, should not her sons be seated at his right and left? Was not this the way of kings and other dignitaries? See (Exod. 17:12; II Sam. 16:6; I Kings 22:19II Chron. 18:18); Neh. 8:4. So she may well have reasoned. But, as already indicated, there was too much of sin, too much of self, mingled with this reasoning. She was leaving out of account the teaching of Jesus concerning true greatness; also that concerning the sovereignty of God (20:14b, 15a, 23b). 22. Jesus answered and said, You do not know what you are asking for [Greek] -2 _ftnref15 [Greek] Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?As the original indicates, and as is also clear from the -2 _ftnref16 (A.V., but not from most modern translations, which are very confusing at this point, in his answer Jesus addresses more than one person. He uses the plural, which means that either he is now speaking to James and JohnMark 10:38), or to these two and their mother. Since the two apostles were in full agreement with their mother, so that they themselves had actively supported her in this request, making it also their own petition, and since these two were most directly concerned with its gratification, it is understandable that Jesus in his answer should especially have them in mind. Jesus, then, reminds them that they do not understand what their request really involves. They forget that a prayer for glory is a prayer for suffering; in other words, that it is the way of the cross, that alone, that leads home. So he asks them whether they are able to drink the cup that he is about to drink. In the idiom of the Old Testament and of those conversant with its literature drinking a cup, i.e., its contents, means fully undergoing this or that experience, whether favorable (Ps. 16:5; 23:5; 116:13; Jer. 16:7) or unfavorable (Ps. 11:6; 75:8; Isa. 51:17, 22; Jer. 25:15; Lam. 4:21; Ezek. 23:32; Hab. 2:16). Jesus, too, spoke of his cup of bitter suffering (Matt. 26:39, 42; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42). And for the New Testament see also (Rev. 14:10; 16:19; 17:4; 18:6. Are these disciples, then, willing to become partakers of his suffering, that is, of the suffering for his name and his causeII Cor. 1:5; 4:10; Gal. 6:17; Phil. 3:10; Col. 1:24; I Peter 4:13; Rev. 12:4, 13, 17)? They said to him, We are able.On the favorable side we can at least credit them with a considerable measure of loyalty to their Master. Nevertheless, the future would prove that they were at this moment too self-confident. See 26:31, 56. Christ's reaction to this positive assertion of the two men, and his final answer to the request is found in verse (23. He said to them, My cup you shall drink, but to sit at my right and at my left is not for me to grant, but is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.Both the martyrdom of JamesActs 12:2) and the banishment of John to the island of Patmos (Rev. 1:9) are here foretold. These two future happenings were part of the suffering for Christ's sake that would be experienced by these disciples. However, as to the request itself, Jesus points out that the degrees and positions of glory in his kingdom have been determined in the Father's eternal decree. They cannot now be altered by the Mediator. See Matt. 24:36; 25:34; Luke 12:32; Acts 1:7; Eph. 1:4, 11. When the ten other disciples heard what had happened, what was their reaction? 24. Now when the ten heard (what had happened) they were [Greek] -2 _ftnref17 [Greek] at the two brothers.The report of the occurrence filled the remaining disciples with indignation. They probably felt that James and John, by asking for these positions of pre-eminence, had been plotting against them. It seems that they, too, had not yet taken to heart the lesson of 18:1 ff. They probably wanted these highest posts for themselves. This indicates that the spiritual attitude of the ten was not any better than that of the two. How easy it is to condemn in others what we excuse in ourselves. It takes a Nathan to make this clear to usII Sam. 12:1ff . Cf. Rom. 2:1. It should not escape our attention that even though the attitude of all these twelve men must have caused the Lord much sorrow of heart, since it showed that even now, in spite of all his messages, they had not yet put into practice this part of his teaching, he reacts very gently. Is he not the tender Shepherd who loves his sheep? So, first he calls The Twelve to himself. Then calmly and earnestly he reproves and admonishes them: 25. But Jesus called them (all) to him and said, You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men keep them under their despotic power.That, says Jesus as it were, is the way of worldly people. They spend all their energies in order to get to the top; and, once having reached that peak, they cause all others to feel the weight of their authority. It would sound awkward to translate the Greek as follows: &the rulers of the Gentiles lord downupon them and their grandees wield power downupon them, but that is nevertheless the sense of the saying. These worldly rulers, once arrived, often think of themselves alone, and cause all their subjects to quail under the crushing weight of their power. Their rule, in other words, is oppressive. Continued: 26, 27. Not like that shall it [Greek] -2 _ftnref18 ([Greek] among you; rather, whoever wishes to become great among you let him be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you let him be your humble attendant.Essentially this is the teaching of 18:1 ff. See also 10:39; 16:24, 25; Luke 9:23, 24. The form given to it is new and refreshing. It is an unforgettable paradox. Jesus is saying that in the kingdom over which he reigns greatness is obtained by pursuing a course of action which is the exact opposite of that which is followed in the unbelieving world. Greatness consists in self-giving, in the outpouring of the self in service to others, for the glory of God. To be great means to love. See John 13:34; I Cor. 13; Col. 3:14; I John 3:14; 4:8; I Peter 4:8. Were not the following the list is incomplete truly great? Was not childlike faith in God coupled with loving service to menGal. 6:10), characteristic of them all? Abraham (Gen. 13:8, 9; 14:14–16; 15:6; 18:22–33; 22:15–18) Moses (Exod. 32:32) Joshua (Josh. 24:14, 15) Samuel (I Sam. 7:5) David (Ps. 23; 103) Jonathan (I Sam. 23:16) NehemiahNeh. 1:4ff. The commended centurion (Matt. 8:5–13) Barnabas (Acts 4:36; 11:22–26) Stephen (Acts 6:8) Paul, Silas, and Timothy (I Thess. 1:1, 9; 2:1–12) Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25–30; 4:18) Epaphras (Col. 1:7, 8; 4:12, 13) Luke (Col. 4:14) Ruth (Ruth 1:16 18) Hannah (I Sam. 1:27, 28) Abigail (I Sam. 25:18–42) The great woman of Shunem (II Kings 4:8–10) Naaman's servant-girlII Kings 5:1ff. Mary, the mother of Jesus (Luke 1:38, 46 55; Acts 1:14) Elizabeth (Luke 1:39 45) The generous widow (Luke 21:1 4) Mary and Martha (John 11:1, 2; 12:1–8) Dorcas (Acts 9:36 42) Lydia (Acts 16:14, 15, 40) Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:26) It is the inverted pyramid, the believer being at the bottom being the servant,the humble [Greek] -2 _ftnref19 [Greek] of all others that symbolizes the position of the Christian as, with simple trust in God and love for all men, he continues on his way to the mansions of glory. In doing this is he not following in the footsteps of his Lord and Savior? See Luke 22:27; John 13:34, 35. In fact, that is the very thought which Jesus stresses, as he continues: 28 &just as the Son of man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom in the place of many.Cf. Mark 10:45. This has always rightly been regarded as one of the most precious of Christ's sayings. Note just as, clearly indicating that Christ's humiliation in the place of, and for the benefit of, his people, must be both their example and their motivation. He is the Son of man, the fulfilment of the prophecy of Dan. 7:14. For a detailed study of the concept Son of man see on 8:20; pp. 403–407. In himself and from all eternity he is the all-glorious One. Yet he humbles himself. He becomes incarnate, and this not with the purpose of being served but of serving. See also on 9:13. Study II Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:5–8; and see -2 _ftnref20 N.T.C.on I Tim. 1:15. The service which it was the Son of man's purpose to render is described in the words: to give his life as a ransom in the place of many. In the place of or in exchange for must be considered the right translation [Greek] -2 _ftnref21 ([Greek] The passage is a clear proof of Christ's substitutionary atonement. A ransomwas originally the price paid for the release of a slave. Jesus, then, is saying that he came into this world to give his life that is, himselfI Tim. 2:6) in exchange for many. The conception of Christ's death on the cross as the price that was paid, a price far more precious than silver or gold, is found also in I Peter 1:18. With this compare I Cor. 6:20; 7:23. The phrase a ransom for many is in all probability an echo of Isa. 53:11, as the entire surrounding phraseology would seem to indicate. Now in Isa. 53the idea of substitution predominates: see verses 4, 5, 6, 8, and 12. See also Matt. 26:28. It is, of course, perfectly true that this ransom in the place of and in exchange for many immediately implies that benefit accrues to the many. The two ideas in the place of and for the benefit of blend into one. How can we even for a moment entertain the idea that a ransom in the place of many would not be for their benefit? Besides, the very context states in so many words that by means of this ransom the Son of man servesthe many. He rescues them from the greatest possible bane, namely, the curse of God upon sin; and he bestows upon them the greatest possible boon, namely, the blessings of God for soul and body throughout all eternity. See Isa. 53:10; Rom. 4:25; II Cor. 5:20, 21; Titus 2:14; I Peter 1:18, 19. Who are the many in the place of whom and for whose benefit the Son of man came to give his life as a ransom? The answer is as follows: 1 0 my people the church the church of God the sheep, God's elect (Rom. 8:32–35) There are passages, however, which, taken out of their context, seem to teach that Jesus came to this earth in order to pay the ransom for every individual living on earth in the past, present, and future. As soon as these passages are interpreted in the light of their contexts it immediately appears that this is not the meaning. Rather, the river-bed of grace has broadened. The church has become international, and it is in that sense that the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men (Titus 2:11; cf. I Tim. 2:6). For more on this point see N.T.C. on the Gospel according to John, Vol. I, pp. 98, 99; and N.T.C. on I and II Timothy and Titus, pp. 93, 94. Male and female, rich and poor, old and young, Jew and Gentile, slave and free, the Lord gathers his church from all of these classes. He is truly the Savior of the world (John 4:42; I John 4:14; cf. I Tim. 4:10). A few more points must not be overlooked. First, and in connection with the immediately preceding, it is clear that Scripture in its doctrine of salvation is perfectly consistent. There is no conflict between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. These three are really One. Those, and those alone, whom the Father has chosen (Eph. 1:3, 4), the Son came to ransom (John 6:39; 10:11, 15). No one shall snatch them out of his hand (John 10:28). These same ones also no less, no more are led and sealed by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:14, 16; Eph. 1:13). Thus the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is wholly maintained. Another point that must be stressed is that the very wording of our passage (Matt. 20:28), namely, to give his life as a ransom, indicates that Christ's death for his own must be considered a voluntary self-sacrifice. It was not forced upon the Mediator. He laid down his life of his own accord. See, again, John 10:11, 15. That fact gives to this death its atoning value. Finally, the ransom price was paid not (as Origen maintained) to Satan, but to the Father (Rom. 3:23–25), who also himself, together with the Son and the Holy Spirit, had made arrangements for the salvation of his people (John 3:16; II Cor. 5:20, [Greek] -2 _ftnref22 [Greek] The context must not be overlooked. Here in Matt. 20:28Jesus is teaching that his own willingness to humble himself to the point of giving his life as a ransom for many must be reflected in The Twelve (see verse 20: the two sons of Zebedee; and verse 24: the ten); and, by extension, in all his followers. To be sure, Christ's own sacrifice is unique. It alone has atoning value. Consequently it cannot be duplicated. But in his own small degree and manner every follower of Christ must, by God's grace, show that love to others. He who believes John 3:16must not forget to practice I John 3:16b! Such is the law of the kingdom. 20:29–34 The Healing of the Two Blind Men at Jericho Cf. Mark 10:46 52; Luke 18:35 43 29 Now as they were going out of Jericho a large crowd followed him. 30 And look, two blind men, sitting by the wayside and hearing that Jesus was passing by, cried out, Lord, take pity on us, Son of David. 31 The crowd warned them to be quiet, but they shouted all the louder, Lord, take pity on us, Son of David. 32 So Jesus stopped and called them. What do you want me to do for you? he asked. 33 They said to him, Lord, (we desire) that our eyes may be opened. 34 Jesus, moved with compassion, touched their eyes, and immediately (the men) regained their sight and followed him. The Jericho of Jesus day and its present-day ruins lie somewhat to the south of Old Testament Jericho. The city which Matthew mentions here in 20:29 was located about fifteen miles northeast of Jerusalem. Since Jerusalem was about 3,300 feet higher in altitude than Jericho, this fact sheds light on Luke 10:30: a certain man was going downfrom Jerusalem to Jericho. Herod the Great and later also Archelaus, his son had strengthened and beautified this city, giving it a theater, amphitheater, villas, and baths. Even before the reign of Herod I it was already a little paradise, with its palm trees, rose gardens, etc. Its winter climate was delightful, making it a winter-residence fit for a king. Had not Mark Antony given it to Cleopatra, the Egyptian queen, as a token of his [Greek] -2 _ftnref23 [Greek] However, it was not with the beauty and splendor of Jericho that Jesus was chiefly concerned, as he travels now, with his little company, from Perea southwestward, across the Jordan; and thus via Jericho to Jerusalem and the cross. Though an indescribably heavy burden is resting upon his own heart (Luke 12:50), he has not lost his sympathy with the needs of others. Before entering upon the exegesis of verses 29 34 it is, however, necessary to say a word about the little paragraph as a whole. It has proved to be a feast for a.,on the one hand, harmonizers;and b.,on the other, detractors. The trouble is that Matthew speaks of twoblind men, while Mark and Luke make mention of one,whom Mark calls Bartimaeus. Also, according to Matthew and Mark the miracle occurred as Jesus and his disciples were leaving Jericho; Luke, as he drew near to Jericho. As to the first difficulty, is it possible that Mark, who was Peter's interpreter, had heard only the story of Bartimaeus? Of course, this is not really a solution; it simply pushes the problem back a little, from Mark (and Luke, who presumably had read Mark) to Peter. On the other hand, the problem is not at all serious. There is no real contradiction, for neither Mark nor Luke tells us that Jesus restored sight to the eyes of onlyone blind man. For the rest, it must be admitted that we do not have the answer: we do not know why Mark wrote and Peter, let us suppose, had spoken about Bartimaeus and not also about the other blind man. As to the second problem, among the solutions that have been offered are the following: a.There were two Jerichos: Jesus therefore could have performed the miracle while he was leaving the one and entering the other; b.One blind man was healed as Jesus entered Jericho, another as he left; c.Jesus entered the city, had passed through it, and was now leaving it. While he was going outof the city he saw Zacchaeus up in the tree, and told that little publican to come down. So, with Zacchaeus he re-enteredthe city to lodge at the tax-collector's home for the night. According to the proposed solution it was during this re-entry of the city that the miracle took place. Hence, Matthew and Mark can say that it was performed while he was leaving the city; Luke, as he drew near to it. All three solutions are open to objections, however. As to solution a:in an account which presents so much resemblance compare, for example, Mark's account with that of Luke it would be very strange, indeed, if the name Jericho meant two different things. As to b.this does not solve anything, for Mark and Luke are clearly speaking about the same blind man, Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus. Nevertheless, according to Mark this man had his eyesight restored as Jesus was leaving Jericho; according to Luke, as he drew near to Jericho. And as to c,it does not explain why, as this view presupposes, the word entered would have the meaning re-entered from the other side. Other solutions are not any better: for example, that the blind man was sitting by the roadside begging, as Jesus entered the city from the east; that he then kept on following Jesus all the way through the city until finally, while Jesus was leaving the city, he cured him. The best answer is, There is, indeed, a solution, for this Scripture, too, is inspired. However, we do not have that [Greek] -2 _ftnref24 [Greek] Turning now to the story itself, as Matthew tells it, we notice that the material covered by its indicated theme, The Healing of the Two Blind Men at Jericho, may be distributed under these headings: 1. their wretched conditon (verses 29, 30); 2. their added difficulty (verse 31a); 3. their commendable persistence (verse 31b); and 4. the marvelous blessing which Jesus bestowed on them (verses 32 34). 1. Their Wretched Condition 29, 30. Now as they were going out of Jericho a large crowd followed him. And look, two blind men, sitting by the wayside and hearing that Jesus was passing by, cried out, Lord, take pity on us, Son of David.As Passover was approaching we are not surprised that a large crowd, probably from Galilee and from Perea, was following Jesus. Outside the city, Jesus having now passed through from east to west, two blind men were sitting by the wayside. This is not the first time Matthew has recorded the cure of two blind men (see on 9:27–31). Nevertheless, one can hardly speak of a doublet in this connection, for in everyverse of 20:29–34 there is at least one item with respect to which the story here recorded differs from that in the previous passage, as any reader can see for himself by placing the two accounts side by side. Although the blind men cannot see Jesus, they hear the bustle of the crowd, and upon enquiry learn that Jesus is passing by. They then immediately begin to cry out, Lord, take pity on us, Son of David. As this same cry had also been uttered by the two blind men of 9:27–31, I shall simply refer to the explanation there given. As there explained, the term Son of man must be taken in its Messianic sense. This does not mean that these men already at that time had a full appreciation of the spiritual character of Jesus messiahship. Not at all. It does, however, indicate that they were among the few who were able to give a better answer to the question, Who do the people say that the Son of man is? than was given by the people in general, according to 16:13, 14. These two blind men, then, are imploring Jesus to take pity on that is, to show mercy to them. Their situation was indeed deplorable. Not only were they blind but, if for a moment we may cull an item of information from the accounts in Mark and Luke, they were beggars. For their sustenance they had to depend on the generosity of the crowd. 2. Their Added Difficulty 31a. The crowd warned them to be quiet.& Just why the crowd did this we do not know. Possible answers: a.The people were in a hurry to get to Jerusalem and did not want Jesus to be stopped by these beggars; b.they deemed this yelling to be out of harmony with the dignity of the person addressed; c.they were not as yet fully ready to hear the idea Jesus is the Son of David, the Messiah publicly proclaimed (see on 8:27; 12:23); and d.they knew that their religious leaders would not appreciate this. 3. Their Commendable Persistence 31b &but they shouted all the louder, Lord, take pity on us, Son of David.That was to their credit. They realized that if help was going to come from any source, it would have to come from the Son of David. 4. The Marvelous Blessing Which Jesus Bestowed on Them 32 34. So Jesus stopped and called them. What do you want me to do for you? he asked. They said to him, Lord, (we desire) that our eyes may be opened. Jesus, moved with compassion, touched their eyes, and immediately (the men) regained their sight and followed him.The time has arrived when Jesus no longer forbids this public acclaim (contrast 8:4; 9:30; 17:9). Within just a few days he will, by means of his suffering on the cross, show to all who are willing to see, in what sense he is indeed the Son of David. The character of his messianic office in simple language: how he saves will then become evident, though the majority will still refuse to accept the truth. Jesus reveals himself here as being not only all-powerful but also superlatively merciful. Very tenderly he asks these men to tell him, here in public, just what it is they desire of him. They are beggars. Are they asking for alms? Their answer is the expected one: (We desire) that our eyes be opened. We are then once more specifically assured that Jesus not only granted them their wish, but that he did this because he was moved with compassion. His heartwas in the act. For the concept compassion see N.T.C. on Philippians, footnote 39 on p. 58. In line with this compassion was the tender touch. For this see on 8:3, pp. 391f. Immediately and completely their sight was restored. All is light now, and this, we may be sure, not only physically what a joy and what a riches was even this! but also, at least to a certain extent, spiritually. Their confidence in Jesus had been rewarded. This very miracle may well have contributed its quota to the enthusiasm with which the multitude would soon be acclaiming Jesus in connection with his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. It did not mean, however, that the people now recognized in him the realMessiah, the one of Isa. 53. Thus, on a note of glory, ends the second large division of Matthew's Gospel. Summary of Chapter 20 The parable (verses 1 16) that begins here is an elucidation of the immediately preceding rule: But many that are first shall be last, and (many) last first. The owner of an estate goes to the market-place early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. He reaches an agreement with them for a denar a day, and sends them into the vineyard. At 9 A.M., 12 noon, and 3 P.M. he hires more laborers, promising them, Whatever is right I will give you, an assurance which these men accept without any haggling. Even at 5 o clock he sends some more laborers into his vineyard. They too are glad to go, no questions asked. At quitting time the owner orders the foreman to pay the men their wages, but strangely adds, beginning with those hired last. Stranger still: all the men must be given the same wage: one denar. Those hired first complain to the owner, for, in view of what those hired last had received, they (those hired first) had expected more. They envy the late-comers. The owner reminds them of the fact that they had agreedto work for a denar a day. He rebukes them for their mercantile spirit, their failure to recognize the right of the owner to do with his own money whatever he pleases, and their loathsome envy. For the spiritual lessons to be drawn from this parable see p. 740. The next paragraph (verses 17 19) contains the third prediction of Christ's approaching passion and resurrection. It is far more circumstantial than either of the preceding, describing several of the details of the bitter trial Jesus is about to undergo. In both of these paragraphs (verses 1 16; verses 17 19) eager service, willingness to sacrifice for the sake of others, without always asking, What is there in it for me has been stressed. How slow are people to learn this lesson! This appears from the paragraph (verses 20 28) that tells about the request of the mother of the sons of Zebedee. She kneels down in front of Jesus with the request, Say that these two sons of mine shall sit one at thy right and one at thy left in thy kingdom. Her sons, James and John, join their mother in asking this favor. Jesus points out that a.the greatness for which they yearn requires sacrifice; b.not he but the heavenly Father has determined the degree of glory each of the ransomed shall receive; and c.only by forgetting all about greatness and instead dedicating one's life to God in humble service in the interest of others, after the example of Christ, can true greatness be obtained. The unique sacrifice of Christ is stressed in the meaningful passage, the Son of man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom in the place of many. The closing paragraph (verses 29 34) describes what happened when Jesus with his disciples was traveling from Perea in a southwestern direction, across the Jordan, and thus via Jericho toward Jerusalem and the cross. As he was going out of Jericho two blind men, sitting by the wayside, cry out, Lord, take pity on us, Son of David. Their wretched condition consists in this that they are not only blind but also beggars. Their added difficulty is that the huge crowd following Jesus tells them to keep still. Their commendable persistence appears from the fact that instead of being quiet they cry all the louder. Finally, the marvelous blessing which Jesus bestows on them becomes evident in that not only are they healed but they are treated with marvelous compassion and tenderness. The Work Which Thou Gavest Him to Do () -2 _ftn1 697 Even more precisely, a man, a house-lord. This is another instance of the pleonastic use of [Greek]. See footnote 663 on p. 704. -2 _ftn2 698 Note [Greek] middle aor. infin. of [Greek]: literally to engage for [Greek] (wages). -2 _ftn3 A.R.V. American Standard Revised Version -2 _ftn4 699 (In the New Testament certain sparkling sayings have [Greek] (work) as their point of departure. See N.T.C. on II Thess. 3:11; I Tim. 5:13. ) -2 _ftn5 700 [Greek]. -2 _ftn6 701 D. A. Schlatter, in his Erläuterungen zum Neuen Testament, Stuttgart, 1908, p. 223, states, in explanationof the parable, To harbor within oneself envy over against others because God reveals his grace to them &what a depth of depravity is revealed by this kind of disposition. -2 _ftn7 702 According to the context this seems to be the correct English equivalent of [Greek] here. See also N.T.C. on Galatians for both [Greek] (footnote 176, p. 234 of that Commentary) and the verb [Greek] (footnote 171, p. 232). -2 _ftn8 703 The noun [Greek] is found also in Luke 12:55( It is going to be a scorcher, that is, a very hot day) and in James 1:11 Compare the verb [Greek], to light, burn. -2 _ftn9 704 Literally, Is your eye evil.& -2 _ftn10 705 (It is clear also from I Peter 2:18(note the synonyms) that at times [Greek] means kind, generous. ) -2 _ftn11 706 The addition, for many be called, but few chosen (A.V.) is not based upon the best Greek text. -2 _ftn12 707 Having now presented an explanation of this parable, what is the author's estimate of the views of some of the other commentators? For titles of their works see the Bibliography at the end of this volume. In this note (with one necessary exception) only the pageswill be indicated. John Calvin, pp. 410–312, points out that according to this parable God calls freely whomsoever he pleases, and grants to those whom he calls whatever rewards he deems suitable. Calvin definitely rejects the idea that those called first represent the Jews; those called last the Gentiles. This very idea, or something closely resembling it, is however advocated by R. Knox, p. 43, who claims that any interpretation which ignores this view becomes intolerably flat and almost meaningless. Since there is nothing in the text or context to suggest this Jew-Gentile contrast I agree with Calvin and many others on this point. It is only fair to state that Knox presents much valuable material, and is easy to read. Zahn, pp. 605, 606, points out correctly, I believe that according to the teaching of this parable those who boast about remuneration as if it were a right, and who envy their fellows, do not remain unpunished. Also, as he sees it again, I agree the parable commends those who went to work fully confident that the owner would reward them generously. Schlatter see also above, footnote 701, p. 739 points out, p. 223, that according to this parable those alone are the recipients of grace who do not begrudge others the blessing of receiving it. I find his comments many of them of a very practical nature and always presented in a lively style most interesting and instructive. J. A. C. Van Leeuwen, p. 138, in his unique manner, offers some worth-while sidelights: a.on 20:12: in their envy those who complain even neglect to address their employer politely; b.on 20:15: if the complainer looks darkly (or: askance) at the employer because of the latter's generosity shown to the late-comers, so much the worse for that complainer! What was said about Schlatter can also be truly said about Van Leeuwen: his style sparkles! Though I find much of Lenski's material worthy of hearty endorsement, yet his treatment of the present parable is to me not wholly satisfactory. On pp. 742–759 he allegorizes so generously the steward is Christ; the denarius means temporal blessings; the laborers hired last are inexcusable idlers; etc. that, because of this, the main lesson of the parable does not stand out with sufficient clarity. Also, his statement, p. 750, that the expression now evening having come (20:8) is no indication of the final judgment or of the end of each person's individual life, will probably find few supporters. Does not the parable show exactly what will take place in the end, namely, when the Son of man shall be seated on the throne of his glory (19:28, closely connected with 19:30, which, in turn, introduces 20:1–16)? See also 13:40–43, 49, 50; 25:31–46. As I see it, what is the weak point in Lenski's treatment is the strong point in the interpretation presented by H. N. Ridderbos, Vol. II, pp. 69–73. That author avoids all unnecessary allegorization and, as I see it, places the emphasis where it belongs. F. W. Grosheide, pp. 300–303, in his own succinct and sparkling manner, points out that the parable stresses the freedom and sovereignty of God in imparting the reward of grace, no one being entitled, because of what he did or imagines he did, to receive anything from God. R. C. Trench, in his (Notes on the Parables of Our Lord,pp. 61–66, commenting on Matt. 20:15b Is thine eye evil, because I am good? points out that Scripture represents envy as being expressed by the eyeDeut. 15:9; I Sam. 18:9). He also rightly shows that the parable teaches men to refrain from priding themselves on their deeds, as if these would give them a claim on God's blessings. W. M. Taylor, pp. 104–120, is certainly correct when, in his refreshing and very valuable treatment of this parable, he points out, as some other interpreters have also done, that what the employer is said to have done when he paid the late-comers as much as the early arrivals would lead to disaster if applied to labor and industry generally. He also states, however, that it truly represents (God sdealings with men. As he sees it, the parable condemns the disposition of the hireling think of the older brotherLuke 15:25 30) that seeks to deal with God on the basis of so much work for so much pay. All of this I heartily endorse. -2 _ftn13 708 For a detailed study of the verb [Greek], from which this nom. sing. fem. pres. participle [Greek] is derived, see pp. 171, 391. It has been variously rendered: dropping to her knees, kneeling, bowing low, followed in each case by before with him understood. -2 _ftn14 709 [Greek] third per. pl. aor. subjunctive of [Greek]. -2 _ftn15 710 Note the distinction between [Greek] active (20:20) and [Greek] middle (20:22). On this distinction see Gram.N.T., p. 805. -2 _ftn16 A.V. Authorized Version (King James) -2 _ftn17 711 (The form [Greek] is the third per. pl. aor. indic. of [Greek]. Besides its occurrence here in 20:24Mark 10:41), it is also found in 21:15 for the Jewish leaders displeasure with Jesus; in 26:8 (Mark 14:4) for the disciples attitude toward Mary of Bethany; in (Mark 10:14, for Christ's anger when babes were being prevented from reaching him; and in Luke 13:14, of the ruler of the synagogue, because Jesus healed on the sabbath. These references show that in all these instances, except one, being angry was the result of sin. In the case of Jesus it was the result of love, his own love for the little ones. See also N.T.C. on Eph. 4:26. ) -2 _ftn18 712 The preferred reading [Greek] has imperative force: it shall not be, must not be; hence, do not let it be. See Gram.N.T., p. 943. -2 _ftn19 713 It is clear that in verses 26, 27 the two words [Greek] and [Greek] are synonyms. The temptation is, with many others, to translate them servant and slave. However, in the course of history the ideas of lack of freedom, unwilling service, cruel treatment, etc., have become so closely attached to slave that, together with other translators, I too find it impossible to accept this translation as truly representing what Jesus had in mind in the present context. Far better, it would seem to the present author, is therefore the rendering (for the pair): minister &servant (A.V., A.R.V., Berkeley Version). My only reason for suggesting still another English equivalent is that today the term minister is very often understood in the technical sense of clergyman. For [Greek] see also N.T.C. on the Gospel according to John, Vol. I, p. 119; and N.T.C. on I and II Timothy and Titus, footnote 67 on p. 135; and for [Greek], N.T.C. on Philippians, p. 44. -2 _ftn20 N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary -2 _ftn21 714 See the author's doctoral dissertation, The Meaning of the [Greek] in the New Testament, Princeton Seminary, 1948. -2 _ftn22 715 An excellent book on this subject is that by L. Berkhof, Vicarious Atonement through Christ, Grand Rapids, 1936. For other titles on the same subject see Select Literature on p. 179 of Berkhof's volume. -2 _ftn23 This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ Its Climax or Culmination Chapters 21:1 28:20 CHAPTER XXI Outline of Chapter 21 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him to Do A. The Week of the Passion 21:1–11 The Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem 21:12–17 The Cleansing of the Temple 21:18–22 The Cursing of the Fig Tree 21:23–27 Christ's Authority: Question and Counter Question 21:28–32 The Parable of the Two Sons 21:33–46 The Parable of the Wicked Tenants, and Its Sequel 21:1–11 The Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem Cf. Mark 11:1 11; Luke 19:28 38; John 12:12 19 21 1 And when they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage, to the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them, Go into the village opposite you, where at once you will find a donkey tied up and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3 And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, The Lord needs them, and immediately he will let them go. 4 This happened in order that what was spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled, 5 Say to the daughter of Zion, Look, your King is coming to you, Meek, and mounted on a donkey, Even upon a colt, the foal of a pack-animal. 6 So the disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them. 7 They brought the donkey and its colt, and laid upon them their outer garments, on which he took his seat. 8 Most of the crowd spread their outer garments on the road; others were cutting branches from the trees and were spreading them on the road. 9 Then the crowds that were walking in front of him and those that were following (him) began to shout, Hosanna to the Son of David; Blessed (is) the One coming in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest. 10 And when he entered Jerusalem the entire city was stirred up, saying, Who is this? 11 The crowds kept answering, This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth of Galilee. The week of The Passion, which was followed by the Resurrection, begins here. Matthew has informed us that Jesus left Perea, crossing the Jordan and at Jericho restoring sight to two blind men. From Jericho the little party wended its way toward Jerusalem, as Matthew had also reported (20:17, 18). On reasonable grounds it may be assumed that Bethany the home of Simon the leper, Lazarus, Mary, and Martha was reached before sunset on Friday, that on the sabbath (Friday sunset to Saturday sunset) Jesus enjoyed the sabbath-rest with his friends, that on Saturday evening a supper was given in his honor, and that the next day, being Sunday, the triumphal entry into Jerusalem [Greek] -2 _ftnref1 [Greek] This Triumphal Entry was an event of outstanding significance. Note the following: 1. By means of it Jesus deliberately evokes a demonstration. He fully realizes that, as a result, the enthusiasm of the masses will enrage the hostile leaders at Jerusalem, so that they will desire more than ever to carry out their plot against him. 2. Jesus forces the members of the Sanhedrin to change their time-table, so that it will harmonize with his (and the Father's) time-table. The enthusiasm of the crowds with respect to Jesus will hasten the crisis. 3. By means of this Triumphal Entry Jesus fulfils the Messianic prophecy of Zech. 9:9. When the people hail him as the Son of David, i.e., the Messiah, he does not try to restrain them. 4. However, he also shows the crowds what kind of Messiah he is, namely, not the earthly Messiah of Israel's dreams, the One who wages war against an earthly oppressor, but the One who came to promote and establish the things that make for peace (Luke 19:42), lasting peace: reconciliation between God and man, and between a man and his fellow man. Accordingly, Jesus enters Jerusalem mounted on a colt, the foal of an ass, an animal associated not with the rigors of war but with the pursuits of peace, for he is the Prince of Peace (Isa. 9:6). But the people in general, their minds filled with earthly ideas concerning the Coming One, did not understand or appreciate this. In hailing him as the Messiah, the people were right; the Pharisees, chief priests, and scribes (Matt. 21:15, 16; Luke 19:39, 40) were wrong. But in expecting this Messiah to reveal himself as a political, earthly Messiah the Hosanna shouters were as wrong as were their leaders. Those who in every way rejected Jesus were committing a crime, but those who outwardly accepted and cheered him were also doing him a gross injustice, for they did not accept him for what he really was. Their tragic mistake was committed with dire results for themselves. It is not surprising therefore that Luke pictures a weeping King in the midst of a shouting multitude (19:39–44), nor is it strange that, a little later, when the crowds begin to understand that Jesus is not the kind of Messiah they had expected, they, at the urging of their leaders, were shouting, Crucify (him)! In order to be able to appreciate Matthew's account of this Triumphal Entry and the immediately following events (21:1–17) it is probably best first of all to see the story in outline form. Piecing together the different accounts (Synoptics and John) the following summary results: Sunday 1.Matt. 21:1–3, 6, 7a; Mark 11:1 7a; Luke 19:28 35a; John 12:2, 12: As Jesus takes his departure from Bethany he sends two of his disciples into a small village, Bethphage. He gives them detailed instructions in order to enable them to fetch from there a young donkey on which he plans to ride into Jerusalem. Matthew points out that there were two animals involved, a colt and its dam, but it appears later that Jesus makes use only of the colt. The disciples succeed in carrying out Christ's command. 2.Matt. 21:4, 5, 7b; Mark 11:7b; Luke 19:35b; John 12:14, 15: The disciples throw their garments on both of the animals, and when it becomes clear that Jesus wishes to ride upon the colt, they assist him in mounting it. Jesus starts riding toward Jerusalem. Both Matthew and John see in this event a fulfilment of the prophecy of Zech. 9:9. 3.Matt. 21:8; Mark 11:8; Luke 19:36: Most of the people who accompany Jesus from Bethany spread their outer garments on the path. Others cut branches from the trees and with these pave the way before him. 4.John 12:1, 12, 13a, 18: Meanwhile the caravan of pilgrims that had arrived in Jerusalem previously and had heard that Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead and was on his way toward the city, come pouring out of the eastern gate to meet him. With fronds cut from palm trees they proceed on their way to welcome the Messiah. 5.Matt. 21:9; Mark 11:9, 10; Luke 19:37, 38; John 12:13b: As the two throngs meet, the enthusiasm mounts. The accompanying multitude includes the following: The Twelve, a throng from Bethany, pilgrims from Galilee and Perea, and even some hostile Pharisees. Descending the western slope of the Mount of Olives, and drawing near to Jerusalem, everyone (with the exception of the hostile Pharisees) starts to shout Hosanna to the Son of David.& 6. John 12:17: Those who had witnessed the resurrection of Lazarus continue to bear testimony. Result: the excitement reaches a climax. 7. Luke 19:39, 40: The Pharisees, beside themselves with envy as they listen to this cheering, appeal to Jesus to stop it: Teacher, rebuke your disciples! Jesus answers: I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out. 8. Luke 19:41 44: When, of a sudden, the city comes into view, Jesus, fully realizing that much of the praise which he had been receiving is shallow and is based upon the identification of himself with an expected earthly, political Messiah, breaks into loud weeping. Before his prophetic eyes there arises the vision of Jerusalem as a besieged city, a city surrounded by Roman legions. In a wail of bitter lamentation he cries, Would that even today you, yes you yourself, had known the things that pertain to peace! but now they are hidden from your eyes.& 9. Matt. 21:10, 11; Mark 11:11, 12: As Jesus enters Jerusalem the entire city is stirred. Everybody who had remained behind, on seeing someone approaching surrounded by a huge crowd and riding into the city on a donkey, asks, Who is this? The answer comes back, This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth of Galilee. In the evening Jesus returns to Bethany with his disciples. Monday and Later 10. Matt. 21:12–14; Mark 11:15 17; Luke 19:45 47: Jesus cleanses the temple and (according to Matthew) heals the blind and the lame. 11.Matt. 21:15, 16: The children in the temple begin to shout, Hosanna to the Son of David. The chief priests and the scribes, in their fury, ask Jesus: Do you hear what these are saying? Jesus answers, Yes, have you never read: From the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast prepared praise for thyself? 12. John 12:19: The Pharisees, filled with the spirit of frustration, envy, and rage, say to each other, You see that you are gaining nothing. Look, the world has gone after him. 13.Matt. 21:17: When evening falls Jesus and The Twelve again retire to Bethany for the night. 14.John 12:16: Not until Jesus had been glorified did the disciples, looking back and revolving all these things in their minds, realize that the Triumphal Entry was the fulfilment of prophecy. Of the fourteen elements that enter into the composition of this harmonized story Matthew has eight (items 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, and 13). In listing these fourteen items it is not claimed that the order in which they were presented is necessarily in each instance the exact chronological sequence in which they occurred. However, the order as here presented is probably not far removed from the actual facts of history. 1, 2. ((see No. 1 on p. 760) And when they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage, to the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, Go into the village opposite you, where at once you will find a donkey tied up and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me.On this Sunday, starting out from Bethany, a village located on the eastern slopes of the Mount of Olives and about two miles east of JerusalemJohn 11:18), Jesus and his disciples were nearing Bethphage. The Mount of Olives is a rounded ridge to the northeast of Jerusalem. At its highest point it rises to a height of over 2600 feet above sea level, about 250 feet above the hill on which the temple was built. The mountain or hill has four peaks, known (from north to south) as Karem, Ascension, The Prophets, and (Mount of) Offense. When the second and third, separated by only a shallow depression, are counted as one, there are three summits, the second, when thus counted, being sometimes called Mt. Olivet proper. Between the western slope of Mt. Olivet and the city is the valley of the winter-brook Kedron. See -2 _ftnref2 N.T.C.on John 18:1. It may well have been from the eastern slope of the Ascension summit that Jesus sent two of his disciples. The exact location of Bethphage is no longer known, but it must have been close to (northwest of?) Bethany, as a comparison of 21:1 with Mark 11:1; Luke 19:29, seems to indicate. Go into the village opposite (or: over against) you can without any difficulty be interpreted as meaning just ahead of you. [Greek] -2 _ftnref3 [Greek] The two disciples were told that at the very entrance of the village (Mark 11:2), hence immediately after coming to it, they would find a donkey tied up and its colt with her. In view of the fact that Mark and Luke mention only the colt, critics see another Gospel contradiction here. It is held that Matthew a.misinterpreted Zech. 9:9, as if the prophet meant &upon a donkey andupon a colt &; and b.changed Mark's account, by substituting two animals for one, and picturing Jesus as riding on two asses at the same timeMatt. 21:7b , in harmony with the prediction. Answer: a.Matthew, the Jew, was probably better acquainted with Hebrew parallelism than his critics. He knew that the Hebrew conjunction allowed the translation even as well as and. Neither was he completely dependent upon Mark's Gospel. Was he not one of The Twelve? Moreover, would it have been an act of kindness toward the colt to separate it from its dam, and to do so before Jesus was riding upon it? And b.Verse 7 literally reads, They brought the donkey and the [or: and its] colt, and laid upon them the [meaning: their] outer garments, and he sat on them. The closest antecedent of them is outer garments, not the donkey and the colt. Besides, must we actually suppose that the evangelist was foolish enough to picture Jesus as riding on two animals at the same time? Verse 7b certainly allows the translation: and laid upon them their outer garments, on which he took his seat. [Greek] -2 _ftnref4 [Greek] Just how it was that Jesus knew about this colt and its dam whether through union of his divine and human nature, or simply through information which he had received in a very natural way from the owners we do not know. One thing we do know, namely, that when he orders the two disciples to untie the animals and to bring them to him, he is exercising his right of requisitioning whatever he needs for the fulfilment of his mediatorial task. This is made even clearer in verse 3. (also included in No. 1 on p. 760) (And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, The Lord needs them, and immediately he will let them go.Note especially that Jesus is here using the title Lord to designate himselfMatt. 11:27; 28:18). It is clear, therefore, that this epithet was not an invention of the early church after Christ's departure. It was not something borrowed from a non-Christian culture. It came from the very mouth of [Greek] -2 _ftnref5 [Greek] Note also the Lord, not merely your Lord; rather, the Lord of all, with the right to claim all for his own use. Jesus predicts that when his claim, by mouth of the two men, is asserted, the owners will immediately release the animals. These owners must have been friends and followers of the Lord. Before Matthew even informs his readers how the two disciples fared, he marks this event as a fulfilment of prophecy: 4, 5.(No. 2, p. 761) This happened in order that what was spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled, Say to the daughter of Zion, Look, your King is coming to you, Meek, and mounted on a donkey, Even upon a colt, the foal of a [Greek] -2 _ftnref6 [Greek] For in order that &might be fulfilled see on 1:22, 23, p. [Greek] -2 _ftnref7 [Greek] The daughter of Zion is Jerusalem, that is Israel, only the true Israel being able to understand the significance of this Triumphal Entry, and even then not fully until later. Cf. John 12:16. Look, your King is coming to you is the joyful message addressed to the daughter of Zion. This King differs in certain very important respects from other kings: a. This is yourKing, your very own. He is not a foreign king or a king bent on his own aggrandizement at the expense of the people, but One who had been commissioned to seek and to save. He is coming to you, that is, to benefit you. b. In line with this is the fact that this King is meek, gentle, peaceful, gracious. See on 11:29; 12:19, 20: 20:25–28; John 13:14, 15, 34, 35; 19:36, 37. This also explains why he is mounted on an unbacked assMark 11:2b , not on a high-spirited war steed, or on a prancing white stallion. c. This King is not the fulfilment of men's dreams but of a specific Messianic prophecy: Zech. 9:9. See also Isa. 6:6. He is both great and humble, exalted and lowly. He is the One who in this very act is riding &to his death, and thus to victory, a victory not only for himself but also for his true people, those who believe in him. 6, 7. ((No. 1 and 2, pp. 760f.) So the disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them. They brought the donkey and its colt, and laid upon them their outer garments, on which he took his seat.Everything happened exactly as Jesus had predicted. The disciples found the colt and its dam at the place described by the Master. When they were in the process of loosing them from their hitching post, the owners objected. However, the answer, The Lord needs themLuke 19:31, 34) resulted in immediate and wholehearted compliance. The animals were brought to Jesus. He solves their problem namely, Which animal is the Rider going to use? by taking his seat, with the assistance of the disciples (Luke 19:35), upon the coats that had been laid on the colt. He then starts to ride away. What happened to the dam is not stated. 8. ((No. 3, p. 761) Most of the crowd spread their outer garments on the road; others were cutting branches from the trees and were spreading them on the road.In a way the crowd was following the example of the disciples. If the latter considered it proper to remove their coats so that Jesus could sit upon them, why should not the multitude also throw down coats and tree branches before the feet of the pack-animal? Besides, were they not honoring Jesus as King? If something of this nature had been done for King JehuII Kings 9:13), should it not most certainly take place to honor the Messiah-King? 9.(No. 5, p. 761) Then the crowds that were walking in front of him and those that were following (him) began to shout, Hosanna to the Son of David; Blessed (is) the One coming in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest. As to (Hosanna to the Son of David,it should be noted that Hosanna means save now, or save, pray. The attitude of the people toward God was perhaps about as follows: We beseech thee, O Lord, save now, grant victory and prosperity at this time, since because of thy goodness the appropriate moment has arrived. Hence, in this Hosanna exclamation, the two elements: supplication and adoration, or if one prefers: prayer and praise, are combined. It is clear that the source of 21:9 is Ps. 118Ps. 117), which from beginning to end is filled with prayer and praise; see especially verses 22 26a. It is in essence a Hallel Psalm, one of the series Ps. 113 118, sung at Passover. See N.T.C. on the Gospel according to John, Vol. I, p. 121. It is also one of the six Psalms most often quoted or referred to in the New Testament; the others being Pss. 2; 22; 69; 89; and 110. Ps. 118is distinctly Messianic. It speaks about the stone rejected by the builders but destined to become the cornerstone. See on Matt. 21:42; cf. Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; and I Peter 2:7. Note the words immediately following Hosanna, namely, to the Son of David, and cf. II Sam. 7:12, 13. See further on Matt. 9:27–31; 12:23; 15:22; 22:42–45. There were two crowds: one from Bethany that followed Jesus; and one from Jerusalem which, having arrived there mostly from Galilee, and having gone forth to meet Jesus, had then turned around so as to walk in front of him. In connection with Jesus, these two crowds are making God the object of their prayer and praise. As to (Blessed (is) the One coming in the name of the Lord,this is a quotation from Ps. 118:26. Combined with the Son of David, as here in Matt. 21:9, it must refer to Jesus as the Messiah. It was deplorable, however, that by far the most of these people did not go one step farther: they should have combined Ps. 118with Isa. 53and with Zech. 9:9; 13:1. Then they would have recognized in Jesus the Messiah who saves his people from their sinsMatt. 1:21). Finally, as to Hosanna in the highest,this shows that Messiah was regarded as a gift from God, the One who dwells in the highest heaven and is worthy of the prayers and the praises of all, including even the angels. One cannot help thinking of Ps. 148:1, 2and of Luke 2:14. 10, 11.(No. 9, p. 761) And when he entered Jerusalem the entire city was stirred up, saying, Who is this?When the people who had stayed behind in Jerusalem had their first glimpse of the approaching throng and heard the joyful Hosanna shouts in honor of the central figure, their curiosity was aroused. Their excitement became contagious, until the entire city was as it were electrified, or, as the Greek has it, was [Greek] -2 _ftnref8 [Greek] Who is this? the people asked. Now Jesus was no stranger to Jerusalem and its temple (John 2:14; 5:14; 7:14, 28; 8:20, 59; 10:23; 18:20). But no one expected (himto come riding into the city in the midst of a multitude singing his praises. This accounts for their question. Continued: The crowds kept answering, This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee.When those who accompanied Jesus repeatedly gave this answer, everybody learned who was entering the city; for, first of all, Jesus was known and rightly so as a prophet. According to the New Testament he was thus designated by the people in generalMark 6:15; Luke 7:16; John 6:14; 7:40); by the woman of Samaria (John 4:19); by Peter (Acts 3:22, 23, quoting Deut. 18:15); and by Stephen (Acts 7:37, also quoting Deut. 18:15). He used this same title in reference to himself (Matt. 13:57; Luke 13:33; John 4:44). The Pharisaic refusal to honor him with this title (Luke 7:39) seems not to have been very effective. He was, and is, indeed a prophet, for he revealed and reveals the will of God to man. Note how in the present connection he is represented both as the fulfilment of prophecy (21:4, 5, 9) and as being himself a yes the prophet (21:11). The further description was also very appropriate: Jesus from Nazareth or Jesus, the Nazarene was a designation used, in referring to Jesus, by a demoniac (Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34), Bartimaeus (Mark 10:47; Luke 18:37), a portress (Mark 14:67; cf. Matt. 26:71), an angel (Mark 16:6), the apostle Philip (John 1:45), the temple police (John 18:5, 7), Pilate (John 19:19), Peter (Acts 2:22, 3:6; 4:10; 10:38), false witnesses (Acts 6:14), Paul (Acts 26:9), and even by the exalted Christ himself (Acts 22:8). The full combination the prophet Jesus from Nazareth is reflected in the words used by Cleopas and his companion to describe the One whom they thought they had lost (Luke 24:19). Finally, of Galilee. Was it with pride in their tone of voice that especially those in Christ's company who had come from Galilee, as pilgrims to attend the Passover, stressed this fact, as if to say, he is (our ownprophet? Had not Jesus performed most of his miracles and spent most of his time in Galilee? Did these pilgrims recount some of the mighty works which Jesus had done among them, just as the friends from Bethany kept on testifying about the resurrection of LazarusJohn 12:17)? This is very well possible. This prophet Jesus, from Nazareth of Galilee was the One, therefore, who was being enthusiastically proclaimed on this, his last Sunday on earth before the crucifixion, as being the Son of David, the Blessed One, coming in the name of the Lord, that is, not only at God's command but as God's voice to the people. 21:12–17 The Cleansing of the Temple 12 And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple. He turned upside down the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those selling doves. 13 And he said to them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer; but you are making it a robbers den. 14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple, and he healed them. 15 But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children (who were) shouting in the temple, Hosanna to the Son of David, they became angry, 16 and said to him, Do you hear what these are saying? Yes, Jesus said to them, Have you never read, From the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast prepared praise for thyself? 17 And he left them and went out of the city to Bethany, and spent the night there. Cf. Mark 11:15 19; Luke 19:45 48; and for earlier cleansing, John 2:13 22 Jesus spent Sunday night at Bethany (Mark 11:11). The story continues, describing what happened afterward, beginning on Mondaynot immediatelyon that day; see on verses 18 22 : 12.(see No. 10, p. 762) And Jesus entered the temple. He drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and turned upside down the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those selling doves.Jesus entered the outer enclosure of the Jerusalem sanctuary, the section open not only to Jews but also to Gentiles, hence called the Court of the Gentiles. What a sorry spectacle greets his eyes, ears, and even nostrils! He notices, as had happened also in the early part of his [Greek] -2 _ftnref9 [Greek] that this court hence, the temple was being desecrated. It resembled a market-place. Business was booming, lucrative too. Some men were selling oxen and sheep. At this time of the year, with passover so close at hand and pilgrims crowding into the court from everywhere, there were many buyers. They paid high prices for these sacrificial animals. True, a worshipper could bring in an animal of his own choice. But if he did that he was taking the chance that it would not be approved. The temple merchants had paid generously for their concession, which they had bought from the priests. Some of this money finally reached the coffers of sly, wealthy Annas and of clever Caiaphas. It is therefore understandable that the tradesmen and the priestly caste were partners in this business. As Jesus enters he notices the hustle and bustle of all the buyers and sellers; also the noise, filth, and stench produced by all the animals. Could this, in any sense whatever, be called worship? Also in evidence were the money-changers, sitting cross-legged behind their little coin-covered tables. In the temple area foreign money was not accepted in payment. Also, the temple tax of half a shekel (Exod. 30:13; see on Matt. 17:24–27) had to be paid in Jewish coin. And money was needed to fulfil the various rites of purification (Acts 21:24). So, the money-changers would exchange foreign money, carried especially by those who came from foreign lands, for Jewish money, charging a small fee for the favor. This business, too, was profitable. It presented abundant opportunity for cheating the unsuspecting pilgrim. And then there were the vendors of pigeons and turtledoves, probably standing near the seats or benches on which the crates filled with doves were piled. Not everybody was able to buy even a lamb. So, in connection with purification, two turtledoves or two young pigeons could be substituted (Lev. 12:6, 8; Luke 2:24). However, by now conditions had deteriorated to such an extent that even the poor were often being grossly overcharged. Imagine having to pay at least $4 for a pair of doves worth not much more than a [Greek] -2 _ftnref10 [Greek] It is not difficult to picture the righteous indignation that must have flashed from the eyes of Jesus when he drove out all both the buyers and the sellers who were engaged in this nefarious business, and overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those selling doves. Whether also at this time, as in the first temple cleansing, he made a whip out of cords that were lying around and then let fly with that scourge, we do not know. One thing is certain: Jesus revealed himself as being indeed Lord of the temple (cf. 12:6). This is clear also from the words he spoke: 13. And he said to them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer; but you are making it a robbers den. The first part of this statement is quoted from Isa. 56:7b, which reads, My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples. The final phrase for all peoples is reproduced neither in Matt. 21:13nor in Luke 19:46, but only in Mark 11:17( Is it not written, My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations? ). It is clear from this that the temple was intended to be the place where God met with his people, a sanctuary for quiet, spiritual devotion, meditation, and fellowship, in connection with sacrifice. See I Kings 8:29, 30, 33; Ps. 27:4; 65:4; cf. I Sam 1:9–18. The second part of the statement is Christ's own comment, in which he contrasts the divine ideal for worship as described in Isa. 56:7b with the present situation, a condition that reminded him of Jer. 7:11, which he quotes. In the days of Jeremiah, too, as is proved by that prophet's famous Temple Discourse, the Jews were oppressing aliens, stealing, murdering, etc. Nevertheless, they continued to offer their sacrifices in the temple; as if such merely formalistic worship of Jehovah would do any good, and as if the very presence of the temple would protect them from the outpouring of God's wrath. It was then that Jeremiah had said, Do not trust in lying words, saying, The temple of Jehovah, the temple of Jehovah, the temple of Jehovah is this, &Has this house that is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? In the days of Christ's sojourn history was repeating itself: the temple had again become a cave of thieves, an allusion, perhaps, to the rocky caves in the hills of Judea, where thieves and robbers would often assemble. It has been objected that this story, as recorded in the three Synoptics, and the similar one, referring to the beginning of Christ's public ministry and recorded by John, cannot be true, for certainly the temple police would have interfered with Christ's action. However, note the following: a. Right at this moment think of the Triumphal Entry Jesus was so popular that the Jewish authorities did not immediately dare to touch him (Mark 11:32; cf. 14:2; Luke 20:6; cf. 22:2). b. So unpopular was the temple trade, because of the greed of those who conducted it, that three years before the destruction of Jerusalem the people in an uprising against it swept away the bazaars of the sons of Annas, as the temple market was called. In this connection Philip Schaff draws an interesting parallel between the first century temple-cleansing (John 2:13 22) and the sixteenth century Reformation. He states, Jesus began his public ministry with the expulsion of the profane traffickers from the court of the temple. The reformation began with a protest against the traffic in indulgences which profaned and degraded the Christian religion. [Greek] -2 _ftnref11 [Greek] c. The majesty of Christ's person the godhead veiled in flesh must not be discounted. d. Nevertheless, the Jewish authorites did afterward question Jesus concerning the source of his right to do these things. See on verse 23. Cf. John 2:18. The lessons taught by this cleansing of the temple can be summarized as follows: a. Jesus punished degradation of religion and insisted on reverence. b. He rebuked fraud, in the present connection especially religious (?) racketeering, and demanded honesty. c. He frowned upon indifference toward those who desired to worship God in spirit and truth, and by declaring that the temple must be a house of prayer (for all peoplesMark 11:17) gave his endorsement to the wonderful cause of Christian Missions. Cf. I Kings 8:41–43; Matt. 28:19. d. By means of all this he glorified his heavenly Father. Was not the temple his Father's house? 14. And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple, and he healed them.What a scene! While some people are expelled, others are welcomed. Jesus has not changed any. He is still the Good Shepherd. So, when the blind and the lame come to him right here, in the temple,his eyes, a moment ago flashing with the fire of holy indignation, fill with tender compassion. He did not say, Come back some other time. I am not now in the mood for healing you. On the contrary, the Great Physician is standing there in the midst of overturned tables, scattered coins, and knocked down benches, manifesting his healing power and marvelous compassion to those in need. None of those who came to him went away disappointed. 15, 16a.(see No. 11 on p. 762) But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children (who were) shouting in the temple, Hosanna to the Son of David, they became angry and said to him, Do you hear what these are saying?Finally the chief priests and the scribes gather enough courage to do something about Jesus. For both groups, representing respectively the Sadducees and the Pharisees, see on 2:4; 3:7; for the scribes see also on 5:20; 7:28, 29; 15:1, 2; and chap. 23. How it was that men who differed so widely in their views on religion could unite against Jesus has already been explained. See pp. 201–204. What irked them at this particular moment was the following combination of facts: a.the cleansing of the temple; b.the miracles performed on the blind and the lame; and last but not least, c.the shouting of the children, repeating yesterday's joyful outburst by their parents, etc., Hosanna to the Son of David. Was not this blasphemy? And that right here in the temple! That they, these very enemies of Jesus, were themselves guilty of blasphemy because of the desecration of the temple which they had allowed and to some extent even encouraged, and because of the murderous design in their hearts against him, they did not acknowledge. But these children must be stopped! What they are doing is terrible, and even more reprehensible is the fact that Jesus is allowing this to continue. Apparently he approves of it. Such was their reasoning. That was why they whether as a group of individuals who happened to be on the scene, or as men who had been officially delegated by the [Greek] -2 _ftnref12 [Greek] became [Greek] -2 _ftnref13 [Greek] That is also why, motivated by envy (27:18), they asked, Do you hear what these are saying? That these children were shouting Hosanna should not have surprised them at all. Are not children imitators? Besides, as has been shown see on 18:2 Jesus was the children's Friend. In all probability theirhosannas were far more pure in spirit than those of the older people. It is hard to imagine that the hearts and minds of children were as filled with chauvenistic dreams as were those of the middle-aged and the elderly. 16b. Yes, Jesus said to them.He affirms that he hears what the children are saying, and implies his approval. Continued: Have you never read.& Cf. 12:3, 5; 19:4; 21:42; 22:31. Then, quoting Ps. 8:2(8:3 according to the Hebrew and the LXX), From the mouth of babes and sucklings thou has prepared praise for thyself? Jesus is quoting these words according to the LXX [Greek] -2 _ftnref14 [Greek] He is telling the chief priests and the scribes that children sometimes speak the truth; better still, that God takes even the incoherent prattle of babes and sucklings, in order out of such material to prepare praise for [Greek] -2 _ftnref15 [Greek] The implication is: God is also using for his own glory the shouts of the children who are now saying, Hosanna to the Son of David. If those who heard Jesus give this answer were listening carefully, they must have realized that in a veiled manner he was here affirming what he is going to declare openly in 26:63, 64. 17. ((see No. 13 on p. 762) And he left them and went out of the city, to Bethany, and spent the night there.As he had done the previous evening so also now Jesus returned to Bethany. The rendering spent the night is broad enough to include either of two possibilities: a.he spent the night with his friends in their hospitable homeLuke 10:38 42; John 11:3; 12:1–8); or b.he lodged out in the open somewhere in or near the village; cf. Luke [Greek] -2 _ftnref16 [Greek] 21:18–22 The Cursing of the Fig Tree Cf. <a href="/bible/parallel/MRK/11/12" class="green-link">Mark 11:12 14, 20 24 18 Now in the morning, when he was returning to the city, he was hungry. 19 And seeing a fig tree by the side of the road he went up to it and found nothing on it but leaves. He said to it, Never again let there be fruit from you! And the fig tree withered at once. 20 And when the disciples saw (it) they were astonished and said, How did the fig tree wither at once? 21 But Jesus answered and said to them, I solemnly declare to you, If you have faith and do not doubt, you shall not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, Be lifted up and thrown into the sea, it shall be done. 22 And whatever you ask for in prayer, believing, you shall receive. That the Gospel writers were not mere copyists but independent authors, each using his own method, appears very clearly in the present instance. Since part of the Fig Tree story occurred on Monday and part on Tuesday (Mark 11:11, 12, 19, 20), with the cleansing of the temple taking place (on Monday) between these two parts, it is clear that this story could be handled in two ways: a.chronologically or b.topically. Mark follows the first method, describing the first part of the Fig Tree story, the part that took place on Monday morning, in 11:12–14; then, the cleansing of the temple, later that same day, in 11:15–19; and finally, the second part of the Fig Tree story, the part that happened on Tuesday morning, in 11:20–24. Matthew, on the other hand, uses the second method. He wishes to tell the entire story all at once, in one connected and uninterrupted account. In doing this he does not come into real conflict with Mark, for his (Matthew's) time indications are very indefinite. For example, he says, Now in the morning (21:18), but does not indicate which morning. He does not say, on the following day (as he does in 27:62). Also, when he begins to report the second part of the Fig Tree story he simply says, And when the disciples saw it &(21:20). He does not indicate on what day this conversation between Jesus and his disciples took place. It is Mark who makes it very clear that what Matthew states in 21:18, 19 occurred on Monday; and what Matthew says in 21:20–22, on Tuesday. Each of these two methods (chronological and topical) has its merits. The combination of the two is something to be thankful for. 18. Now in the morning, when he was returning to the city, he was hungry. (If it was at the home of his friends that Jesus had spent the night of Sunday to Monday, it is not clear why he should be hungry on this Monday morning. Had he arisen very early, before breakfastMark 1:35)? We simply do not know. How thoroughly human is this Jesus, how close to us: even becoming hungry at times! 19a. And seeing a fig tree by the side of the road he went up to it and found nothing on it but leaves. (The fig tree is the first common fruit tree whose presence on earth is clearly implied in ScriptureGen. 3:6, 7). It was and is not only a fruit tree but also a shade tree (I Kings 4:25). It is characteristic of Palestine (Deut. 8:8; Num. 13:23), and today is found not only in most of the lands of the Mediterranean, where its fruit is called the poor man's food, but in an area extending also all the way east to northern India. In the United States figs are grown in California, Texas, Louisiana, and other southern states. In the region referred to here in Matthew, the early or smaller figs, growing from the sprouts of the previous year, begin to appear at the end of March and are ripe in May or June. The later and much larger figs that develop on the new or spring shoots are gathered from August to October. It is important to point out that the earlier figs, with which we are here concerned, begin to appear simultaneously with the leaves. Sometimes, in fact, they even precede the leaves. Passover (about April) was at hand. Accordingly, the time when either the earlier or the later figs are ripe had not yet arrived. It was therefore not the season for figs (Mark 11:13). But Jesus, being hungry, notices even from a distance (Mark 11:13) that this particular tree, growing by the side of the road, was something special. It had leaves, was probably in full foliage, and could therefore be expected to have fruit. So Jesus went up to it. We are confronted with a mystery here: the secret of the interaction between Christ's human and his divine nature. According to his divine nature Jesus was and is omniscient. That even during the days of Christ's humiliation this divine nature at times communicated its knowledge to the human nature is clear from such passages as (Matt. 17:27; Mark 9:33, 34; John 1:47, 48; 2:25. That this did not always happen appears not only from the present passageMatt. 21:19) but also from 24:36 (Mark 13:32). Jesus, then, went up to this fig tree to see whether he could find any fruit on it. He found nothing but leaves! (19b. He said to it, Never again let there be fruit from you! And the fig tree withered at once.On the spot, as the original states, the tree began to lose its luster, the process of withering beginning in the rootsMark 11:20). It is impossible to believe that the curse which the Lord pronounced upon this tree was an act of punishing it, as if the tree as such was responsible for not bearing fruit, and as if, for this reason, Jesus was angry with it. The real explanation lies deeper. The pretentious but barren tree was a fit emblem of Israel. See (Luke 13:6 9Isa. 5). Jesus himself would interpret the figure the next day (Tuesday); see on 21:43. In fact, the disciples did not even have to wait until the next day for the explanation: The pretentious fig tree had its counterpart in the temple where on this very day (Monday), as has already been noted, a lively business was being transacted so that sacrifices might be made, while at the same time the priests were plotting to put to death the very One apart from whom these offerings had no meaning whatever. Plenty of leaves but no fruit. Bustling religious (?) activity, but no sincerity and truth. In cursing the fig tree and in cleansing the temple Jesus performed twosymbolic and prophetic acts, with onemeaning. He was predicting the downfall of unfruitful Israel. Not that he was through with the Jews, but that in the place of Israel an international and everlasting kingdom would be established, a nation bringing forth not just leaves but fruits, and gathered from both Jews and Gentiles. 20. And when the disciples saw (it) they were astonished and said, How did the fig tree wither at once?The next dayMark 11:20, as already explained the disciples noticed that the fig tree in such a very short time only twenty-four hours had completely withered. They, especially Peter (Mark 11:21), gave expression to their astonishment. 21, 22. But Jesus answered and said to them, I solemnly declare to you, If you have faith and do not doubt, you shall not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, Be lifted up and thrown into the sea, it shall be done. And whatever you ask for in prayer, believing, you shall receive.This mountain is the Mount of Olives; the sea is the Dead Sea. For this mountain to be cast into the sea, taken literally, would mean a sudden plunge of about 4,000 feet altogether. Now there would be no sense in even trying, by faith concentration, to dump Olivet into the sea. The dramatic figure, in the light of its context, which speaks of faithand prayer,must mean therefore that no task in harmony with God's will is impossible to perform to those who do not [Greek] -2 _ftnref17 [Greek] We should not try in any way whatever to minimize the force of this saying and to subtract from its meaning. Both in the physical and in the spiritual sphere the apostles had already been doing things that would have been considered just as impossible as causing a mountain to be lifted up and thrown into the sea. Had not Peter by faith walked on the water? See (Matt. 14:29. Did not The Twelve exclaim, Lord, even the demons are subject to us in thy name?Luke 10:17). A few days later was not Jesus going to make the promise, I most solemnly assure you, he who believes in me, the works that I do will he do also, and greater (works) than these will he do, because I am going to the Father (John 14:12)? See also Acts 2:41; 3:6–9, 16; 5:12–16; 9:36–43; 19:11, 12. In fact, does not the entire book of Acts prove that what Jesus said here in verses 21 and 22 was true? For the rest, since verse 21 closely resembles 17:20, see on that passage; and for verse 22 see on 7:7, 8; 18:19. 21:23–27 Christ's Authority: Question and Counter Question Cf. Mark 11:27 33; Luke 20:1 8 23 Now when he had entered the temple and was teaching there, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to him with the question, By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority? 24 Jesus answered and said to them, I too have a question to ask you; if you give me the answer, I will tell you by what authority I do these things: 25 The baptism of John, where did it come from, from heaven or from men? They were reasoning among themselves, If we say, From heaven, he will say to us, Why, then, did you not believe him? 26 But if we say, From men, we are afraid of the people, for they all consider John a prophet. 27 So they answered Jesus, We do not know. He, in his turn, said to them, Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things. 23. Now when he had entered the temple and was teaching there, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to him with the question, By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority? (Jesus was teaching, no doubt, in one of the porches, porticos or halls of the temple. These porches were beautiful and huge. They were covered colonnades that ran all around the inside of the wall of the vast temple complex. Or, to put it differently, these halls were bounded on the outside by the temple wall, on the inside by the Court of the Gentiles. Most splendid and widest of them all was the Royal Porch (Stoa Basilica) built where according to tradition the palace of Solomon used to be consisting of four rows of columns, 162 in all, forming three vast halls, on the south side of the temple complex. Famous also was Solomon's Porch on the east sideJohn 10:23: Acts 3:11; [Greek] -2 _ftnref18 [Greek] While Jesus was teaching and preaching the gospel (Luke 20:1) in one of these places, the chief priests and elders (thus Matthew), the chief priests and the scribes and the elders (Mark 11:27; cf. Luke 20:1), came up to Jesus. See on 2:4 and 16:21 for a description of these three groups. Again, as in 21:15, it is impossible to say definitely whether these groups were acting on their own initiative or as a delegation sent by the Sanhedrin, though in the present instance because they ask Jesus about his authoritythe latter seems probable. Their question is clear. They want to know by what authority Jesus was doing these things, that is, who had given him this right. They were saying, Show us your credentials! It was an attempt to embarrass Jesus. If he admitted that he had no credentials the people could be expected to lose respect for him. On the other hand, if he considered himself authorized to do the things he had been doing, was he not arrogating to himself rights that belonged only to God? Could he not then be accused of being guilty of blasphemous behavior? By not assaulting him directly, for example by having him arrested, they reveal that they are afraid of him because of his following. But what do they mean by these things? They must have been referring to recent or present activities, that is, to things he had done on Sunday or on Monday, or to what he was doing on this Tuesday. Among commentators there is general agreement that the cleansing of the temple was included in these things. This opinion is undoubtedly correct (John 2:18). But was this the only thing to which these enemies of Jesus referred? There is a wide difference of opinion among commentators. Some would include Sunday's royal entry into Jerusalem. Others say, No, for the ovation he received at that time was not his own doing. Over against this stands the fact that he did not at all oppose the hosannas of his disciples and of the children (Luke 19:39). The royal entry may therefore have been included in these things. And if we bear in mind the fact that Christ's enemies ascribed his miracles to the power of Beelzebub operative within him, even the deeds of kindness to the blind and the lame may have been included. However, the context in Luke would seem to indicate that it was especially the teaching in the temple and the preaching of the gospel there that must have irked the Jewish leaders. To say, with some, that the chief priests, elders, etc., could not have had this in mind because any rabbi had a right to teach misses the point: these Jewish dignitaries certainly did not want the gospel preached there! 24, 25a. Jesus answered and said to them, I too have a question to ask you. If you give me the answer, I will tell you by what authority I do these things: The baptism of John, where did it come from, from heaven or from men? (By means of this counter question Jesus was by no means evading the question that had been asked him, for an honest and correct answer to hisquestion would unmistakably have pointed to himself as the Greater One whom John had proclaimed, and would therefore have meant that Jesus right or authority to do these things had come from God. It was while John was baptizing that he had proclaimed Jesus as being his superiorJohn 1:26, 27), and it was soon after the Lord's baptism by John that the latter had described Jesus as the Lamb of God who is taking away the sin of the world (John 1:29). By means of Christ's question his enemies had been driven into a corner. Obviously they did not want to answer, The baptism of John had a heavenly source, for they knew very well that the reply would be, Why, then, did you not believe him? On the other hand, were they to come out with what was probably that which most of them believed, or at least wanted to believe, namely, that the baptism of John was from men, the general public perhaps especially the crowds of pilgrims that had come from Galilee would become definitely hostile toward them, and might even stone them (Luke 20:6). Did not these people consider John a prophet? So these dignitaries start reasoning among themselves as to what to answer. Their decision was dishonest, though not surprising. They do not say, We don't want to answer that question, which would at least have been honest, but We do not know. Having given this background, verses 25b 27require no further explanation. They were reasoning among themselves, If we say, From heaven, he will say to us, Why, then, did you not believe him? But if we say, From men, we are afraid of the people, for they all consider John a prophet. So they answered Jesus, We do not know. He, in his turn, said to them, Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things. 21:28–32 The Parable of the Two Sons 28 Now what do you think (of the following)? A man had two sons. He went to the first and said, Son, go and work in the vineyard today. 29 But he answered and said, I will not. Afterward, however, he repented and went. 30 Then he went to the other and said the same thing. That one answered, I will, sir, but he did not go. 31 Which of the two did what the father wanted? They answered, The first. Jesus said to them, I solemnly declare to you that the tax-collectors and the prostitutes are getting into the kingdom of God ahead of you. 32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him; but the tax-collectors and the prostitutes believed him. Yet when you saw this, you did not even repent afterward so as to believe him. As verse 32 indicates, this parable is closely connected with the immediately preceding account. The attitude of the authorities to John the Baptist, verses 24 27, is the link. The inexcusable character of this attitude is here set forth. 28 30. Now what do you think (of the following)? A man had two sons. He went to the first and said, Son, go and work in the vineyard today. But he answered and said, I will not. Afterward, however, he repented and went. Then he went to the other and said the same thing. That one answered, I will, sir, but he did not [Greek] -2 _ftnref19 [Greek] In order to do justice to the pointor thrustof the parable it is probably best to refrain from changing it into an allegory. One should not ask, What does the vineyard, etc. represent? The story should be allowed to proceed as Jesus told it. He himself, in verses 31b, 32, will make the application. We note, therefore, that the father of two sons asks one of them to go to work in the vineyard. It is not necessary to give the the meaning my. Imagine a similar situation today. Is it not natural for a father to assume that not only he himself but also his sons would be sufficiently interested in that precious plot to regard it as the family's vineyard, not just his own? The lad's answer, I will not, or I won't, I don't want to, also has a modern ring. Children have not changed much over the centuries. Happily, however, that even applies to the boy's further reaction: subsequently he [Greek] -2 _ftnref20 [Greek] and went. For one reason or another he regretted his earlier flat refusal. He rues his blunt, negative reply and goes to work. With the same request the father then goes to his other son. The latter's reaction is the exact opposite. His response, I will, sir has the flavor of ready and eager compliance, but it leads to nothing: he did not go. Jesus now turns to his audience: those who had gathered about him in the temple, particularly the chief priests and the elders (see 23) and asks, 31a. Which of the two did what the father wanted? They answered, The first.The answer was so obvious that, were they to reply at all, this was the only possible way to do it. The application is driven home with tremendous force: 31b, 32. Jesus said to them, I solemnly declare to youfor this see on 5:18 that the tax-collectors and the prostitutes are getting into the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him; but the tax-collectors and the prostitutes believed him. Yet when you saw this, you did not even repent afterward so as to believe him.The tax-collectors, for reasons stated in connection with 5:46 see on that passage were despised by the Jewish people, especially by their leaders. They were considered in a class with prostitutes or whores, women of ill fameLuke 15:30; I Cor. 6:15; 6:16; Heb. 11:31; James 2:25; Rev. 17:1; etc. . Matthew uses this term prostitutes only here in 21:31, 32. For the related noun (5:32; 19:9) see footnote 684 on p. 716. Tax-collectors by means of their greed and extortion, prostitutes by means of their gross immorality, had said I will not to God's demand. They were like the first son in this parable. Afterward, however, as a result of the preaching of John the Baptist see the present passage and Luke 3:12many publicans had become converted. We now learn (21:32) that prostitutes, too, probably in considerable numbers, had responded favorably to John's message. They had been impressed with John's way of righteousness: his own righteous conduct coupled with the righteous conduct which he, as God's prophet, demanded of the people, namely, that they repent, [Greek] -2 _ftnref21 [Greek] It is worthy of note, in this connection, that (women,too not only men must have repented at the teaching of John. More and more the gate of the kingdom was being opened also to themMark 16:9; Luke 7:36 50; 23:27ff.; John 4:7ff.; 11:1ff.; 12:1ff.; Gal. 3:28). These penitent tax-collectors and prostitutes had said, We will not, but afterward had repented, so as to believe. On the contrary, the religious leaders of the Jews, men who were deemed to be well at home in God's law, and outwardlybehaved in such a manner as if they were constantly saying, Yes, Lord, we will do whatever thou dost require of us, and we will go wherever thou dost want us to go, did not doand did not go. It was concerning them that Jesus was going to declare, They say, and do not (23:3). Cf. Exod. 19:8; 32:1ff.; Isa. 29:13. They had rejected John (3:7–10), and even the conversion of the publicans and prostitutes through his preaching had failed to change their minds and hearts. They were like the second son therefore. Having rejected the Baptist, they were now in the process of planning the murder of the One whom he had proclaimed. And by answering, The first (the first son did what the father wanted), they had condemned themselves! So the tax-collectors and the prostitutes were getting into the kingdom of God ahead of these leaders; that is, theywere obtaining the blessings of the kingdom, from which the hostile chief priests and elders and their followers were by their own choice being excluded. For the term kingdom of God see on 4:23; 13:43. Though this parable of the Two Sons, found only in Matthew, is perhaps not as well-known as many of the others, it is by no means less important. In fact, a more important lesson than the one taught here is scarcely i (maginable. That lesson is, of course, this: the doing of the will of God is the one thing needful. Is not that the teaching of both the Old and the New? See I Sam. 15:22; Ps. 25:4; 27:11; 86:11; 119passim; 143:10; Isa. 2:3; Matt. 7:21–27; 28:20; John 15:14; Acts 5:29. And the will of God is that men should everywhere be converted and acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, to the glory of God TriuneMatt. 3:2; 4:17; 11:28–30; John 3:16, 36; I Cor. 10:31; II Cor. 10:5). As for the Mediator's own relation to the will of his Sender, did he not say, My food is to do the will of the One who sent me, and to accomplish his work (John 4:34)? 21:33–46 The Parable of the Wicked Tenants, and Its Sequel Cf. Mark 12:1 12; Luke 20:9 19 33 Listen to another parable. There was an owner of an estate who planted a vineyard. He set a fence around it, dug a winepress in it, and built a watch-tower. Then he leased the vineyard to [Greek] -2 _ftnref22 [Greek] and went abroad. 34 When the time approached to harvest the grapes, he sent his servants to the share-croppers to collect his (share of the) fruit. 35 But the share-croppers took his servants, and beat up one, killed the other outright, and stoned a third. 36 Again he sent other servants, more in number than the first group, but they treated these the same way. 37 Finally he sent to them his son, saying, They will have regard for my son. 38 But when these share-croppers saw the son they said to each other, This is the heir; come on, let's kill him and get possession of the inheritance (that would have been his. 39 So they took him, cast him out of the vineyard and killed him. 40 When therefore the owner of the vineyard arrives, what will he do to those share-croppers? 41 They said to him, He will bring those dreadful scoundrels to a dreadful end, and will lease the vineyard to other share-croppers, who, when the fruit is ripe, will give him his share. 42 Jesus said to them, Have you never read in the Scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected This became the cornerstone; By the Lord was this done And it is wonderful in our eyes? 43 Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation producing its fruit. [44 And he who falls against this stone will be dashed to pieces; but when it falls on anyone it will crush him]. 45 Now when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they realized that he was speaking about them. 46 But although they wanted to arrest him, they were afraid of the crowds, who considered him to be a prophet. Between the parable of the Two Sons (verses 28 32) and that of the Wicked Tenants there are certain resemblances, also certain differences. As to the first: (a.both parables mention a vineyard; b.in both parables Jesus had in mind the leaders of the Jews, whom he condemns. As to the second: a.the parable of the Wicked Tenants is much longer and more detailed than that of the Two Sons; for example, the figure of the vineyard is far more prominent in the parable which we are about to study; b.although also this second parable has one main lesson, clearly brought out in verses 40 43, nevertheless it approaches an allegory far more closely than does the first; and c.the first parable stresses the rejection of John the Baptist by the leaders; the second, the rejection, not only by the leaders but by the entire people, of the Father's beloved SonLuke 20:13), whose forerunner John had been. 33. Listen to another parable. There was an owner of an estate who planted a vineyard. He set a fence around it, dug a winepress in it, and built a watch-tower. Then he leased the vineyard to sharecroppers and went abroad. (For owner of an estate see on 20:1, including footnote 697. This man reserved a portion of his ground for a vineyard. He planted vines in that plot, enclosed it with a fence or hedge as a protection against thieves and animals, and equipped it with a winepress and a watch-tower. The winepress generally consisted of two excavations dug into the earth and lined with stonework, or hewn out in a cliff. The upper cavity, wide and shallow, served as a receptacle for the grapes. Here they were crushed by the feet of the grape-treadersIsa. 63:2, 3). Through a pipe the juice would run into the lower, narrow and deep compartment. Afterward it was put into jars (Hag. 2:16). The watch-tower may have been constructed from the very stones that had been gathered when the ground set aside for the vineyard was cleared (Isa. 5:2). A watchman had to be stationed in such a tower to warn of any danger from pillagers, jackals, and foxes (Sol. 2:15). The tower could also be used for storage. When the owner had thus fully prepared his vineyard he leased it to share-croppers, that is, to tenants or lessees who, as the parable itself clearly indicates (Mark 12:2; Luke 20:10), had to give the owner a definite amount of the vintage. Having made this arrangement the owner went away from home, that is, went abroad. 34. When the time approached to harvest the grapes, he sent his servants to the share-croppers to collect his (share of the) fruit.These servants must be distinguished from the tenants or share-croppers. The latter are the vine-growers with whom the owner has made a contract, amounting to this: I will let you manage this vineyard and harvest its crop for yourselves provided that at the time Of the vintage you give me this or that definite portion of the grapes. The servants, on the other hand, were commissioned by the owner to collect and carry to their master's home the portion of the fruit that belonged to him. Having been delegated by him, it follows that they were invested with his authority. They made their demand or request in his name. 35, 36. But the share-croppers took his servants, and beat up one, killed another outright, and stoned a third. Again he sent other servants, more in number than the first group, but they treated these the same way.The tenants proved to be wicked men, scoundrels, dishonest and cruel. When the servants asked for the portion of the grape-harvest to which the owner had a legal claim, they were refused. Not only that, but one servant was beaten, another was killed outright, and still another was slowly stoned to [Greek] -2 _ftnref23 [Greek] One might have expected that the owner would have responded most vigorously to the cruel treatment his servants had received, treatment which at the same time was an insult to himself. But he did not. He decided to give the share-croppers another chance to do their duty. So again he sent servants, more in number than the first time. However, these were treated similarly. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XXII Outline of Chapter 22 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him to Do 22:1–14 The Marriage Feast of the King's Son 22:15–46 Captious Questions and Authoritative Answers also Christ's Own Question 22:1–14 The Marriage Feast of the King's Son 22 1 Jesus responded and spoke to them again in parables, saying, 2 The kingdom of heaven is like a king who gave a marriage feast for his son. 3He sent his servants to summon those who had been invited to the wedding, but they were not willing to come. 4 He tried again and sent other servants, saying, Tell the invited guests, Look, I have prepared my banquet, my steers and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready; come to the wedding. 5 But they paid no attention to it and went off, one to his farm, another to his place of business. 6 The rest grabbed the servants, treated them shamefully, and murdered them. 7 So the king's wrath was kindled, and having despatched his troops he destroyed those murderers and set fire to their city. 8 Then he said to his servants, The wedding is ready, but those that were invited did not deserve the honor. 9 Therefore go to the country crossroads, and as many people as you can find invite to the wedding. 10 And those servants went out on the roads and gathered all they could find, good and bad alike; and the wedding hall was filled with guests. 11 Now when the king went in to view the guests he saw there a man who was not wearing a wedding robe. 12 He said to him, Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding robe? But he was speechless. 13 Then the king said to his attendants, Bind him hand and foot and throw him into the most distant darkness; there shall be weeping and grinding of teeth. 14 For many are called, but few chosen. It has already been shown (p. 22) that this parable is peculiar to Matthew's Gospel. It must not be confused with that of the Great Supper (Luke 14:15 24). The little group of three parables of which The Marriage Feast is the last is arranged climactically. Not only will those who disobey God's command and reject his messenger (John the Baptist) never enter the kingdom if they continue in this state of impenitence (see the parable of The Two Sons, 21:28–32); and not only will the dreadful scoundrels who maltreat and murder God's ambassadors (the prophets) and even kill his only Son be brought to a dreadful end, while the privileges and opportunities of which they could have taken advantage are given to others (see the parable of The Wicked Tenants, 21:33–44); but far more definitely, the city of these impenitents will be destroyed by fire (a.d. 70), and the Gentiles will come pouring into the church. By no means all of them are blessed with everlasting life however. That inestimable blessing is only for those who wear the wedding robe (22:1–14). The parable of The Royal Marriage is divided into three easily recognizable parts: a.the rejected invitation (verses 1 7); b.the filled wedding hall (verses 8 10); and c.the missing wedding robe (verses 11 14). For various titles given to this parable see p. 23. 1. Jesus responded and spoke to them again in parables, saying.& No question had been asked. Nevertheless the verb answered or replied is used, or else responded. The last may well be the best, for though Jesus was not answering a question, he was responding to a situation, the attitude present within the hateful and embittered hearts of his enemies (21:45, 46). Once more, as so often previously, he is going to show them the inexcusable nature of this impenitence and the terrible result to which it leads. The phrase in parables probably means by means of a parable or by means of figurative language. It is not necessary to press the use of the plural here. This plural is most likely idiomatic. The mere possibility, however, must be granted that there is a reference here to that which the author regards as being, from a certain angle, more than one parable. Yet, he can hardly have been thinking of the further parables found in chapters 24 and 25, for these did not follow immediately, and besides, were spoken to a more restricted audience, the disciples. If, as is only remotely possible, the author was actually thinking of more than one parable, could he have been referring to the fact that the present story illustration is really three parables rolled into one? Continued: 2. The kingdom of heaven is like a [Greek] -2 _ftnref1 [Greek] who gave a marriage feast for his son.For kingdom of heaven see on 4:23; 13:43. The expression is like has been explained in the comments on 20:1. Also, in connection with 8:11, 12 it has been shown that the blessedness of the Messianic kingdom in its final phase if one prefers: the joy to be experienced in the new heaven and earth where the reign of God in Christ will be exuberantly acknowledged by all the partakers is often pictured under the symbolism of guests reclining together on couches at a table loaded with food, and communicating with each other and with the host in a spacious banqueting hall flooded with light. That here in 22:1 ff. this feast is described as a marriagefeast is also in keeping with Christ's earlier teaching and with many other passages in both Old and New Testament, as has been shown in connection with 9:15; see on that passage. In the references to this feast the original at times uses the plural (verses 2, 3, 4, 9), at times the singular (verse 8), with little, if any, difference in [Greek] -2 _ftnref2 ([Greek] The plural may have arisen from the fact that a celebration lasting several daysJudg. 14:17) must have included many festive activities. It is by no means certain that a figurative sense must also here be ascribed to the word his son, as if the reference were to Jesus Christ. If this had been the case, would not this son have played a far more prominent role in the parable? He actually does assume such prominence in 21:37–40. But in 22:3–14, the son is never mentioned again. We must conclude, therefore, that the only at least the main reason why a king and his son are here mentioned is to emphasize the fact that this is indeed a very important marriage feast. It is a royalfeast. 3, 4. He sent his servants to summon those who had been invited to the wedding, but they were not willing to come. He tried again and sent other servants, saying, Tell the invited guests, Look, I have prepared my banquet, my steers and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready; come to the wedding.These verses strongly remind one of the parable of The Wicked Tenants. In both parables the patience and persistence shown by the Sender is stressed. This marvelous longsuffering of the king, in the present parable, reveals itself in the fact that a.he first issues a call or general invitation; b.then he sends servants earnestly summoning the invited ones to come; and c.when the latter are unwilling to come he sends other servants, instructing them to present an even more urgent, moving appeal: all things are now ready, and there is no lack of food: butchered steers and fatted cattle! That it was not unusual among the Jews first to send out a general invitation and then later to invite those that had been called appears not only from Esther 5:8; 6:14, but also from the boast of the men of Jerusalem that no one of them went to a banquet unless he were twice invited. [Greek] -2 _ftnref3 [Greek] In this parable, however, there were in all not less than threeinvitations! With respect to the symbolical meaning of these three there is a wide difference of opinion. Most of the interpretations proceed from the assumption which, in view of the resemblance of this parable to that of The Wicked Tenants, may well be correct that a separate figurative meaning must be assigned to each of the three invitations. Assuming, then, that this assumption is correct, what is the meaning of each invitation? The call or first invitation for Israel to walk in the ways of the Lord did not (originallyreach that nation through any prophet, whether Moses, Samuel, Elijah, Isaiah, or any other. According to Scripture's own representation, that call came directlyfrom God. It was God who called AbrahamGen. 12:1ff.; 13:14–18; 15:1–6; 17:1–21; 22:11–18), Isaac (Gen. 26:24); and JacobGen. 28:13–15; 32:22–28; 46:2ff. . It was God who called Moses (Exod. 3). And it was God whose voice Israel heard and who made a covenant with the people (Deut. 4:9–13, 32 36). Cf. Isa. 42:6; 43:1; 45:4; Hos. 11:1; Ezek. 16:1–14. The servants sent first naturally suggest the Old Testament prophets, just as in the preceding parable (21:34, 35), for it was through Moses and Elijah, through Isaiah, Jeremiah, and all the other prophets, that God next addressed Israel. I can see no good reason to interpret these servants differently here than in the parable of The Wicked Tenants. In general what was the reaction of the people who had received the call and the first special invitation? They were unwilling to comePs. 95:10; Isa. 1:2–15; 5:4; Jer. 7:25, 26; etc. . The second group of servants naturally suggest John the Baptist, Jesus himself, and his disciples (twelve, seventy, Stephen, Paul, etc.). But we should not spend too much time on details which, after all, do not touch the main point. That central thought, as has already been indicated but must here be repeated, is the patience of God, symbolized by the king. It is God who first calls, and then invites those who had been previously called. It is God who, when they refuse, does not even then immediately pour forth his wrath upon the obstinate refusers but makes still another urgent appeal. For further references to this divine patience and delight in imparting salvation to men see Jer. 7:13, 25; 11:7; 25:3, 4passim; Ezek. 18:23, 32; 33:11; Luke 13:6 9; Rom. 2:4; 9:22; I Tim. 1:16; I Peter 3:20; II Peter 3:15. The reaction of the invited guests to what may be called the third and most insistent invitation is related in verses (5, 6. But they paid no attention to it and went off, one to his farm, another to his place of business. The rest grabbed the servants, treated them shamefully, and murdered them.Two attitudes are indicated here: a. indifference,that is, far more interest in earthly matters than in heavenly, in material things than in spiritual, in the farm and the place of business than in the invitation to accept salvation full and free for soul and body throughout all eternityLuke 14:18 20; 17:26–28); and b. active hostility:grabbing the servants, treating them shamefully, and even murdering some of them. Cf. Matt. 21:35, 36. The fact that persecution of God's messengers had already occurred, was actually taking place, and was going to be the order of the day also during the years immediately following is clear from several passages. What had been the reaction of many, especially of the leaders, to John the Baptist? See Matt. 3:7–9; 11:18, 19; 21:25. What was and was going to be their attitude to Jesus? See Matt. 12:24; 16:21; 20:18; 21:38, 39; 27:20, 22; John 1:5 11; 5:18; 6:66. And to the disciples? See Matt. 10:16, 22, 25; John 16:33; Acts 4:3; 7:58–60; 8:1; 12:1–3; etc. There is a limit to God's patience (Gen. 6:3; Prov. 29:1; Dan. 5:22–31; Matt. 21:40–44; Luke 13:9; Rev. 2:21, 22): 7. So the king's wrath was kindled, and having despatched his troops he destroyed those murderers and set fire to their city.It appears that the invited guests had a city of their own. Dropping the figure, it is clear that the reference is to Jerusalem. Its destruction (a.d. 70) is here clearly predicted. See also 21:40–43; 23:37, 38; 24:1, 2, 15 ff; Luke 19:41 44. As to the fulfilment, Jerusalem was taken by Titus, son of the emperor Vespasian (a.d. 69 79). The temple was destroyed. It is believed that more than a million Jews, who had crowded into the city, perished. As a political unit Israel ceased to exist. As a nation specially favored by the Lord it had reached the end of the road even long before the beginning of the Jewish War. An ex-combatant and eye-witness, Josephus, almost immediately after the struggle between the Jews and the Romans had ended, began to write his History of the Jewish War. On the whole his narrative may be described as trustworthy, although a definitely pro-Roman bias cannot be denied. Of the seven books into which this work is divided one should read especially books IV VI. A few excerpts from Josephus may illumine the fulfilment of Matt. 22:7, and thus also the passages itself: That building [the temple at Jerusalem], however, God long ago had sentenced to the flames; but now in the revolution of the time-periods the fateful day had arrived, the tenth of the month Lous, the very day on which previously it had been burned by the king of Babylon.& One of the soldiers, neither awaiting orders nor filled with horror of so dread an undertaking, but moved by some supernatural impulse, snatched a brand from the blazing timber and, hoisted up by one of his fellow soldiers, flung the fiery missile through a golden window.& When the flame arose, a scream, as poignant as the tragedy, went up from the Jews &now that the object which before they had guarded so closely was going to ruin (VI.250 253). While the sanctuary was burning &neither pity for age nor respect for rank was shown; on the contrary, children and old people, laity and priests alike were massacred (VI.271). The emperor ordered the entire city and sanctuary to be razed to the ground, except only the highest towers, Phasael, Hippicus, and Mariamne, and that part of the wall that enclosed the city on the west (VI.1). The first act in the drama has ended. The parable's portion to which we gave the name the rejected invitation, has been concluded. Here follows the second part, namely, the filled wedding hall: 8 10. Then he said to his servants, The wedding is ready, but those that were invited did not deserve the honor. Therefore go to the country crossroads, and as many people as you can find invite to the wedding. And those servants went out on the roads and gathered all they could find, good and bad alike; and the wedding hall was filled with guests.The king's plan, that his son shall have a good wedding, cannot be foiled. His will cannot be thwarted. In view of the fact that the former invitees have proved themselves unworthy here probably litotes for very wicked not deserving the honor that had been conferred upon them, let others be brought in. Let the servants, then, go out to the country, to the places where the main streets leading outof the city stop and divide(branch off) into side [Greek] -2 _ftnref4 [Greek] From all of these crossings or outlets let the servants pick up as many people as they can find, never mind whether the newly invited ones are in good standing with their fellow citizens or not. The servants do as they had been instructed. The meaning is clear. When the Jews who had been invited refuse to accept Christ, other people in great numbers are brought in. These others are mostly from the Gentiles (cf. 8:11, 12; 21:41), though Jews are not hereby excluded. The fact that both good and bad are brought into the kingdom or visible church has been explained in connection with the parable of The Dragnet; see on 13:47–50. The fact that through the sacrifice of Christ and the leading of the Spirit salvation is now for all,entirely regardless of race, nationality, sex, social standing, etc., and that no nation whether British, Jewish, Dutch, Swedish, German or whatever has any specialstanding before God is clear also from such other passages as Matt. 28:19; Luke 24:47; John 10:16; Rom. 10:12, 13; I Cor. 7:19; Gal. 3:9, 29; Eph. 2:14, 18; Phil. 3:2; Col. 3:11; etc. What is probably the most comforting statement of all, in the present passage, is the one at the close of verse 10: and the wedding was filled with guests. We might feel that the parable, already in a sense a double one, could have ended here. For an excellent reason it does not. Good and bad alike had entered the wedding hall, so we have been assured. It is now made clear, however, that this good and bad has reference only to human standards of judgment. It does not mean that in the final analysis those who in God's eyes are and remain bad are destined for the joys of the new heaven and earth. Verses 11 14, the missing wedding robe, will make this clear. This closing paragraph begins as follows: 11. Now when the king went in to view the guests he saw there a man who was not wearing a wedding robe.The king went in to view the guests, to feast his eyes on [Greek] -2 _ftnref5 [Greek] As his eyes move from one person to the next, suddenly his countenance darkens; his smile is replaced by a frown, for he is looking at a man who is not wearing a wedding garment. At this point the question may well be asked, What else could the king expect? Do not verses 8 10 create the distinct impression that these guests had been rushed from streets and street corners to the wedding hall, where the food was standing ready? Is not the solution proposed by some interpreters, namely, that before coming to the wedding all except one of the newly invited individuals had first gone home to change clothes, a kind of subterfuge? It must be borne in mind that most of these people were probably drawn from the underprivileged ranks. Cf. Luke 14:21 23. It is a question whether they even owned what today would be called Sunday clothes, or that they had the money to buy them. Besides, even if they did, there had been no time either to make or to purchase such costly robes. There is only one solution, as far as I can see, that will help us out of this difficulty. It is an old one. Until someone offers something better it must stand. It is that, by the command of the king and from his bountiful supplies, at the very entrance of the wedding hall a wedding robe had been offered to each guest. All except this one person had accepted the robe. This one man, however, had looked at his own robe, had perhaps lightly brushed it off with his hand, and had then told the attendant, My own robe is good enough. I don't need the one you're offering me. Then, in an attitude of self-satisfaction and defiance, he had marched to the table, where he was presently reclining; or from which, when the king entered, he, along with the other guests, had just now arisen. The objection to this theory is that nowhere in text or context is there any mention of this offer of a wedding robe to entering guests. We do know, however, (a.that in all probability guests such as these did not themselves have such a robe and could not have obtained it in any other way; b.that the king expected each guest to be decked in a robe fit to be worn to a royal wedding; c.that the man who lacked this robe was not able to offer any excuse for not having one (verse 12); d.that among the many scriptural passages which have been cited by those who favor the idea of an offered robe there are at least a few that may well be considered applicable, by way of analogy, to the present situation: He said to the man in charge of the wardrobe, Bring out the vestments for the servants of BaalII Kings 10:22); Let us be glad and triumphant, and let us give him the glory, for the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready: (fine linen was given her to wear,bright and clean, for fine linen indicates the righteous deeds of the saintsRev. 19:7, 8; cf. Isa. 61:10); and e.that historical evidence indicating that in the Near East even in post-biblical times a person who wished to enter the king's presence was required to wear a robe sent to him by the monarch is not completely [Greek] -2 _ftnref6 [Greek] Proceeding on the assumption, therefore, that such a garment had been offered to each guest and that the king expected the offered robes to be accepted and worn, his speech and action with respect to the man who had treated the royal order with contempt is not surprising: 12, 13. He said to him, Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding robe? But he was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, Bind him hand and foot and throw him into the most distant darkness; there shall be weeping and grinding of teeth.In order to give the man an opportunity to justify himself if he can do so, the king addresses him in a not unfriendly manner, and pauses for a reply. But the man, realizing that he has no ground to stand on and that any excuse would be useless, is reduced to utter [Greek] -2 _ftnref7 ([Greek] The result is that the king orders him to be bound hand and foot and to be cast into a region of total darkness, a darkness that is in sharp contrast with the light that fills the wedding hall. For there shall be weeping and grinding of teethLuke 13:28) see on 8:12. Great emphasis is placed on the man's own responsibility and guilt. Does this mean now that the others those who did accept the robe and are wearing it have themselves to thank for their deed of obedience? Not at all: 14. For many are called, but few chosen.The gospel call goes forth far and wide. It reaches ever so many. Most of them are like the man in the parable: they hear but do not heed. In comparison with those many that are lost there are but few that are saved, that is, few that are chosen from eternity to inherit life everlasting. Salvation, then, in the final analysis, is not a human accomplishment but the gift of God's sovereign grace. Cf. Luke 12:32; John 6:39, 44; Eph. 1:4. The question is asked, Just what is meant by the wedding robe, apart from which everlasting blessedness is impossible? Passages illustrating the figurative use of a (robeor garmentare found in both the Old and the New Testament. See Job 29:14; Ps. 132:9; Isa. 11:5; 61:10; Rom. 13:14; Gal. 3:27; Eph. 4:22, 24; Col. 3:8–14; Rev. 19:8; to mention only a few. The charge to put on such a robe cannot mean that a person should base his hope for salvation on his own goodness or moral fitness, for this would be contrary to all of Scripture's teachingJob 9:2; Isa. 64:6; Rom. 3:9–18, 23, 24; Eph. 2:8; Rev. 7:14). Does this mean, then, that the wedding garment is to be limited to the imputed righteousness which is ours by faith [Greek] -2 _ftnref8 ([Greek] Not at all. God not only imputesbut also impartsrighteousness to the sinner whom he pleases to save. Although these two must be distinguished, they must not be separated. Careful study of those passages in ScriptureJob 29:14) that mention the robe with which the sinner must be clothed makes it clear that not only guilt must be forgiven but also the old way of life must be laid aside and the new life to the glory of God must take its place. Briefly, the sinner must, by God's grace, put on Christ (Gal. 3:27). There must be a complete turnabout, a thorough-going renewal or conversion, exactly as Jesus himself had taught (Matt. 4:17), and as the apostles after him were going to teach. The one thought of the parable, then, is this: Accept God's gracious invitation, lest while others enter into glory you be lost. But remember that membership in the visible church does not guarantee salvation. Complete renewal (including both justification and sanctification), the putting on of Christ, is what is necessary. 22:15–46 Captious Questions and Authoritative Answers also Christ's Own Question 15 Then the Pharisees went and plotted how they might trap him in what he said. 16 And they sent to him their disciples along with those of the Herodians, saying, Teacher, we know that you are truthful and that you truthfully teach God's way, and court no man's favor, for you are impartial. 17 Tell us then what you think: Is it lawful to pay a poll-tax to Caesar, or not? 18 But Jesus, aware of their wickedness, said, Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? 19 Show me the poll-tax coin. So they brought him a denarius. 20 He said to them, Whose likeness and inscription is this? 21 Caesar's, they replied. Then he said to them, Then render to Caesar what is due to Caesar, and to God what is due to God. 22 Now when they heard it, they were astonished, and they left him and went away. 23 That same day some Sadducees, who deny that there is a resurrection, approached him with the question, 24 Teacher, Moses said, If a man dies childless, his brother, as next of kin, must marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. 25 Now seven brothers were (living) among us. The first got married, died, and having no children left his wife to his brother. 26 The same thing happened also to the second and to the third, down to the seventh. 27 Last of all the woman herself died. 28 In the resurrection, therefore, to which of the seven shall she be wife? for they all had her. 29 Jesus answered and said to them, You are deceiving yourselves, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 31 Now concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God: 32 I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead but of the living. 33 And when the crowds heard it, they were astounded at his teaching. 34 Now when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a law expert, asked him a question, testing him: 36 Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 He answered him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second like it is this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend the whole law and the prophets. 41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 What is your opinion of the Christ? Whose son is he? They said to him, David's. 43 He said to them, How then does David, in the Spirit, call him Lord, saying: 44 The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand Until I put your enemies under your feet? 45 If David then calls him Lord, how is he his son? 46 And no one was able to say a word in reply, nor from that day on did anyone dare to ask him another question. verses 15 22 Cf. Mark 12:13 17; Luke 20:20 26 verses 23 33 Cf. Mark 12:18 27; Luke 20:27 40 verses 34 40 Cf. Mark 12:28 34 verses 41 46 Cf. Mark 12:35 37; Luke 20:41 44 Is it lawful to pay a poll-tax to Caesar, or not? 15. Then the Pharisees went and plotted how they might trap him in what he said. (Earlier on that very day Jesus had, by means of a counter-question, defeated the leaders (21:23–32), and had even exposed them as being murderers (21:39; 22:7). However, this did not bring them to repentance. Instead of crying, O God, be merciful to us, sinnersLuke 18:13), they became all the more determined to kill Jesus. Yet, they are afraid to attack him personally. They fear the people. So they go into collusion and in an underhanded way plot how they may trip him [Greek] -2 _ftnref9 [Greek] in what he says. 16. And they sent to him their disciples along with those of the Herodians.Instead of confronting Jesus themselves these Pharisees send some of their students. Did they think, perhaps, that Jesus might be more sympathetic toward these younger men, and that for this very reason it might be easier to trap him? Also, either these leaders themselves or their disciples but in the latter case, at the leaders suggestion persuade some other young men, disciples of the Herodians, to go with them. What a strange combination: a.Pharisees, who were or made believe that they were very concerned about keeping God's law, and b.partisans of the Herod family, who cared very little about the divine commandments. These two groups unite against Jesus. Each has its own reason for wishing to get rid of the prophet from Nazareth. Did not his teaching imply a denunciation of the self-righteousness of the first group and of the worldlimindedness of the second? Besides, the Herodians cannot have been happy with Jesus royalentry into Jerusalem, nor the Pharisees with his entry as the Son of David, the Messiah. Also, both envy Jesus because, as they see it, his influence over the people is becoming too pronounced. There was still another reason why the combination disciples of the Pharisees along with those of the Herodians was clever. That reason has to do with the question which the young enquirers were going to ask Jesus, Is it lawful to pay a poll-tax to Caesar, or not? The answer which the Herodians would have given was, Yes, by all means. The very position and prestige of King Herod Antipas and his partisans depended, to a not inconsiderable extent, upon the payment of tribute. Hence they favored the tax, and, together with it, the political status quo. The Zealots, a party not mentioned here, were bitterly opposed to the tax, and declared that they recognized only one Master, even [Greek] -2 _ftnref10 [Greek] They were even willing to go to war in defense of this principle. The Pharisees took a similar, though somewhat less fanatic, position. In general, their hatred for the Herodians was even greater than that for the Romans. But they resented having to pay taxes to a foreign ruler, and this all the more because that ruler demanded honors and laid claim to titles that belonged to God alone. In the eyes of strictly religious Pharisees the emperor who demanded this tribute was a blasphemer. The tribute to which the present passage refers was a capitation tax which, after the deposition of Archelaus (a.d. 6), was collected by the procurator from every adult male in Judea, and was paid into the imperial treasury. Is it lawful for the Jew to pay this poll-tax? If Jesus answers Yes, he could well be alienating not only the Zealots and Pharisees but every devout and freedom-loving Jew. If he answers, No, he exposes himself to the charge of treason (Luke 20:20; 23:2). So, also for this reason it was clever to arrange for a mixed committee, consisting of young Pharisees and Herodians, to question Jesus. This committee must have received detailed instructions as to just how to approach the Master. We can hardly imagine that the flattering introduction by means of which they preluded their question was original with them. They came to Jesus &saying, Teacher, we know that you are truthful and that you truthfully teach God's way, and court no man's favor, for you are impartial.They recognize him as a teacher in Israel. Moreover, they say, as it were, You are a teacher on whom the people can depend, for, as everybody knows, you yourself are reliable, and you faithfully expound to the people the way [Greek] -2 _ftnref11 [Greek] or will of God. They continue (literally): and not is it a care to you concerning no one, probably meaning, And you do not allow yourself to be influenced by anyone's opinion, or, And you are not afraid of anyone, or, And you court no one's favor. They conclude their introduction by saying (again literally according to a Greek and Hebrew idiom), For you do not look at the face of men, in other words, You are impartial. See I Sam. 16:7; also -2 _ftnref12 (N.T.C.on Gal. 2:6. Thus these spiesLuke 20:20) veil their real intention, which was to trap Jesus in a statement which he was expected to make. They hide their purpose under a cloak of flattering compliments. Then, as if they were enquirers searching sincerely for information, they spring their question: 17. Tell us then what you think: Is it lawful to pay a poll-tax to Caesar, or not? One hardly knows what to admire more in Christ's reaction, whether it is his penetrating insight into the hearts and motives of men (see verse 18), or his marvelous mental alertness in so quickly giving an answer that establishes a principle whereby every person should be guided in his search for the proper relationship to both the earthly and the heavenly kingdom (verses 19 21): 18. But Jesus, aware of their wickedness, said, Why put me to the test, you hypocrites?Jesus had used this word hypocrites before (see on 6:2, 5, 16; 7:5; 15:7). He is going to use it again (several times in chapter 23; then also in 24:51). It suited the present situation exactly, for a hypocrite says one thing but means something else. He pretendsto do one thing but intendsto do another. He is play-acting, dissembling. He is hiding his real face undera mask. Jesus adds, 19. Show me the poll-tax [Greek] -2 _ftnref13 [Greek] So they brought him a denarius.A denarius or denar was a Roman silver coin, about equal in value to a Greek drachma. Its standard weight was 60 grains. For further information with respect to it see on 5:26, footnote 290; and on 17:24; 18:28; 20:2, 9, 10, 13. Because of the large caravans of pilgrims streaming into Jerusalem from various parts of the empire, to attend the Passover, it must have been easy to produce a denarius immediately. That this coin was also widely circulated among the Jews of Palestine and was very well known among them appears from the many references to it in the Gospels. Jesus, then, is holding this denar in his hand. By this very act of asking for it and having it in his hand he is directing the attention of the spectators to it; i.e., to the head shown on the coin and to the legend accompanying it. He does so even more by the question he is about to raise. The Herodian disciples are perhaps asking themselves, Is he going to belittle the image or the writing on this coin, and is he going to forbid using the coin for paying the tax? If he does, we've got him. And the students of the Pharisees may have been thinking, Aside from the horror of actually being required to pay this tribute money, isn't the very appearance of the image on the coin a transgression of the second commandment? And isn't the legend blasphemous? If he endorses the use of this kind of money for the purpose of supporting the self-glorifying foreign oppressor, will not all enthusiastic nationalists run away from him? Whether the coin dated from the reign of Augustus or of Tiberius, either way the emperor is ascribing glory to himself. A denarius from the reign of Tiberius pictures on its obverse sidethe head of the emperor. On the reverse sidehe is seated on a throne. He wears a diadem on his head and is clothed as a highpriest. The inscriptions, with abbreviations as shown, and with V representing our present U, are as shown: 1 TIBERIUS CAESAR AUGUSTUS SON OF THE DIVINE AUGUSTUS All eyes are on Jesus, and the tension must have been tremendous when 20, 21. He said to them, Whose likeness and inscription is this? Caesar's, they replied. Then he said to them, Then render to Caesar what is due to Caesar, and to God what is due to God.Explanation: a. He was not evading the issue, but was clearly saying, Yes, pay the tax. Honoring God does not mean dishonoring the emperor by refusing to pay for the privileges a relatively orderly society, police protection, good roads, courts, etc., etc. one enjoys. Cf. I Tim. 2:2; I Peter 2:17. Thus, no truthful charge of sedition could be made against Jesus. b. He was qualifying his yes answer by stating that the emperor should be paid (given back) only what was his due. Hence, the divine honor which the emperor claimed but which is due to God alone must be [Greek] -2 _ftnref14 [Greek] How could the Pharisees find any fault with that? Besides, this word was a warning to all from the most exalted emperor to the subject lowest in rank not to claim undue honors. Cf. II Kings 18:19 19:37II Chron. 32:9–23; Isa. 36, 37 ; Dan. 4:28–32; 5; Acts 12:20 23. c. By adding and to God what is due to God Jesus was stressing the fact that all the service, gratitude, glory, etc. due to God should be constantly and gladly accorded to him. Nothing must be withheld. See, for example, Ps. 29; 95; 96; 103 105; 116; John 17:4; Rom. 11:33–36; I Cor. 6:20; 10:31; 16:1, 2; II Cor. 9:15. One does not give God what is his due by plotting to destroy his beloved Son! But this was exactly what these spies and their teachers were trying to do. d. By drawing a distinction between what is due to Caesar and what is due to God Jesus was rejecting the very claim of Caesar, a claim made on the coin and otherwise, to the effect that his was not only a physical kingdom but also a spiritual. Cf. (John 18:36. Naturally God is Sovereign over allDan. 4:34, 35). The emperor, to be sure, should be respected and obeyed whenever his will does not clash with the divine will. See Rom. 13:1–7. But when there is a clash the rule laid down in Acts 5:29must be followed. By means of this answer Jesus had discomfited his enemies. We are not surprised to read: 22. Now when they heard it, they were astonished.They had not expected this kind of an answer. In spite of themselves they were filled with awe and wonder. Cf. John 7:46. Were they converted? They were not. We read: and they left him and went away. In the resurrection whose wife shall she be? 23, 24. That same day some Sadducees, who deny that there is a resurrection, approached him with the question, Teacher, Moses said, If a man dies childless, his brother, as next of kin, must marry the widow and raise up children for his brother.The Sadducees now make their onslaught against Jesus. See also 16:1, and N.T.C. on John 11:49. Their beliefs, denial of the immortality of the soul and of the resurrection of the body, relation to the Pharisees, etc., have been discussed in connection with 3:7; see on that passage. They were the worldly people of their day, and often behaved in an uncouth manner. In view of the fact that they are going to poke fun of the doctrine of the resurrection, it is understandable that they come all by themselves. The Pharisees, since they as well as Jesus believed in the resurrection, could not have joined them in this attack. The Sadducees approach Jesus that same day, the day which in Matthew begins at 21:20 and probably continues until 26:5, a remarkable day indeed, the Tuesday of Passion Week. The Sadducees begin their attack with the phrase, Moses said. The reference to the great law-giver, Moses, must serve to add weight to their argument. It should be borne in mind that this sect regarded the Pentateuch as being higher in value than the other books of the Old Testament. They now make Deut. 25:5, 6the springboard of their question. In that passage the law of [Greek] -2 _ftnref15 ([Greek] marriage is given to Israel. According to this law, if a wife loses her husband before any male child has been born, the brother of that husband or else the nearest of kin must marry the widow, so that the first child born of this marriage may be counted as a child of the deceased, and the latter's line may not die out. Disobedience to this command was frowned uponDeut. 25:7–10). Half-hearted obedience, so that a man was willing to marry the widow but not to raise offspring by her since such a child could not be counted as his own, was in the case of Onan punished with death (Gen. 38:8–10). For an interesting application of the law of levirate marriage see Ruth 4:1 8. To what extent this law was still being obeyed during Christ's sojourn on earth is not clear. The Sadducees, then, make use of this commandment in order to show how thoroughly absurd, as they see it, is belief in the resurrection of the body. Whether the story which they are about to relate was a report of an actual event, as some commentators believe, let the reader judge for himself. I, for one, am inclined to believe that they fabricated it. They say: 25 28. Now seven brothers were (living) among us. The first got married, died, and having no children left his wife to his brother. The same thing happened also to the second and to the third, down to the seventh. Last of all the woman herself died. In the resurrection, therefore, to which of the seven shall she be wife? for they all had her.Provided that their basic assumption namely, that married life continues in the hereafter was correct, two husbands would have been sufficient to prove their point. But seven makes the story more interesting and might also make belief in the resurrection seem even more absurd. Think of it: when the dead arise, this woman husband-killer? will have seven husbands! Of course, that cannot, must not, be. She is allowed to have only one, but which one? 29. Jesus answered and said to them, You are deceiving [Greek] -2 _ftnref16 ([Greek] because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.Had they known the Scriptures, they would have known that there is nothing in Deut. 25:5, 6that makes it applicable to the life hereafter, and they would also have known that the Old Testament in various passages teaches the resurrection of the body (more on that in connection with verses 31, 32). And had they recognized the power of GodRom. 4:17, Heb. 11:19), they would have understood that God is able to raise the dead in such a manner that marriage will no longer be needed (for more on this see verse 30). Proof for the statement that the basic premise of the argument which the Sadducees have been advancing is erroneous and that they have failed to figure with the power of God is furnished in verse (30. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.The glorious resurrection body Jesus says nothing about the resurrection of the wicked is going to be immortal. Since there will be no death, the race will not have to be reproduced. Marriage, accordingly, will be a matter of the past. In not marrying and not being given in marriage the blessed will therefore resemble the angels, for they too do not marry. The saved will be like the angels in this one respect;yes, like the angels whose very existence the Sadducees also denyActs 23:8), and this in spite of the fact that the Pentateuch, accepted by them, teaches their existence (Gen. 19:1, 15; 28:12; 32:1)! Does not verse 30, taken in its entirety, and in connection with what is known of the beliefs of the Sadducees, prove that these men know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God? Although the Sadducees ridicule a wonderful truth accepted and taught by Jesus, namely, that of the resurrection of the dead, he does not refuse to impart needed instruction to them on this very subject: 31, 32. Now concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God: I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead but of the living. (Have you not read? says Jesus (cf. 12:3, 5; 19:4; 21:16, 42). Certainly those who try to base their argument on ScriptureDeut. 25:5, 6) should know Scripture! They should be acquainted with Scripture as a whole, not just with one passage, which they then misapply. Now it is true that the Sadducees did not have the New Testament, which mentions the resurrection (whether of Jesus himself or of his people, or even of all the dead) again and againMark 16:1 8; Luke 24; John 5:28, 29; 11:24; 20; 21; Acts 2:24 36; 4:10, 11; 17:31, 32; Rom. 1:4; I Cor. 15; Phil. 3:20, 21; I Thess. 4:16; I Peter 1:3; Rev. 20:11–15, to mention but a few of all the many passages in which this doctrine is taught . But even the Old Testament is not lacking in references to the bodily resurrection. Clearest, perhaps, are (Ps. 16:9 11Acts 2:27, 31) and (Dan. 12:2. Worthy of consideration are also Job 14:14; 19:25–27; Ps. 17:15; 73:24–26; Isa. 26:19; Ezek. 37:1–14; Hos. 6:2, 13:14I Cor. 15:55); passages which, though not always directly teaching the resurrection of the body, may well imply belief in this truth. Take for example, (Ps. 73:24–26, which clearly teaches the blessed after-death existence of the believer's soul in heaven. Does not this very existence of the soul in the intermediate state demand the resurrection of the body? Two facts certainly point in that direction: a.the creation of man as body and soulGen. 2:7), and (b.this very passage, He is not the God of the dead but of the living. Note also that Abraham surely believed in the possibility of a physical resurrectionHeb. 11:19). Jesus, however, refers to another passage, namely, Exod. 3:6, I am the God of Abraham&, and implies that since God is not the God of the dead but of the living, the conclusion is that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are still alive, and are awaiting a glorious resurrection. Attempts have been made to rob Christ's argument of its value. It has been said, for example, that the expression, the God of Abraham simply means that while Abraham was on earth he worshiped Jehovah. However, a study of the context in which Exod. 3:6and all similar passagesGen. 24:12, 27, 48; 26:24; 28:13; 32:9; 46:1, 3, 4; 48:15, 16; 49:25; etc. occur, quickly proves that the One who reveals himself as the God of Abraham &is the unchangeable, eternal covenant God who blesses, loves, encourages, protects, etc. his people, and whose favors do not suddenly stop when a person dies but go with that person beyond death (Ps. 16:10, 11; 17:5; 73:23–26). Another fact must be mentioned in this connection. The men with whom this immutable Jehovah (Exod. 3:6, 14; Mal. 3:6) established an everlasting covenant (Gen. 17:7) were Israelites, not Greeks. According to the Greek (and afterward also the Roman) conception, the body is merely the prison-house of the soul. See N.T.C. on I and II Thessalonians, pp. 110, 111. The Hebrew conception, product of special revelation, is entirely different. Here God deals with man as whole, not only with his soul or merely with his body. On the contrary, when God blesses his child he enriches him with physical as well as spiritual benefitsDeut. 28:1–14; Neh. 9:21–25; Ps. 104:14, 15; 107; 136; and many similar passages . He loves him body and soul. He is going to send his beloved Son in order to ransom him (completely. The body, accordingly, shares with the soul the honor of being the sanctuary of the Holy SpiritI Cor. 6:19, 20). The body is for the Lord, and the Lord for the body (I Cor. 6:13). God loves the entire person, and the declaration, I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob (note the triple occurrence of the word God, mentioned separately in connection with each of the three to stress personal relationship with each) certainly implies that their bodies will not be left to the worms but will one day be gloriously resurrected. The burden of proof is entirely on the person who denies this. See also H. W. Robinson, The People and the Book, Oxford, 1925, p. 353 f. 33. And when the crowds heard it, they were [Greek] -2 _ftnref17 [Greek] at his teaching.The people were filled with awe and wonder. They knew that Jesus had again triumphed gloriously over his opponents. Which is the great commandment in the law? 34. Now when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees they gathered together.Jesus had silenced(see on verse 12) the Sadducees. His victory must have pleased the Pharisees, for the latter, as well as Jesus, believed in a bodily resurrection, the doctrine denied by the Sadducees. Yet, from another viewpoint many of the Pharisees cannot have been too pleased, for they did not want their enemy's influence with the general public to be strengthened. So, once again they assembled [Greek] -2 _ftnref18 [Greek] around Jesus in order to test him. This time, however, they do not, as in verse 15, send some of their disciples and some disciples of the Herodians to Jesus, but quiz him more directly, that is, through one of their own number and rank: 35, 36. And one of them, a law expert, asked him a question, testing him: Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?When Matthew wishes to say something about an expert in, and teacher of, the Mosaic law, taken in its broadest sense, he uses the word scribeto indicate such a person (see on 2:4; 7:28, 29). So does Mark. Luke uses both scribeand law-expert. Here, for once it is the only exception Matthew writes [Greek] -2 _ftnref19 ([Greek] href="/bible/parallel/TIT/3/13" class="green-link">Titus 3:13</a>). Just why he makes this exception is not known. It may have been simply for stylistic variation. Another possibility is that Matthew wishes to tell us that here was a law-expert who really deserved the title. However, this may be, we receive a favorable impression of this man, not only because he asked a worthwhile question, for which Jesus does not rebuke him in any way (contrast verse 18), but also because he of his own accord approvingly repeats Christ's answer, for which he receives praise (Mark 12:32 [Greek] -2 _ftnref20 [Greek] Having learned from many previous passages how very hostile the Pharisees and scribes were toward Jesus (9:3; 15:1, 2; 16:21; 20:18; 21:15, 16; 22:15), and how he, in turn, condemns them, a fact of which we shall be reminded seven times over in chapter 23, we find it surprising that this not unfriendly shall we say noble? law-expert or scribe was chosen to represent the Pharisees in testing Jesus. Was it because they did not really know this man? Was he hostile at first and did he become deeply impressed by Christ's answer, so that he then and there experienced a change of mind toward this Teacher? Or does the reason for the Pharisees selection of this man to represent them lie even deeper: they did indeed know him rather thoroughly, and sent him, thinking, himJesus will not suspect, and we may still be able to trip up our enemy because of the answerhe will give? We do not know. The question asked by this law-expert was one that could be expected from him and from the men he represented. The rabbis, devoted to hair-splitting legalism, carried on lengthy debates about the commandments, arguing whether any particular one was great or small, heavy or light. For details see on 5:19 and on 15:1 ff. It was natural, therefore, that they often debated the question, [Greek] -2 _ftnref21 [Greek] of the 613 commandments, 248 of them positive, 365 negative was the great, here in the sense of a superlative, the greatest, [Greek] -2 _ftnref22 [Greek] one. To this question Jesus gives an unforgettably beautiful reply: 37 40. He answered him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second like it is this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend the whole law and the prophets. Jesus here teaches that: a. The whole duty of man, the whole moral-spiritual law, can be summed up in one word: love. Cf. Rom. 13:9, 10; I Cor. 13. b. This love should be directed toward God (Deut. 6:5) and toward man (Lev. 19:18). In the Sermon on the Mount the obligation to love is set forth in greater detail (see especially 5:43–48; chapter 6; and 7:1–12). c. Heart, soul, and mind must co-operate in loving God. The (heartis the hub of the wheel of man's existence, the mainspring of all his thoughts, words, and deedsProv. 4:23). The soulthe word used in the original has a variety of meanings (see footnote 334 on p. 349) is here probably the seat of man's emotional activity; the mind,not only of his purely intellectual life but also of his disposition or attitude. In the Hebrew original (and also in the LXX) of Deut. 6:5the reading is heart, soul, and might (or: power). Mark 12:30has heart, soul, mind, and strength. Cf. Luke 10:27. No essential difference is intended. We must not begin to over-analyze. What is meant in all these passages is that man should love God with all the faculties with which God has endowed him. d. Man must use all these powers to the full; note triple all &all &all, or whole &whole &whole. The point is that God's whole-hearted love must not be answered in a half-hearted manner. When God loves, he loves the world; when he gives, he gives his Son, hence himself. See N.T.C. on (John 3:16. He gives him up; he spares him not. Greater love is impossibleJohn 15:13; Rom. 5:6–10; II Cor. 8:9). Surely, the responseto such love must not be less than that indicated in Rom. 11:33–36; I Cor. 6:20; Il Cor. 9:15; Eph. 5:1, 2; Phil. 2:1–18; Col. 3:12–17. e. This commandment is called the great(est) because it epitomizes the most excellent response to the Most Wonderful Being, and is basic to all other genuine love. f. A second commandment which is similar to it resembles the first, because it too requires love. Moreover, this love toward the neighbor, who is God's image-bearer, flows forth from the love toward God (I John 4:21; see also Matt. 5:43; 7:12; 19:19). g. This twofold command (love for God and for the neighbor) is the peg on which the whole law and the prophets hang. Remove that peg, and all is lost, for the entire Old Testament, with its commandments and covenants, prophecies and promises, types and testimonies, invitations and exhortations, points to the love of God which demands the answer of love in return. What is your opinion of the Christ? 41, 42. Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, What is your opinion of the Christ? Whose son is he?At first glance there seems to be no connection between this paragraph and the immediately preceding one. We are not told that the Pharisees of verse 41 were those of verse 34. Matthew does not even tell us where the present confrontation took place. Mark informs us, however, that it occurred in the temple (12:35). Cf. Matt. 21:23; Mark 11:27; Luke 20:1. Nevertheless, over against this vagueness as to some of the circumstances, it is but fair to state that there is, after all, a probable link between this paragraph and the immediately preceding one. Verse 34 informs us that the Pharisees gathered themselves together, presumably (see the context) around Jesus; verse 41 states, Now while the Pharisees were gathered together. See footnote 761 on p. 808. In all probability, therefore, Jesus is still in conversation with the same audience. Upon this very reasonable assumption the words of Jesus here in verse 41 ff. gain added significance. Just a moment ago, in his summary of the law, Jesus has placed all the emphasis on (love,as being the fulfilment of the Decalog. And now he is putting this love into practice by directing the attention of his audience to faith in himself, for apart from such faith and from the right conception about the Christ no Pharisee (or anyone else) can be savedJohn 14:6; Acts 4:12). Although we know that most of those to whom the Master's question was addressed continued to harden themselves (see chapter 23; 26:3, 4, 47, 57; 27:41, 62 64), is it not possible that the man to whom Jesus had said, You are not far from the kingdom (Mark 12:34) was brought completely into the kingdom when he pondered Christ's question? Not all Pharisees and scribes were equally bad. Not all the Jewish leaders permanently rejected Jesus. See Matt. 27:57; Luke 23:50, 51; John 19:38, 39. But regardless of all this, nothing can detract from the fact that Jesus, in causing this kind of audience (remember 22:15!) to come face to face with the most important question ever asked, is revealing his marvelous love. He is conversing with these men publicly for the very last [Greek] -2 _ftnref23 [Greek] and therefore asks the most important question of all. What is your opinion of the Christ? Whose son is he? Cf. 16:13. It is clear that the Master is referring to himself when he says the Christ. The question is, however, so phrased (namely, in the third person) that the Pharisees are able to give a ready answer without affirming that Jesus is himself the Christ. In fact, the idea that Jesus would be the Christ was repugnant to them. The expected (Messiah(of which Christ is the Greek translation) was, indeed, the Son of David. This they knew, and this they taughtMark 12:35; John 7:42). Moreover, in so far they were correct, for that is the teaching of ScriptureII Sam. 7:12, 13, Ps. 78:68–72; 89:3, 4, 20, 24, 28, 34 37; Amos 9:11; Mic. 5:2; etc. . But hearing Jesuscalled the Son of David, how they hated that! See Matt. 12:23, 24; 21:15, 16. There was one more thing which these Pharisees knew. It was this, that Jesus had made no objections to the title Son of David. He had rebuked neither the disciples nor the children when they, by implication, had called him this. However, the air must be purified. The earthly ideas attached to the concept Son of David or Messiah must be removed. Cf. John 18:36. The time has arrived to prepare the audience for the idea that the title Son of David means more than was generally realized. The Pharisees must learn that David's Son is also David's Lord. Not only is he man; he is also God! Very wisely, in this instruction of the Pharisees, Jesus proceeds from the known to the unknown; that is, from that which they are willing to admit to that which is going to puzzle them. When he asks them, What is your opinion of the Christ? Whose son is he? they said to him, David's. 43 45. He said to them, How then does David, in the Spirit, call him Lord, saying: The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand Until I put your enemies under your feet? If David then calls him Lord, how is he his son? Explanation: a. The quotation is from Ps. 110(LXX 109):1. Between, on the one hand, the original Hebrew text faithfully reproduced in the LXX Greek text, and, on the other, Matthew's version, there is no essentialdifference. Whether, with the Hebrew and the LXX, one says, until I make your enemies a (foot)stool for your feet; or, with Matthew (recording the words of Jesus) Until I put your enemies under your feet, in both cases the figure that results is that of an enemy lying before a person in the dust, so that the conqueror's feet can be placed upon his neck. Cf. Josh. 10:24. Complete triumph over every foe is assured bythe Lord tothe Lord. b. Jesus ascribes this psalm (110) to David, and asserts that the latter wrote it in the Spirit, that is, by inspiration. c. By saying, What is your opinion of the Christ? &David calls him Lord, Jesus is stating that the One whom David calls Lord is the Christ. In other words, Jesus is declaring that (Ps. 110is a Messianic Psalm. It was so regarded also by PeterActs 2:34, 35), by Paul (I Cor. 15:25), and by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (1:13; cf. [Greek] -2 _ftnref24 [Greek] d. In this psalm David is making a distinction between YHWH (Jehovah) and Adonai (for both of these see on 6:9). YHWH, then, is addressing David's Adonai; or, if one prefers, God is speaking to the Mediator. He is promising the Mediator such pre-eminence, power, authority, and majesty as would be proper only for One who, as to his person, from all eternity was, is now, and forever will be God. See Eph. 1:20–23; Phil. 2:5–11; Heb. 2:9; Rev. 5:1–10; 12:5. e. Nevertheless this same exalted Lord is David's (sonII Sam. 7:12, 13; Ps. 132:17). That Jesussatisfies this description is clear from Matt. 1; Luke 1:32; 3:23–38; Acts 2:30; Rom. 1:3; II Tim. 2:8; Rev. 5:5. This Christ is therefore both David's son and David's Lord. He is both human and divine, both man and God. f. The words, If David then calls him Lord, how is he his son? do not mean, the Messiah cannot be David's son, but must mean, cannot be David's son (merelyin the sense of his descendant. He is far more than that. He is the root as well as the offspring of DavidRev. 22:16; cf. Isa. 11:1, 10). It is as if Jesus were saying to the Pharisees, You have found fault with me for accepting the praises of those who called me the Son of David. Bear in mind, then, that I am the Son of David in the most exalted sense, for David himself called me my Lord. Therefore whoever rejects me is rejecting David's Lord. Yet, Jesus is not as yet openlytelling the enemies that heis indeed the Christ. That will come a little later. See 26:63, 64. g. It is comforting to know that not only according to 21:42 (see on that passage) but also according to the present passage Jesus a few days before his most bitter agony was fully aware that the way of the cross would for him lead home, to the crown! 46. And no one was able to say a word in reply, nor from that day on did anyone dare to ask him another question.Also in this final confrontation between Jesus and his enemies, who had tried to trip him up, Jesus had vanquished these foes so completely that rebuttal had become impossible. In fact, no one even dared to quiz him any more. Summary of Chapter 22 This chapter has two main parts: (1) the parable of The Marriage Feast of the King's Son (verses 1 14), and (2) Captious Questions and Authoritative Answers (verses 15 46). The first part consists of the last of a little group of three parables. It follows the parable of The Two Sons (21:28–32) and that of The Wicked Tenants (21:33–43). In unmistakable symbolism the third story illustration predicts not only the entrance of so-called undesirables into the kingdom (22:9, 10) as did the first of the three parables (21:31) and the destruction of those formerly favored (22:3 7a) as did the second parable (21:41) but also the burning of the foes city (verse 7b). The ancient covenant people's loss of special standing and their replacement by a much larger group consisting of people gathered from everywhere is either taught or implied in all three parables. A king gives a marriage for his son. He sends out invitations, and subsequently servants to call those who had been invited. Since even then no one seems to be willing to come he sends other servants, this time with the urgent appeal, Look, I have prepared my banquet, my steers and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready; come to the wedding. When all of these entreaties are met by indifference and even by acts of hostility, the king destroys the murderers and sets fire to their city. The monarch, insisting that the wedding hall shall be filled with guests what a marvelous insight this trait affords into the loving heart of God! sends his servants to gather all they could find, good and bad alike. However, when he enters the hall he sees a man who, without any excuse, is not wearing a wedding robe. That man is cast into the most distant darkness. Sovereign love does not cancel human responsibility. To be saved one must put on Christ (Rom. 13:14; Col. 3:12–17). As a person travels through this life (verses 15 46) there are especially three questions he should ask himself. In ascending order of importance they are: (a.What is my duty toward the government?Rom. 13); (b.If I die shall I live again?Job 14:14); and What shall I render to the Lord for all his benefits toward me? (Ps. 116:12). Differently phrased these questions were put to Jesus. His answers were: a.Render to Caesar what is due to Caesar, and to God what is due to God, a statement with which neither the most emperor-loving Herodian nor the strictest Pharisee could find fault; b.God is not the God of the dead but of the living, implying both immortality and bodily resurrection; and c.(amounting to) You shall love the Lord your God with your whole being, and your neighbor as yourself. Spontaneous love is law's fulfilment. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XXIII Chapter 23 Theme: The Work Which They Gavest Him to Do The Seven Woes The Fifth Great Discourse 23:1–39 The Seven Woes For 23:1–36 cf. Mark 12:38 40; Luke 20:45 47 For 23:37–39 cf. Luke 13:34, [Greek] -2 _ftnref1 [Greek] 23 1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in the chair of Moses; 3 therefore everything they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say (things) but do not do (them). 4 They tie up heavy burdens, and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. 5 They do all their deeds to attract the attention of the people; for they widen their phylacteries and enlarge their tassels; 6 they love the place of honor at the banquets, the chief seats in the synagogues, 7 the formal salutations in the market-places, and to have the people address them as rabbi. 8 But as for yourselves, do not let the people call you rabbi, for One is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth your father, for One is your Father, the One in heaven. 10 And do not let the people call you leaders; for One is your Leader, namely, Christ. 11 He who is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Moreover, whoever exalts himself shall be humbled, and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted. 13 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces; for you yourselves are not entering, nor do you permit those to go in who are trying to enter. 15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you travel about on sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he has become one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are yourselves. 16 Woe to you, blind guides! that say, Whoever swears by the temple, that amounts to nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath. 17 You blind fools, for which is more important: the gold, or the temple that sanctifies the gold? 18 And [who say], Whoever swears by the altar, that amounts to nothing; but whoever swears by the offering upon it, he is bound by his oath. 19 You blind men, for what is more important: the offering, or the altar that sanctifies the offering? 20 Therefore he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by whatever is on it; 21 and he who swears by the temple, swears by it and by him who dwells in it; 22 and he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by him who sits on it. 23 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, but have neglected the more important requirements of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these you should have kept, without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides, who strain out the gnat but swallow the camel! 25 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of extortion and intemperance. 26 You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup, so that the outside of it may also become clean. 27 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you resemble whitewashed tombs, which, while they appear beautiful on the outside, on the inside are full of dead men's bones and all kinds of filth. 28 Similarly you too outwardly seem to people to be righteous, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. 29 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, 30 and you say, If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in (shedding) the blood of the prophets. 31 So you are testifying against yourselves (in acknowledging) that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Go ahead then, and make full the measure (of the guilt) of your fathers. 33 You snakes, you offspring of vipers! how are you going to escape being sentenced to hell? 34 Therefore, look, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes. Some of them you shall kill and crucify, and some you shall flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town, 35 that upon you may come (the guilt of) all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 I solemnly assure you, all these things shall come upon this generation. 37 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those that are sent to her! how often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you would not! 38 Behold, your house is left to you a deserted place. 39 For I tell you, from now on you shall certainly not see me until you shall say, Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Introduction and Summary This discourse clearly consists of three parts. After a few introductory words (23:1 3a) in which Jesus states that to the extent in which the scribes and the Pharisees truly interpret the teaching of Moses they must be obeyed, he warns the people and his disciples not to imitate the conduct of these leaders, because in several respects they fail to practice what they preach. The three parts are: a.a description of the sins of the scribes and the Pharisees (verses 3b 12); b.the Seven Woes pronounced upon them (verses 13 36); and c.Christ's moving Lament over impenitent Jerusalem (verses 37 39). In the first paragraph Jesus tells his audience that these law-experts and their adherants fall short in three respects: they lack sincerity, sympathy, and humility. They are insincere, for they pile heavy loads on men's shoulders, precept upon precept, but when it comes to themselves they are unwilling to move these burdens with so much as a finger. They are unsympathetic, for they do not try to lighten men's loads. Contrast 11:28–30. Finally, they are show-offs, as is evident from the manner in which they try to impress men with their piety. They make very conspicuous those articles of their apparel prayer-cases and tassels which the Lord had prescribed as reminders of his law. They make these articles more obvious by widening the straps of the tie-on cases and by enlarging the tufts that hang down from the four corners of their outer garments. They love the places of honor at festivals and in synagogues, and they yearn to be addressed as rabbi. Jesus exhorts his followers to reveal the opposite attitude, reminding them that vanity is punished, humility rewarded. In the second paragraph Jesus pronounces his Seven Woes upon the scribes and the Pharisees. He denounces them because they: S. hut the door of the kingdom in men's faces (verse 13); C. orrupt proselytes, after having, with great effort, won them over to the Jewish religion (verse 15); R. everse the truth regarding the oath, as if the gold of the temple were more important than the temple; and the gift upon the altar, than the altar, so that swearing by the temple and by the altar would not be binding (verses 16 22); I. nvert values, as if tithing small flavoring herbs were of greater significance than practicing justice, mercy, and faithfulness, and as if straining out the gnat were obligatory even though it meant swallowing the camel (verses 23, 24); B. oost ritual, as if the ritualistic cleansing of cup and plate were to be preferred to exercising a.honesty in obtaining what goes into these, and b.self-control in consuming the contents (verses 25, 26); E. xternalize religion, as if outward appearance were an adequate cover for sham and crime (verses 27, 28); and S. wagger about their superior goodness, as if they were better than their ancestors, who killed the prophets (verses 29 32). For all these sins judgment is pronounced upon them (verses 33 36). With a Moving Lament over impenitent Jerusalem, an outpouring of grief, contained in the third paragraph, Jesus closes this, his last, publicaddress. There is going to be one more discourse (chaps. 24, 25), but that will be directed to the hearts and ears of the disciples, and will therefore not be public. Here, in verses 37 39, Jesus exclaims, Jerusalem, Jerusalem &how often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you would not. He predicts that their house the city of Jerusalem would be doomed to utter desolation and ruin, and that after Passion Week they will not again see him until at his glorious return they, along with everybody else, would proclaim, whether joyfully (if believers) or ruefully (if unbelievers), Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Cf. Phil. 2:10, 11, and see -2 _ftnref2 N.T.C.on that passage. 1 3. Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in the chair of Moses; therefore everything they tell you, do and observe.& Note that 23:1 reads, Jesusspoke. 24:1 informs us that after Jesus had spoken he left the temple. Nowhere in chapter 23 does anyone interrupt the words reported in verses 2 39 of this chapter. The natural inference is that chapter 23 is Matthew's presentation of a connected and uninterrupted discourse delivered by our Lord. That it was delivered in the temple also seems to be implied. See 21:23; 24:1. Between 21:23 and 24:1 there is no evidence to show that Jesus left the temple precincts. See also Mark 12:35. Here again, therefore, as in connection with previous discourses, I fail to agree with the theory of those who hold that at least to a certain extent chapter 23 is a Matthean [Greek] -2 _ftnref3 [Greek] I believe that Jesus did at times deliver discourses or sermons, and that chapter 23 is the record of one of these. What we have here is not merely a number of scattered sayings of Jesus, uttered by him at different times and places and subsequently gathered and unified by the editor, Matthew. To be sure, some of the words found in this chapter were also spoken at other occasions, as the Gospel according to Luke indicates; but this does not take away the fact that the evangelist leaves us with the distinct impression that the Lord delivered at least the six discourses reported respectively in chapters 5 7, 10, 13, 18, 23, and 24, 25. This does not in any way cancel the fact that the present discourse, in the form in which we have it, was reported by the ear-and-eyewitness Matthew, as he, in accordance with his own characteristic personal qualities, handed it down to us. But he wrote under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, so that what he has given us is a report in every aspect reliable, that is, reproducing from start to finish the sense of the Lord's own message. Cf. II Peter 1:19–21. Jesus spoke &to the crowds and to his disciples. As to scribes and Pharisees, whenever in this first paragraph there is any reference to them repeatedly throughout verses 2 7 that reference is always in the third person. In the entire paragraph (verses 2 12) they are never addressed directly. If from this fact anyone wishes to draw the conclusion that they are no longer present, or, if present, then only sparsely, he can hardly be blamed. In any event it is not to them but to the Passover pilgrims and to The Twelve that Jesus is here represented as addressing himself. As pointed out earlier, the scribes were the acknowledged expounders and teachers of the Old Testament. The Pharisees professed to follow their teaching. Scribes, too, were generally Pharisees, but by no means every Pharisee was a scribe. For the characteristic weaknesses of the scribes and the Pharisees see on 5:20; 7:28, 29; and 15:1, 2. The increasing hostility of scribes and Pharisees toward Jesus is clear from such passages as 9:3, 11, 34; 12:2, 14, 24; 15:1; 16:1; 19:3; 21:45, 46; 22:15. They considered Jesus to be in league with Beelzebul, to be a blasphemer, one who was deceiving the multitudes and should not be allowed to live. Because of this situation it may seem somewhat strange that Jesus is now telling the assembled crowds and his disciples that they should do whatever the scribes and Pharisees tell them to do. The proposed solution, namely, that a sharp distinction must here be made between teachingand telling,as if Jesus meant, Do whatever the scribes and the Pharisees tellyou to do, but not whatever they teachyou to do, is too subtle to be satisfactory. The following should, however, be borne in mind: a. Christ's statement must not be interpreted absolutely, as if without any qualification whatever the precepts of the scribes and the Pharisees were to be obeyed. If that had been the meaning, Jesus would here be contradicting himself. See 5:21–48; 15:3–11. b. The context sheds light on the meaning. Not only did every synagogue probably have a special seat, called Moses chair, assigned to the most famous scribe of the town or village where the synagogue was [Greek] -2 _ftnref4 [Greek] but in a sense the scribes and Pharisees as a body could be described as occupying that chair. It was their business, especially that of the scribes, to teach the people the will of God as it had been revealed to Moses. Though these men were often mistaken, though they refused to see the fulfilment of prophecy in Jesus, and though by accepting the traditions of the fathers and even augmenting this mass of subtle distinctions and burdensome regulations they were often burying the law of God, it remains true nevertheless that on several points they in distinction from the Sadducees and the Herodians were telling and teaching the truth. See on 3:7. They believed, for example in the divine decree and providence, in human responsibility, in the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, the existence of angels, etc. Their views on the canon, too, were far more biblical than those of others. What Jesus must have meant, therefore, was that whenever the scribes and the Pharisees faithfully interpreted Moses, their instructions should be obeyed. c. The fact that before Jesus pronounces woes upon his bitter opponents, who are planning to kill him, he first has something good to say about their teaching should increase our reverence and love for him. Also, it should be borne in mind that not all the scribes and the Pharisees were necessarily hostile to Jesus. Simon invited him to dinner (Luke 7:36). Certain Pharisees warned him about physical danger (Luke 13:31). The scribe or law-expert referred to in (Matt. 22:35Mark 12:32 34) approved of Jesus summary of the law and was praised by him. See also (Luke 10:25 28. After Christ's resurrection another very distinguished Pharisee, Gamaliel (Paul's teacher), prevented the Jewish authorities from carrying out their plan to slay the apostlesActs 5:33 40). Though this is true, it is also a fact that by and large the scribes and Pharisees were enemies of Jesus, and were guilty of all the sinister qualities for which Jesus is about to condemn them. It was their conduct, even more than their teaching, which Jesus here denounces, as he continues &but do not do according to their deeds; for they say (things) but do not do (them).Cf. 7:21–23. This is explained especially in verses 4 and 23. 4. They tie up heavy burdens, and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger.Jesus had already made reference, though indirectly, to these heavy burdens (11:28–30). See also Acts 15:10, 28. They consisted of the many regulations by means of which the ancient rabbis, and the scribes and Pharisees after them, had buried the law of God and deprived men of their liberty and peace of mind; ordaining, for example, that plucking heads of grain amounted to reaping, hence was forbidden on the sabbath (12:1, 2); that (according to the opinion of the stricter scribes and Pharisees) healing a person on the sabbath was wrong unless that person's life were in immediate danger (12:9–14); and that ritual hand-rinsing in connection with every meal was required of everybody (15:1, 2). Cf. John 5:9, 10, 16, 18; 9:14, 16. The heaviest burden of all was the fear, encouraged by these leaders, that a man's good deeds must outbalance his evil deeds if he is to be saved. Jesus points out that, as far as they themselves were concerned, these scribes and Pharisees had mastered the art of avoiding burdens. That they would at times show others how to bypass obligations, even when these duties were assigned by the law of God itself, has already been shown (15:3–6). We may be sure, therefore, that what they would at times do for others they would be even more eager to do for themselves. Is it reasonable to suppose that men who neglected the more important requirements of the law(verse 23), would permit themselves to be at all times hamstrung by their own burdensome [Greek] -2 _ftnref5 [Greek] In verse 4 Jesus has described the lack of sincerity or consistency that characterized scribes and Pharisees, and also their lack of human sympathy. Then, too, they lacked humility: 5 7. They do all their deeds to attract the attention of the people; for they widen their phylacteries and enlarge their tassels; they love the place of honor at the banquets, the chief seats in the synagogues, the formal salutations in the market-places, and to have the people address them as rabbi.For the expression to attract the attention of the people see on 6:1. Illustrations of the manner in which the scribes and the Pharisees tried to harvest praise for themselves are now given. The following examples are in addition to those already furnished in 6:2–18. a. They widened their phylacteries. By phylacteries are meant the small leather cases, boxes, or capsules holding slips on which were written passages from the law: Exod. 13:3–10, 11 16(memorializing God's glorious deed in delivering Israel from Egyptian bondage and instituting the Passover); Deut. 6:4 9( Hear O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah, and you shall love Jehovah your God with all your heart &); and Deut. 11:13 21(how Jehovah will reward obedience to his law, and how children should be instructed in his ways: You shall teach them to your children, speaking of them when you sit in your house &). One of these capsules was fastened to the forehead, the other to the left arm (near the heart!), during prayer. This is still the practice of the members of the orthodox Jewish faith. It is based on Exod. 13:9, 16; Deut. 11:18. These phylacteries, then, were reminders to observe God's law, that is, to do so out of gratitude for his marvelous deeds in the interest of his people. As happens with so many of those reminders, among the superstitious they degenerate into charms to protect the wearer against harm and danger, particularly against demons. What verse 5 is saying is that the scribes and the Pharisees were in the habit of widening the straps by means of which these phylacteries were tied to the forehead and to the left arm. Making these thongs broader would cause them to stand out, so everyone could see what a law-observing and devout man was wearing them! b. They also enlarged or lengthened their tassels see on 9:21 and this for the same reason, namely, to make also these reminders of God's law more conspicuous, so that others, seeing these scribes and Pharisees, would honor them for their marvelous devotion, their celestial piety. c. They loved the place of honor at the banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues. Vanity and ostentatious display go hand in hand. Jesus issued a warning against this very sin of seeking the best seat at a banquet or dinner (Luke 14:8). James condemned the sin of assigning the best seat in the meeting-place to the rich, while telling the poor man to stand or else to sit on the floor near someone's footstool (2:2, 3). The best seats in the synagogue were those in front of the raised platform, on which stood the prayer leader and the reader of the Scriptures. Thus seated, a person had the double advantage of being near the person reading or leading in prayer, and of facing the congregation and thus being able to see everybody. Besides, being ushered to such a seat was regarded as a mark of honor. d. They yearned for the formal salutations in the market-places. Though the word used in the original can indicate a friendly spoken greeting, or a written message of regards (I Cor. 16:21; Col. 4:18; II Thess. 3:17), it has here a more formidable connotation, as the immediate context indicates. What the men who were here rebuked were always looking and longing for was not a mere token of friendliness but rather a demonstration of respect, a public recognition of their prominence: they wanted to be addressed as rabbi, a word derived from the Hebrew and literally meaning my lord, but subsequently used in addressing those who had attained a high reputation as teachers of God's law. For such honors as these the scribes and Pharisees whom Jesus had in mind were hungering and thirsting. Over against this vice of pomposity, so characteristic of many a Pharisee or scribe, Jesus commends the virtue of humility: 8 10. But as for yourselves, do not let the people call you rabbi, for One is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. And do not call anyone on earth your father, for One is your Father, the One in heaven. And do not let the people call you leaders; for One is your Leader, namely, Christ.Those who think that Jesus is here condemning the idea of an apostolic office are clearly mistaken. Was it not the Master himself who instituted the office? See 10:1, 5, 40; 18:18; John 20:21 23. Cf. Acts 1:15 26; 6:1–6; 13:1–3; 14:23; 20:28; Rom. 1:1; I Cor. 1:1; 9:1, 2; II Cor. 1:1; 12:12; Gal. 1:1; Philem. 8, 9. In the light of both the preceding and the following context the statement is justified that what Jesus is here condemning is the yearning for rank, for special recognition above one's fellow members. He is declaring that he alone is their Teacher. The Father in heaven alone is their Father; Christ alone, their Leader. It is not wrong, of course, to address one's immediate male ancestor as father. However, here in 23:9 Jesus is not speaking about physical or earthly fatherhood, but about fatherhood in the spiritual sphere. The warning was necessary. Many a Jew must have envied the man who was called rabbi; or, if a member of the Sanhedrin was addressed as father (Acts 7:2); or, if already departed from this earthly scene, having left behind him an illustrious memory, was referred to by the same title (Rom. 4:12; I Cor. 10:1; James 2:21). The epithet leader or guide, ascribed perhaps this is not certain to a beloved and highly honored teacher, sounded alluring. So Jesus is saying that the attention of his followers must not be fixed on human titles and distinctions but on God in Christ, worthy of all reverence, praise, and honor. The objection may be raised, however, that Paul, by implication, calls himself the father of the Corinthians and of Timothy, and even the mother of the Galatians (I Cor. 4:15; I Tim. 1:2, and Gal. 4:19). However, to state a fact is one thing; to yearn for distinctions and honors above one's fellowmen, and unrelated to the glory that is due to Christ, is something different. It is the latter that Jesus condemns. It is clear from the Corinthian context that it was only in Christ Jesus that Paul had begotten the Corinthians through the gospel. So also it was only in a secondary sense that Paul could call himself Timothy's father. He calls Timothy (my) genuine child (in faith,and, according to Paul's teaching, faith is God's giftEph. 2:8). As the context makes very plain (I Tim. 1:12), Paul thanks Christ Jesus for having enabled him to be of service. Finally, also in the Galatian passage the emphasis is not on Paul but on Christ: My dear children, for whom I am again suffering birth-pangs until Christ be formed in you. There is therefore nothing in any of these passages that can be considered to be in conflict with Matt. 23:8–10. As for Christ's followers in their relation to each other, all of them are brothers (23:8b), members of one spiritual family. See N.T.C. on (Eph. 3:14, 15. Therefore no one has a right to look down on any of the others. Remember Phil. 2:3! The spirit of the Pharisees, who considered themselves to be far more worthy of respect and honor than that crowd of ignoramuses, the rabble that does not know the lawJohn 7:49), is here condemned. In the same vein Jesus continues: (11. He who is greatest among you shall be your servant,virtually repeating the words of 20:26, 27 (see on that passage). 12. Moreover, whoever exalts himself shall be humbled, and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.With minor variations this proverb occurs in Scripture again and againJob 22:29; Prov. 29:23; Luke 14:11; 18:14; James 4:6; I Peter 5:5). As to self-centered ambition and vanity, Before downfall goes pride; and before stumbling, a haughty spirit (Prov. 16:18). Was not this the experience of Sennacherib (II Chron. 32:14, 21), of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 4:30–33), and of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:21 23)? On the other hand, as to humility, God himself promises to dwell with the person who is of a contrite and humble spirit (Isa. 57:15). What more glorious exaltation can one desire? Examples: the commended centurion (Matt. 8:8, 10, 13), the humble Syrophoenician woman (15:27, 28), and the penitent tax-collector (Luke 18:13, 14). Jesus Christ himself is both the cause of his disciples humility (Phil. 1:6; 4:13, 19), and their example in humility and in rendering willing service (Matt. 20:25–28; Luke 22:27; John 13:1 15; Phil. 2:5–8). The present passage (Matt. 23:11, 12) should be compared to all similar teaching in this Gospel. In addition to 20:26, 27 (already mentioned) see also 5:5; 11:29; 12:18–21; 18:1–4; 19:14. Cf. (Luke 22:27; John 13:1 15; Phil. 2:5–8; James 4:6, 10; I Peter 5:5. When all these passages are studied it will become clear that apart from humility there is no salvation and no life to the glory of God. Christ's teaching on humility is one of the most important and constantly recurring subjects in the entire New Testament. Without fear of successful contradiction one can say that humble trust in God and grateful eagerness to carry out his will is stressed throughout Scripture. Where then is the glorying [or boasting]? It is excluded!Rom. 3:27). Here begin The Seven Woes. Why did Jesus utter them? Probably because his soul was deeply stirred by the impenitence of so many of the scribes and Pharisees, and this in spite of all the evidences he had furnished of the fulfilment of Messianic prophecy in himself. Also, because he knew that they had so many followers among the people. His heart and mind were filled with sorrow when he thought of this. He knew that exposing his opponents was in the interest of the people. Add one more fact: this was going to be Christ's final public address, hence his last opportunity personally to warn the people against these enemies of the truth. So he must make the best use of it. As to the nature of these woes, they must be regarded as denunciations. Any softer way of describing them fails to do justice to the exclamation hypocrites! (six times) and blind guides! (once), and to such passages as verses 15, 17, 28, 33, and 35. But they are also expressions of sorrow, as the sequel (verses 37 39) clearly indicates. These two designations denunciations and expressions of sorrow are not necessarily self-contradictory. See I Sam. 3:15–18; 15:13–31; II Sam. 12:7–13. The seven woes are addressed to the scribes and Pharisees. Does this necessarily mean that these men were present? How do commentators deal with this question? a.Several completely avoid it; b.according to H. A. W. Meyer they are present but keeping themselves in the background; c.according to R. C. H. Lenski they are present, and Jesus hurls his fearful woes into their faces; and d.according to F. W. Grosheide they are no longer present, so that the seven woes must be considered a figure of speech, or, as others have described them a rhetorical apostrophe. Certainty in reaching a conclusion is perhaps impossible. My reasons for leaning toward Grosheide's position are as follows: a.The presence of the Pharisees during the incident related in 22:34–40 is definitely stated; so is also their presence immediately afterward (22:41–46); but in chapter 23 their presence is nowhere mentioned; b.23:1 states that Christ's address was delivered before an audience consisting of the crowds and his disciples; c.throughout the first twelve verses the scribes and the Pharisees are referred to in the third person, as if they were not present; their sudden reappearance at verse 13, without a word being mentioned about this, would be strange; d.the figure of speech called apostrophethe turning awayfrom the immediate audience presently from the people in general and from the disciples in order to address a person or persons, a thing or things, living or dead, and not present is by no means rare but abounds in the Hebrew prophets, the oriental mind being notably given to express thoughts and feelings in this emotional style [Greek] -2 _ftnref6 [Greek] and e.is not even Christ's lament over impenitent Jerusalem, at the close of this very chapter (verses 37 39) in the nature of an apostrophe? In six of these seven woes Jesus calls the scribes and Pharisees hypocrites. Immediately afterward (verse 33) he styles them snakes &offspring of vipers, which, in the final analysis, does not differ materially from hypocrites. To determine just what is meant by this term hypocrites it is well to review its use in other Matthean passages. Does the evangelist merely mean that Christ's enemies opposed him because they did not know any better? Or does he mean that they willfully and wickedly slandered him; that is, that they were dishonest, were fighting their own inner convictions? The use of the word in 6:2, 5 favors the latter meaning, for in these passages men are described who, while pretending to be generous toward the poor and to be praising God in prayer, are actually intending to garner honor for themselves. According to 6:16 they are putting on an act when in fasting they artificially disfigure their faces so as to appear very sorry for their sins, while what they are really after is praise from men. In 15:7, 8 they honor God with their lips, while their hearts are far from him. In 22:18 they are called hypocrites because they are addressing Jesus with words of flattery though their real purpose is to trip him up, so that a formal charge may be leveled against him. Finally, the servant mentioned in 24:51 never told his master that during the latter's absence he, this servant, was going to get drunk and to beat up his fellow-servants. We are told that his portion would be with the hypocrites. The only conclusion we can arrive at, therefore, is that also here in chapter 23 the hypocrite is the man who pretends to be better than he really is. He is a fraud, a deceiver, a phony, a wolf in sheep's clothing, a snake in the grass. In the first of the seven woes Jesus reproves the scribes and the Pharisees because, though pretending to be door-openers, they actually shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in men's faces: 13. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces; for you yourselves are not entering, nor do you permit those to go in who are trying to enter.For the meaning of the concept kingdom of heaven see on 4:23; 13:43. In the present case, as frequently, it is perhaps best not to define this concept too narrowly. It may here be described as the reign of God in Christ that begins on earth in human hearts and lives and is perfected in the hereafter. The denunciation views the matter of entering the kingdom from the aspect of human responsibility. It would be wrong, therefore, to draw the conclusion that Jesus is saying that the scribes and Pharisees are stronger than God, that is, that they are able to thwart or frustrate God's design. What is probably meant is simply this, that these leaders, in addition to not themselves entering by accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior, are exerting a sinister influence on other men, resulting in apostasy from Christ, in the sense of (John 6:66. They are deceivers of men, genuine followers of SatanGen. 3:1, 4, 5). They are false prophets. Cf. Num. 15:1, 2; II Chron. 18:15; Rev. 2:14, 15, 20. They accomplished their purpose by opposing Jesus, so that those who allowed themselves to be influenced by them concluded that they must also oppose him. Specifically, the scribes and Pharisees fought Jesus by means of (a. their teaching,that is, by proclaiming the doctrine of work-righteousness. Think of their many rules and regulations directly contrary to the doctrine of grace and freedom in Christ. By such teaching they took away from the people the key of knowledgeLuke 11:52; cf. Hos. 4:6). They also fought Jesus by means of b. their conduct. The result upon those who associated with them was as indicated in I Cor. 15:33. In the second woe Jesus rebukes his opponents because they do more harm than good to those whom they win over from heathendom. [Greek] -2 _ftnref7 [Greek] Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you travel about on sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he has become one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are yourselves.The years during which the incarnation and the earthly ministry of Christ took place were pre-eminently marked by missionary activity carried on by the [Greek] -2 _ftnref8 ([Greek] This is not strange. In fact, the Jewish religion, in contrast with all kinds of pagan cults, had never been exclusivistic. The following passages prove that from the very beginning it was the will of God that strangers should have a share in the blessings of salvation: Gen. 22:18; Exod. 12:49; Lev. 19:34; I Kings 8:41–43; Ezra 6:21; Ps. 72:8–17; 87; Isa. 54:2, 3; 56:3–8; 60:1–3; Jer. 39:15–18; Joel 2:28 32; Amos 9:11, 12; Zech. 8:23; Mal. 1:11. It is true that the prophet Jonah was anything but mission-minded. But for that very sin God rebuked and punished himJonah 4). Over against pagan idolatry and immorality, such activity whereby the religion of the one true God was made known to those in darkness was a great blessing. Moreover, by means of the open synagogue, the translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek we are thinking now especially of the Seputagint (LXX) translation the very life and habits of devout Israelites, their songs, testimonies, etc., the Gentiles had been greatly blessed, so that many had turned away from their former wicked practices and superstitions, and had begun to attend the synagogues. During the apostolic age this very opportunity of meeting and addressing people of pagan origin who through such Jewish missionary activity had (arrived ator tothe worship of Jehovah, and were therefore called proselytesActs 2:10; 6:5; 13:43), became a boon for the spread of the good tidings of salvation in Christ. In dealing with the concept proselytes one has to be very careful, however. These people did not all belong to one and the same category. They did not all accept the Jewish religion hook, line, and sinker. Some are called worshipers of God (Acts 16:14; 18:7) or simply worshipers, devout persons (Acts 13:50; 17:4, 17). They had given up their heathen practices and had become sufficiently sympathetic toward the religion of the Jews to attend the synagogue. It was especially from among such proselytes of the gate that many (for example, Lydia) were reached by the gospel and turned to Christ. Others, however, proceeded much farther in changing from paganism to the religion of the Jews. Though it was impossible for them to become Jews by race,they did become Jews in religion;in fact, to such an extent that by means of baptism and the bringing of a sacrifice and in the case of men by being also circumcised and by promising to submit to all the commandments, including all the rabbinical regulations, they were accepted into the Jewish community, as proselytes of righteousness, new men and new women. They were even given new names. Now we may be sure that when Matt. 23:15tells us that the scribes and the Pharisees compassed sea and land to make a single proselyte it is the latter kind of proselyte to which reference is made. It was not the purpose of the Pharisees merely to change a Gentile into a Jew; no, he must become a full-fledged, legalistic, ritualistic, hair-splitting Pharisee, one filled with fanatical zeal for his new salvation-by-works religion. As Jesus implies, soon this new convert would even out-Pharisee the Pharisees in bigotry, for it is a fact that new converts frequently outdo themselves in becoming fanatically devoted to their new [Greek] -2 _ftnref9 [Greek] This explains why Jesus can say, and when he has become one [a proselyte], you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are yourselves. A son of hell is a typically Hebrew way of saying a person belonging to, worthy of, and bound for hell. When Jesus saw in the Pharisees the annulment of God's sovereignty and the enthronement of man-made righteousness, he as the obedient Servant of God could only speak in truthful assessment as to what they were doing to themselves and their converts among the Gentiles. [Greek] -2 _ftnref10 [Greek] In the third woe Jesus shows how the religious leaders of the Jews were turning the truth regarding the oath upside down: 16 22. Woe to you, blind guides! that say, Whoever swears by the temple, that amounts to nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath. You blind fools, for which is more important: the gold, or the temple that sanctifies the gold? And [who say], Whoever swears by the altar, that amounts to nothing, but whoever swears by the offering upon it, he is bound by his oath. You blind men, for what is more important: the offering, or the altar that sanctifies the offering? Therefore he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by whatever is on it; and he who swears by the temple, swears by it and by him who dwells in it; and he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by him who sits on it.After the rather detailed exegesis of 5:33–37 it would be superfluous to say much about its parallel here in 23:16–22. The main implication of both paragraphs is the same: Let there be truth in heart and life. Then flippant oaths will disappear. Both paragraphs also place emphasis on the fact that even oaths by heaven, earth, Jerusalem, a person's head (chap. 5), or by the sanctuary, the altar, heaven (chap. 23), are binding. In the final analysis every oath is an oath by God, and therefore binding. The present paragraph (23:16–22), in distinction from the one in chapter 5, shows how stupid and absurd it is to say that an oath by the sanctuarythe inner temple,consisting of the holy place and the holy of holies amounts to nothing, but that an oath by the gold of the sanctuary is binding; that an oath by the altar is not valid; but one by the gift on the altar, valid. Naturally it is the greater, in the present case the sanctuary and the altar, that lends sacredness to the lesser; that is, respectively, to the gold of the sanctuary and to the gift on the altar; just as, for example, the office of the president of the United States is greater than the person who happens to be elevated to it at any particular point in history. But whether one swears by the sanctuary, by its gold; by the altar, by its gift; by heaven, or by God's throne, in the final analysis all such oaths are by God who owns all and controls all. The present paragraph accordingly emphasizes that the scribes and the Pharisees, in reversingpalpable truths, as if the gold were superior to the temple; the gift, to the altar, so that oaths by the latter of each pair would not be binding, reveal themselves as being blind and foolish, guides that are dangerous, hence not to be trusted and [Greek] -2 _ftnref11 [Greek] In the fourth woe Jesus returns to the introductory words of the first and second woes. He accuses the scribes and Pharisees of inverting values, as if tithing small aromatic herbs were of greater significance than practicing the heavier (thus literally) demands of the law: 23, 24. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, but have neglected the more important requirements of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness.& On the one hand these men scrupulously observed the tithing ordinance of Lev. 27:30–33; Deut. 14:22–29. In fact, as was usual with them, they even overdid it, by giving to the Lord the tenth portion of the small aromatic herbs which they grew in their gardens, and requiring their followers to do likewise. As they saw it, the sweet-smelling mint, the well-known dill, and the small, tender seeds of cummin (or cumin), all three of this series being used to flavor [Greek] -2 _ftnref12 [Greek] must by all means be tithed! Now in the law of Moses not a word is said about tithing these. However, if a person had reminded these scribes and company of this fact, they would immediately have answered, But does not the law definitely demand that all the increase of your seed be tithed? To the mind of a scribe or Pharisee this would have amounted to an unanswerable argument in favor of their position. However, careful examination of the contextshows that what the law really meant at least emphasized was that, as far as products of the field were concerned, the three great crops of the land, namely, grain, wine, and oil, should be tithed. Scribes and Pharisees were always illegitimately over-extending or over-stretching the law. Was not that exactly what they also did with respect to fasting, hand-rinsing, sabbath-observance, etc.? However, they committed even a far greater sin: their inflexible insistence on tithing mint, dill, and cummin was coupled with neglect of the more important requirements of the law, namely, justice and mercy and faithfulness. They stressed human regulations at the expense of divine ordinances! It is upon this point that all the emphasis is placed here in verses 23, 24. As to the triad justice and mercy and faithfulness, it would be difficult to find a better commentary than the one offered in (Mic. 6:8, He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does Jehovah require of you, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God? So interpreted we see immediately that the combination justiceand mercymeans the exercise of fairness and helpfulness with respect to the neighbor. This so often was the exact opposite of the attitude of the scribe and Pharisee toward the common people of their generation (see on verse 25), and had also been lacking in the Israel of Micah's day, as is clearly indicated in Mic. 2:2, 9; 3:2, 3. We shall have no trouble therefore in explaining these concepts when we examine them in the light of their specific contexts. In Micah's day the Lord's controversy was pre-eminently with the leaders: the prophets, priests, and princes. Therefore Micah denounced idolatry and hollow ritualism. So also Christ's controversy is with the leaders, whose similar hollow ritualism he condemns. There is also this further parallel between Mic. 6:8and Matt. 23:23, that in both cases not only the duty a man owes to his neighbors is emphasizedZech. 7:8–10; Col. 3:12, 13), but in the same breath also his obligation toward God:walking humbly with him, being and remaining faithful or loyal to him. Such faithfulnesscannot exist apart from faithin God! Jesus adds: but these you should have kept, without neglecting the others.This addition has led to conflicting interpretations. As I see it, two extreme positions should be avoided. On the one hand we should not interpret this to mean that, after all, Jesus is here endorsing the tithing of mint, dill, and cummin. If he were saying this, would he not be defeating his very argument? Besides, the parallelism in verse 24 shows that the Lord is subjecting such overly conscientious tithing to scorn and is comparing it to filtering out a gnat but swallowing a camel! On the other hand, it is not necessary, it would appear to me, to draw the conclusion that since these words seem to be out of line with Christ's doctrine of freedom and with his entire argument against the scribes and Pharisees, he cannot have uttered them; so that, consequently, they must be regarded as a marginal note which, without any justification, was by a legalistic scribe subsequently inserted into the text. What Jesus probably meant was this: These, that is, God's ordinances with respect to tithing, you should have observed, without neglecting the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faithfulness. As long as the divinely enacted ceremonial ordinances had not been blotted out (Col. 2:14), that is, as long as Jesus had not as yet died on the cross, the law with respect to tithing was still valid. The reference here is to God slaw, as actually found in Lev. 27:30 33(and a few other places), not to man-made over-extensions of God's law. Such totally unwarranted misapplications and misuses of the law had, of course, never been justified. When the question is asked, What principles does the New Testament contain to guide the believer in the financial contributions toward kingdom causes which he should make, and by gratitude feels impelled to make, the answer would be as follows: (a.he should give systematically and proportionately, that is, in proportion to his abilityI Cor. 16:2); and (b.he should give generously and cheerfullyII Cor. 9:7). Jesus adds: You blind guides, who strain out the gnat but swallow the camel.This is not an entirely new thought. It is simply another and very impressive way of repeating the same denunciation and stressing the same truth. By tithing mint, dill, and cummin, while ignoring justice, mercy, and faithfulness, these enemies of Christ were indeed straining [Greek] -2 _ftnref13 ([Greek] a gnatLev. 11:42), while gulping down a camel (Lev. 11:4)! It is perhaps unnecessary to add that this is figurative language, the type of style Jesus is using repeatedly (see also 5:13, 29, 30, 39; 7:3–6; 8:22; 12:43–45; 18:8, 9; 21:21; etc.). The meaning is: they were paying no attention to the really important requirements of God's law but spending all their thought and energy on that which was totally unimportant. No wonder that Jesus prefaces his metaphor by calling these men blind guides. To be blind is sad enough; but, while in this condition, to serve as a guide, that is disastrous for all those who allow themselves to be guided by such willfully blind men. The fifth woe is closely related to the fourth. It does not begin by fixing our attention on food but rather on vessels cups and dishes in which consumables are served: 25, 26. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of extortion and intemperance.For the ceremonial rinsing of vessels see on 15:1–20; also N.T.C. on John 4:9b and on Gal. 2:11–13. See also what is said about the tradition of the elders touching this subjectMark 7:4b . It is clear from the entire context that when Jesus speaks about the outside of the cup and dish he has in mind the entire cup and dish, in distinction from what was put into them. What the Lord is saying, then, is that his opponents pay far more attention to ritualistic cleansing of these vessels than to (a.the origin of the things that go into them and b.the manner in which the contents are consumed. The cup and the dish may have been made ever so clean ceremonially and physically, but if what they contain was obtained by means of extortion how can this compliance with a tradition avail the scribes and the Pharisees? These men were harpies,as the Greek original clearly indicates. They were rapacious, greedy and grasping. Jesus undoubtedly has reference to something very definite when he said this, though it is not easy to determine just what it was. Luke 16:14may be of some help. It shows that the accused were not philanthropists,lovers of men but (pardon the word) philargurists,lovers of money. They were the kind of people who devoured widows housesMark 12:40; Luke 20:47). Does this mean that to funds under their control and from which they could draw, these men asked widows to contribute more than could be reasonably expected of them? Think of Luther's battle against indulgences and, even more to the point, of C. Chiniquy's chapter, The Priest, Purgatory, and the poor Widow's Cow. [Greek] -2 _ftnref14 [Greek] Not only were the scribes and the Pharisees guilty because of the manner in which they obtained the contents of cup and dish and their clothes, houses, gold and silver, etc. but also because of the manner in which they used whatever they had obtained. They were guilty of [Greek] -2 _ftnref15 [Greek] They were probably not as conspicuous in this trait as were those coarse materialists, the Sadducees. After all, one can expect scribes and Pharisees to be refined! Yet, even among the scribes and the Pharisees there must have been a generous sprinkling of guzzlers. Jesus, continuing his rhetorical apostrophe, now turns to the individual Pharisee. For a moment he uses the singular instead of the plural, doing this to enhance the effect of his message: You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup, so that the outside of it may also become clean.Meaning: outward conformity to the traditions of the elders, in the present case by thoroughly cleaning the outside of cup and dish, will never bring about inner purity of heart. By the grace of God the inside must be purified first. When that has been done one need not bother about outward ceremonial cleansing. The man who fails to see this is blind,willfully so! Also between the fifth woe and the sixth there is a close relationship, as even the occurrence of the words outside and inside in both of these woes indicates. Jesus is about to point out that the sin of his opponents is that they externalize religion, as if outward appearance were an adequate cover for shame and crime. (27, 28. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you resemble whitewashed tombs, which, while they appear beautiful on the outside, on the inside are full of dead men's bones and all kinds of filth.Passover was just around the corner. This meant that the pilgrims, streaming into Jerusalem from every direction, near the city saw many a whitewashed tomb. With powdered lime dust a few weeks earlier the burial places had been made to look spick-and-span, neat and trim. They had been made conspicuous, lest any pilgrim should render himself ceremonially unclean by inadvertently coming into contact with a corpse or a human bone. See Num. 19:16; Luke 11:44. Yet, on the inside such graves were full of dead men's bones and all kinds of dirt and debris. Similarly,says Jesus, you too outwardly seem to people to be righteous, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.See also Acts 23:3. For proof of the hypocrisy of which Jesus speaks see 6:1–8, 16:18; 15:1–20; 16:1–12; 22:15–18, and, in 23:1–36, all that precedes and follows the present passage. What really counts, as far as God is concerned, is what a man is on the inside, morally and spirituallyI Sam. 16:7). The lawlessness here mentioned is not the condition of being without law but that of despising God's law. The seventh woe shows that in spite of their inner perversity these men boast about their superior goodness. But their murderous designs against those who warn them prove that they are the opposite of what they claim to be: (29 32. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, and you say, If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in (shedding) the blood of the prophets.Building such tombs may indicate erecting new structures large imposing tombs or mausoleums over the places where the prophets had been buried. The verb can also refer, however, to the enlargement or keeping in repair of older structures. It is thought by some that the tomb of the prophet Zechariah at the base of the Mount of Olives was, in some sense, being builtduring Christ's earthly ministry. That David's tomb was being kept in honor is clear from Acts 2:29. Such elaborite tombs were at the same time monuments or memorials in honor of the dead. On the basis of that interpretation tombs and monuments would be synonymsII Kings 23:17); so would the prophets and the righteous. There could also be monumentsdistinct from graves. In Gen. 35:20we read about the pillar of Rachel's grave. The hypocrisy which Jesus signalizes refers to the fact that these very scribes and Pharisees who occupied themselves with the task of thus honoring the prophets, at the same time were making plans to murder the greatest Prophet of all! See 12:14; 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 21:38, 39, 46; 22:15. Yet, they were saying, If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have co-operated with them in murdering the prophets. Whether the boasters realized it or not, their statement implied, We are sons of murderers. And the evil intention of their hearts proved that they themselves too were indeed murderers. They were not only sons of murderers but typicalsons: the blood of their murdering fathers was still in their veins. It was exactly as Jesus said: So you are testifying against yourselves (in acknowledging) that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.He continues: Go ahead then, and make full the measure (of the guilt) of your fathers.This rhetorical exhortation reminds one of John 13:27, What you [Judas] are doing, do it faster. The Lord is as it were saying, Since you have hardened yourselves against all warnings, the responsibility is now entirely yours. Because of the baseness of your hearts, the crime you have planned can no longer be averted. Carry it out therefore, and suffer the punishment. The discourse or oration now proceeds toward its momentous climax, as Jesus pronounces upon these men hardened in sin the judgment that can no longer be avoided: 33. You snakes, you offspring of vipers! how are you going to escape being sentenced to hell?Literally &how shall you [Greek] -2 _ftnref16 [Greek] the condemning judgment of Gehenna? For you offspring of vipers see on 3:7. John the Baptist had added, Who warned you to escape from the approaching (outpouring of) wrath? For the meaning of hell, here literally Gehenna, see on 10:28. And for judgment see on 5:22. What Jesus is saying, therefore, is that escape for these often warned but obdurate impenitents is now no longer possible. Continued: 34 36. Therefore, look, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes.The passage must be interpreted in the light of a.its context; see especially verses 31, 32; and b.the parallel passage, Luke 11:49. As to a.,the context indicates that in verses 34, 35 Jesus is showing how the scribes and Pharisees, together with all their followers, are proving and are going to prove that they are indeed typical sons of their fathers, who murdered the prophets. History is being repeated. The measure of the fathers guilt is being, and is going to be, made full. As to b.,Luke 11:49shows that what Jesus is saying in Matt. 23:34, 35was also what Jehovah in his wisdom had declared concerning the sins of those who would kill his ambassadors, and concerning the judgments that would be visited upon them. In other words Jesus, in saying Ivery emphatic am sending you prophets&, is declaring that in making this statement he joins his voice to that of the God who inspired the Old Testament prophets. Although it is true that, in this exact form verses 34, 35 occur nowhere in the Old Testament or in any other written source known to us, in essencewhat we have here is also found in the Old Testament; for example, in Jer. 7:25–29. In that passage, too, the Lord stated the same three facts found here in Matt. 23:34, 35. A side by side comparison will show that this is true: 1 , I have sent to you all my servants, the prophets. Yet the people did not hearken to me, nor inclined their ear, but made their neck stiff. They did worse than their fathers. Jehovah has rejected and forsaken the generation of his wrath. & that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah.& In both cases the prophetic voice, the refusal to heed it, and the punishment are mentioned. It is as it were a timeless story. The decision or decree to pour final wrath upon all those who harden their hearts was made not only in the days of Jesus sojourn on earth, nor only in the days of Jeremiah and the other prophets, but all the way back in God's eternal plan. As to the further details here in Matt. 23:34, 35, the prophets are all those who truly declare the will and mind of God to the people: Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the prophets and teachers mentioned in Acts 13:1, 2, Agabus, etc. The greatest prophet of them all is Jesus. But were not all the apostles also, in a sense, prophets?Were they not also wise men,those who, filled with wisdom from God, preached Christ, who himself is the wisdom of God? See I Cor. 1:23, 24, 30. And as to the apostles substituting Matthias for Judas, and adding Paul were they not also scribes?See on 13:52 for proof that the term scribes is at times used in a favorable sense, to indicate those who are well-versed in the gospel and are able to impart it to others; sometimes (think of Matthew, John, and Paul) even in written form. Though Jesus himself did not write anything that was transmitted to us, did he not inspire all the truescribes? The very fact that where Matthew has prophets and wise men and scribes Luke writes prophets and apostles shows that it would be wrong for us to try to distinguish here between three different groups, as if some of the Lord's ambassadors during the old or new dispensation were prophets, some wise men, and still others scribes. In the present context the three different terms simply view God's emissaries from three different angles. Continued: (Some of them you shall kill and crucify, and some you shall flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.Fulfilment: as to kill and crucify, or kill, even crucify, think of Jesus himself (27:31, 35); and of PeterJohn 21:18, 19). As to flog or scourge (see on 10:17), think of those who at the suggestion of Paul before his conversion were thus cruelly treated (Acts 22:19; 26:11); and consider Paul himself, after his conversion (II Cor. 11:24). And with respect to pursued from town to town (see on 10:23), recall the passage: I [Paul before my conversion] persecuted them even all the way to foreign cities (Acts 26:11). It is indeed remarkable how literally this prophecy was going to be fulfilled. The book of Acts bears testimony to this fact. The Jews were always on the heels of the Christian missionaries. They never tired of pursuing them: at Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:45, 50), Iconium (14:2), Lystra (14:19), Thessalonica (17:5), Berea (17:13), Corinth (18:12; 20:3), Jerusalem (21:27; 23:12), and Caesarea (24:1–9). God allows all this to happen. In fact, his own (purposeis being realized in all of this, both in the reward given to those persecutedRom. 8:28, 37; II Cor. 4:17, 18), and in the punishment of the persecutors. As to the latter, Jesus continues: that upon you may come (the guilt of) all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. I solemnly assure yousee on 5:18 all these things shall come upon this generation. First of all a matter touching the text must be briefly investigated. It concerns Zechariah, son of Barachiah, whom you murdered.& The reference is undoubtedly to the Zechariah whose courageous testimony and cruel death are recorded in (II Chron. 24:20–22. The reason why Jesus says from Abel to Zechariah is that according to the arrangement of the books in the Hebrew Bible Genesis comes first, Chronicles last. What Jesus is saying then is that the blood of all those righteous men whose murder stories, from first to last that is, from Abel to Zechariah are recorded in Scripture (the Old Testament) is charged to this generationLuke 11:50), the Jewish people, particularly Christ's own contemporaries. See on 1:17. So far there is no difficulty in understanding the text. The real problem is that here in Matthew the murdered Zechariah of (II Chron. 24:20 22is called son of Barachiah, but Chronicles calls him the son of Jehoiada the priest. Also, the minor prophet Zechariah, of a much later date, was indeed the son of BerechiahZech. 1:1). I shall not weary the reader with the enumeration and discussion of all the proposed solutions. Among them all the three best may well be the following: a. As is true of so many other persons mentioned in Scripture, so also here: the father of the murdered man had two names, Jehoiada and Barachiah (or Berechiah). b. As happens more often in Scripture, father (II Chron. 24:22) means grandfather. Those who favor this theory claim that it is supported by the statistics regarding the persons who are prominently mentioned in the account (II Chron. 24:1, 2, 15). c. Into an early copy of Matthew's Gospel, at 23:35, a copyist who remembered the name of the father of the minor prophet erroneously and without any warrant inserted son of Barachiah. [Greek] -2 _ftnref17 [Greek] On the basis of none of these three proposed solutions is the fully inspired author of this Gospel charged with any error. Any of the three may be correct. Nevertheless, with Ridderbos, I believe that c.is the most simple. Returning now to the explanation of the passage, it means, You shall do all these things kill, crucify, flog, pursue in order that it may become crystal clear that the sentence pronounced upon you was thoroughly justified. Thus the river of blood, from Abel to Zechariah, is followed by the river of fire, the fire of God's wrath and punishment. This wrath was poured out upon the Jewish people because in murdering the Christ and persecuting his ambassadors they showed that they were of one mind with those in bygone days who had murdered the prophets. Moreover, all these terrible crimes had been committed in spite of repeated warnings and earnest invitations to repent. Think, for example, of the manner in which Cain had been admonished earnestly and even tenderly (Gen. 4:6, 7). Nevertheless, he went right ahead and murdered his brother Abel. And think also of the kindness that had been bestowed upon King Joash by Jehoiada the father of Zechariah. In spite of this it was at the command of Joash that Zechariah, God's true and faithful servant, had been murdered. Moreover, this deed of cruelty had been committed in the immediate vicinity of the sanctuary!Between Abel and Zechariah ever so many other righteous men had been similarly treated. See on 5:12. Even Jesus, the very climax of God's love, was about to be murdered also; in fact, by many had already been rejected. And, as has been indicated, the same was in store for the prophets, wise men, and scribes of the New Testament era. Result: the Jews cease to be in any special sense the people of God. Jerusalem falls (a.d. 70) amid indescribable horrors. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTERS XXIV XXV Chapters 24 and 25 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him to Do The Last Things The Sixth Great Discourse 24:1 25:46 The Last Things 24 1 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples approached him to call his attention to buildings of the temple. 2 He answered them, Do you see all this? I solemnly assure you, there shall not be left here one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down. 3 And as he was sitting on the Mount of Olives the disciples came to him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall this happen, and what (shall be) the sign of thy coming and of the end of the age? 4 Jesus replied, Take care that no one misleads you. 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am the Christ, and shall mislead many. 6 And you are going to hear about wars and rumors of wars, but watch out; do not be disturbed, for such things must happen, but that is not yet the end. 7 For (one) nation shall rise up in arms against (another) nation, and (one) kingdom against (another) kingdom, and there shall be famines and earthquakes in various places, 8 but all these things are (only) the beginning of birth pains. 9. Then you shall be handed over to tribulation and you shall be put to death, and you shall be hated by all the nations for my name's sake. 10 And then many shall fall away,^[786] betraying and hating each other. 11 And many false prophets shall arise and shall mislead many; 12 and because lawlessnesss shall increase, the love of the majority shall grow cold. 13 But he that endures to the end, he shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then shall come the end. 15 Now when you see the desolating sacrilege, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place let him who reads understand, 16 then let those in Judea flee to the hills; 17 let him who (happens to be) on the housetop not go down to get the things out that are in his house; 18 and let him who is in the field not go back to get his coat. 19 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who nurse babies in those days! 20 Pray that your flight may not occur in winter or on the sabbath; 21 for then there shall be great tribulation, such as there has never been since the beginning of the world until now, and as there shall never be again. 22 And if those days were not cut short no one would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days shall be cut short. 23 At that time if anyone should say to you, Look, here (is) the Christ! or There (he is)!, do not believe (him); 24 for false Christs shall arise and false prophets, and shall perform great signs and miracles, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time. 26 So, if they shall say to you, Look, he is in the wilderness, do not go out there; Look, he is in the inner rooms, do not believe (them). 27 For as the lightning goes out from the east and flashes clear to the west, so shall be the coming of the Son of man. 28 Wherever there is a corpse, there the vultures will gather. 29 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 the sky, And the powers of the heaven shall be shaken. 30 And then the sign of the Son of man shall appear in the sky, and then All the tribes of the earth shall mourn, and they shall see The Son of man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory; 31 and he shall send forth his angels with a loud trumpet blast, and they shall gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. 32 Now from the fig tree learn this lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So also you, when you see all this, know then that it is near, at the very gates. 34 I solemnly declare to you that this generation shall certainly not pass away until all this takes place. 35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall never pass away. 36 But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven nor the Son, but the Father only. 37 And as (were) the days of Noah, so shall be the coming of the Son of man. 38 For just as men were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, 39 not recovering their senses until the flood came and swept them all away, so also shall be the coming of the Son of man. 40 Then two men shall be in the field; one is taken, one left behind. 41 Two women (shall be) grinding with a hand-mill; one is taken, one left behind. 42 Be on the alert, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. 43 But this you do know, that if the owner of the house had known at what watch of the night the burglar would arrive, he would have been on the alert, and would not have allowed his house to be broken into. 44 Therefore you also, be ready, for at an hour when you do not expect (him), the Son of man comes. 45 Who then is the faithful and sensible servant whom the master has put in charge of his household employees, to give them food at the proper time? 46 Blessed is that servant whom his master at his coming shall find so doing. 47 I solemnly assure you that he shall set him over all his possessions. 48 But if that servant be wicked, and shall say in his heart, My master is taking his time, 49 and shall begin to beat up his fellow-servants, and shall eat and drink with drunkards, 50 the master of that servant shall arrive on a day when he does not expect him, and at an hour he does not figure on,^[787] 51 and shall cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; there shall be weeping and grinding of teeth. 25 1 Then the kingdom of heaven shall be comparable to ten girls, who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2 Five of them were foolish, and five sensible. 3 For the foolish, having taken their lamps, took no oil with them; 4 but the sensible took oil in their vessels with their lamps. 5 Now when the bridegroom was taking his time, they all grew drowsy^[788] and (soon) were sleeping. 6 But at midnight there was a shout, Here comes the bridegroom! Go out to meet him! 7 Then all those girls awoke and trimmed their lamps. 8 And the foolish said to the sensible, Give us some of your oil, because our lamps are going out. 9 But the sensible girls answered. There may not be enough for both us and you. You better go to those who sell (it), and buy (some) for yourselves. 10 However, when they were on their way to buy, there came the bridegroom! The girls who were ready went in with him to the wedding, and the door was shut. 11 Later the other girls came also, saying, Sir, sir, open the door for us. 12 But he replied, I solemnly declare, I do not know you. 13 Keep on the alert, therefore, because you do not know the day or the hour. 14 For (it is) like a man going abroad, who called his servants and placed his property in their hands. 15 To one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one, to each according to his ability; then he went abroad. 16 At once the man who had received the five talents went and put them to work and gained five more. 17 So also the man (who had) the two gained two more. 18 But the man who had received the one (talent) went off, dug a hole in the ground, and hid his master's money. 19 Now a long while afterward the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. 20 He who had received the five talents came forward, brought five additional talents, and said, Master, five talents you placed in my hands; look, an additional five talents I have gained. 21 His master said to him, Well done, good and faithful servant. Over a small amount you have been faithful, over much I am going to put you in charge; come, share your master's happiness. 22 He (who had received) the two talents also came forward, and said, Master, two talents you placed in my hands; look, an additional two talents I have gained. 23 His master said to him, Well done, good and faithful servant. Over a small amount you have been faithful, over much I am going to put you in charge; come, share your master's happiness. 24 Also he who had received the one talent came forward and said, Master, I always knew that you were a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter; 25 so, being afraid, I went away and hid your talent in the ground; look, (here) you have what is yours. 26 But his master answered and said to him, You wicked and lazy servant! did you know that I reap where I did not sow, and gather where I did not scatter? 27 Then you should have invested my money with the bankers, and upon my return I would have received what was mine plus interest. 28 Take the talent from him and give (it) to the one who has the ten talents. 29 For to everyone who has shall (more) be given, and he shall have plenty; but from him who does not have, even what he has shall be taken away. 30 And fling the useless servant into the most distant darkness; there shall be weeping and grinding of teeth. 31 When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he shall sit on the throne of his glory; 32 and before him shall be gathered all the nations, and he shall separate them from each other, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; 33 and he shall put the sheep at his right and the goats at his left. 34 Then the King shall say to those at his right: Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you since the founding of the world; 35 for I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink; I was a stranger, and you welcomed me; 36 in need of clothes, and you clothed me; I was sick, and you looked after me; I was in prison, and you came to see me. 37 Then the righteous shall answer, saying, Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee a drink; 38 and when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or in need of clothes and clothe thee; 39 and when did we see thee sick or in prison and come to thee? 40 And the King shall answer them, I solemnly assure you, whatever you did for one of these brothers of mine, (even) for one of the least, you did it for me. 41 Then he shall also speak to those at his left (saying): Depart from me, you accursed ones, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry, and you did not give me to eat; I was thirsty, and you did not give me a drink; 43 I was a stranger, and you did not welcome me; in need of clothes, and you did not clothe me; sick and in prison, and you did not look after me. 44 Then they too shall answer, saying, Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or in need of clothes or sick or in prison, and did not wait on thee? 45 Then he shall answer them, saying, I solemnly assure you whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into everlasting life. For most of 24:1–44 cf. Mark 13:1 37; Luke 21:5 36. For 24:37–51 cf. also Luke 12:37 48; 17:26, 27, 34, 35.Matt. 25has no true parallel in the other Gospels. Luke's parable of The Pounds (19:11–27) is not a true parallel to Matthew's parable of The Talents (25:14–30). See also p. 23. There are, however, certain resemblances. Introduction and Summary A few points are worthy of special notice: 1. This is next to the longest of Christ's six discourses. The evangelist Matthew devotes far more space to it than does Mark or Luke; though much of chapter 24 is paralleled in the other Synoptics, and they, in turn, contain a few passages not found in Matt. 24. The sermon is generally known as Christ's Eschatological Discourse or Discourse on the Last Things. To indicate more clearly its material content one might also use the caption Watchfulness Urged in View of The Son of Man's Return as Judge and Rewarder. 2. The effort to combine it with chapter 23, making chapters 23 25 one discourse, in order, by means of this manipulation, to reduce the six discourses to five comparable to the five books of Moses! cannot succeed, for the address found in chapter 23 was delivered in the temple; the one recorded in chapters 24, 25, on the Mount of Olives. The former had as its audience the crowds and Christ's disciples; the latter, the disciples alone. The themes, too, are entirely different, as has been indicated. 3. The prophetic material found in this sixth discourse has reference not only to events near at hand (see, for example, verse 16) but also to those stretching far into the future, as is clear from 24:14, 29 31; 25:6, 31 46. Cf. Luke 21:24. 4. By the process of prophetic foreshortening, by means of which before one's eyes the widely separated mountain peaks of historic events merge and are seen as one, as has been explained in connection with 10:23 and 16:28, two momentous events are here intertwined, namely, a. the judgment upon Jerusalem (its fall in the year a.d. 70), and b. the final judgment at the close of the world's history. Our Lord predicts the city's approaching catastrophe as a type of the tribulation at the end of the dispensation. Or, putting it differently, in describing the brief period of great tribulation at the close of history, ending with the final judgment, Jesus is painting in colors borrowed from the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.^[789] The now rather popular view according to which chapter 24, including even such an exalted passage as 24:30, which pictures the Son of man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory, limits itself to the woes that were to come upon the Jewish people in the year a.d. 70, is open to the following objections: a. If we thus restrict the meaning Jesus did not answer the question of the disciples. To study the contents of that question we must not refer only to the Gospel of Mark (13:4) and that of Luke (21:7) but also to Matthew (24:3). This gives us the total picture. Included in the question of the disciples were these words: &what (shall be) the sign of thy coming and of the end of the age? Now if in the entire discourse which follows Jesus never speaks about his eschatological coming at the close of the world's history, he did not answer their question. b. We are clearly told, Matt. 24:29, that the tribulation to which that passage refers immediately precedes the appearance of the sign of the Son of man in heaven. Jesus emphasizes that no one neither the angels of heaven nor the Son, but the Father only knows the day and the hour when this great event will take place (verse 36). Does he merely mean to say that no one knows when Jerusalem will be destroyed? In verse 37 we read: And as (were) the days of Noah, so shall be the coming of the Son of man. Is the destruction of the face of the earth by means of the flood a type merely of Jerusalem's fall, or is it a type of the passing away of heaven and earth to which reference is made in verse 35? Not only the immediate context but also (II Peter 3:5 7furnishes the answerLuke 17:20 37). c. Our Lord continues his discourse in chapter 25. The two chapters belong together. If the lofty language of 24:29–31 refers to nothing more momentous and final than Jerusalem's destruction in the year a.d. 70, then by the same process of reasoning the very similar words of 25:31–46 must be given this restricted interpretation. Observe the parallel: in both cases the Son of man appears in great glory, and the people are gathered before him. But 25:46 proves without possibility of successful contradiction that the end of the age has been reached. The moment has arrived when these the goats; i.e., the wicked shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into everlasting life. It is not claimed, of course, that any exegete is able completely to untangle what is here intertwined, so as to indicate accurately for each individual passage just how much refers to Jerusalem's fall, and how much to the great tribulation and second coming. 5. The main emphasis in both chapters is on the necessity of always being on the alert, active for the Master, faithful to him. See especially 24:4, 23, 25, 42, 44 51; and the entire chapter 25. The two chapters contain ten easily recognized parts or paragraphs: 1. In verses 1 3 the occasion that gave rise to this discourse is described. That occasion was as follows: In harmony with what Jesus had already implied in 23:38 he now, having left the temple, in reply to the disciples expression of amazement about the grandeur of that building predicts its total destruction. Arrived on the Mount of Olives the disciples ask him when this shall happen and what shall be the sign (note the singular) of his coming and of the end of the age. They evidently think that the end of the temple means the end of the age. 2. In his answer Jesus first of all verses 4 14 predicts various coming events: the arrival of false Christs and false prophets, wars and rumors of wars, famines, earthquakes, persecution, apostasy, lawlessness, and the chilling of mutual love. He declares that all of this shall be only the beginning of woes or birth pains. The end about which the disciples have inquired is not yet. More definite is the fact that the gospel shall be preached in the whole world. And then shall come the end. 3. If the world-wide preaching of the gospel may be considered the first of two definite preliminary signs, then the great tribulation, described in verses 15 28, is the second. Occurring immediately before the appearance of the sign of the Son of man in the sky and his glorious (second) coming (see verses 29, 30), it is foreshadowed by woes in store for Jerusalem. These woes, too, are followed by one definite sign, namely, the appearance of the desolating sacrilege, that is, Jerusalem compassed with armies (Luke 21:20) carrying idol images of their emperor upon their standards. This would be the sign or signal for those in Judea to flee to the hills. However, the destruction of Jerusalem is not the end of the age. Believers must not be deceived by cries such as, Look, here (is) the Christ, or There. As far as the second coming is concerned, no one will have to call attention to it, for it will be sudden and everywhere visible, resembling an abrupt lightning flash seen from one horizon to the other. That coming of the Son of man is going to occur when it must occur, because morally and spiritually mankind will have deteriorated to such an extent that it will resemble carrion ready to be devoured by vultures. 4. The sun shall be darkened, the moon shall not give her light, the stars shall fall from the sky, etc. Then suddenly there is the sign, the one sign about which the disciples had asked, the Son of man appearing in the sky. The glorious character of this appearance is convincing proof that this is indeed the Messiah of prophecy and that the wedding of the Lamb with his bride, the church, is about to take place (Eph. 5:32; Rev. 19:7). With a loud trumpet blast the angels shall gather his elect from everywhere (verses 29 31). 5. A lesson from the fig tree is found in verses 32 35, and may be paraphrased thus: As soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. So also you, my disciples, when you see all this the series of events climaxed by the appearance of the desolating sacrilege will know that the fall of Jerusalem and its temple is near, even at the gates. As for the Jews in general, Jesus predicts that this generation or kind of people shall not pass away until all this events stretching all the way to the appearance of the Son of man and his coming on the clouds of the sky takes place. Jesus adds, Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall never pass away. 6. The necessity of being ready always, in view of the unknown day and hour of Christ's coming is stressed in verses 36 44. At the time of the flood people did not expect sudden disaster. So they continued to live as if nothing would ever happen, paying no attention to their spiritual calling. Then suddenly the flood came and swept them away. By no means is Jesus at his return going to welcome every person to his loving embrace. One is taken, the other left behind. The disciples should therefore always be on the alert, just as a home-owner would be on the alert all the time if he knew that a burglar was going to try to break into his house but did not know exactly when this would occur. 7. Such readiness means faithfulness, loving and loyal service to the Master. This truth is set forth by means of the parable of The Faithful and Sensible Servant (who is rewarded) versus The Unfaithful and Wicked Servant (who is punished); see verses 45 51. 8. and 9. The parable of The Five Foolish and The Five Sensible (or The Five Thoughtless and The Five Thoughtful) Girls (25:1–13) and that of The Talents (verses 14 30) re-emphasize the proper manner of awaiting Christ's return. However, each does this in its own way: the first stressing preparedness; the second, adding to this faithfulness. 10. The Son of man's coming in his glory, to judge all the nations, is pictured in verses 31 46, under the symbolism of a shepherd who puts the sheep on his right, the goats on his left. Those on the right, subsequently called the righteous (verses 37, 46), shall be rewarded with everlasting life. The loving service which by grace they have spontaneously rendered to Christ's brothers, even to the least of them, hence, to Christ himself, shows that their faith was genuine. So also the lack of this loving service proves the opposite for those on the left, the wicked, who are condemned to everlasting punishment. 1. The Occasion 24:1. Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples approached him to call his attention to the buildings of the temple. It is Tuesday, a few days before the Passover Lamb is going to offer himself as an atonement for the sins of his people. In all probability it is late afternoon of this very busy and memorable day. Jesus left the temple and is in the act of walking away from it when his disciples approach him with the purpose of calling his attention to the beauty and massiveness of their sacred edifice: Teacher, look, what (huge) stones, what (magnificent) buildings! The reason why just at this particular moment these men are thinking of the temple is that Jesus had just told them, Behold, your house is left to you a deserted place. Though it is reasonable to believe that the expression your house meant Jerusalem, the temple was certainly included. It is as if the disciples were saying, Is it really true that also this glorious structure is going to be entirely deserted by and by? 2. He answered them, Do you see all this? I solemnly assure you, there shall not be left here one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down. For I solemnly assure you see on 5:18. The meaning of the solemn statement is probably: not only is this building complex going to be deserted, it shall be completely destroyed, the hyperbolic figure not one stone upon another indicating the totality of its destruction. For fulfilment see on 22:7. 3. And as he was sitting on the Mount of Olives the disciples came to him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall this happen, and what (shall be) the sign of thy coming and of the end of the age? A little while afterward Jesus is sitting on the Mount of Olives. We can imagine how, looking across the valley, a truly fascinating view disclosed itself to the eyes of the little company. There was the roof of the temple bathed in a sea of golden glory. There were those beautiful terraced courts and also those cloisters of snowy marble which seemed to shine and sparkle in the light of the setting sun. And then to think that all this glory was about to perish! The minds of the disciples reeled and staggered when they pondered that mysterious and awesome prediction. All this glory! Beautiful for elevation, the joy of the whole earth, is Mount Zion &the city of the Great King.& Walk about Zion, and go round about her: count her towers. Mark well her bulwarks. Consider her palaces (Ps. 48:2, 12, 13). This surely was true no less with respect to the greatly enlarged and lavishly adorned temple which King Herod I had started to build. See above p. 159. Nor has there been, either in ancient or modern times, a sacred building equal to the temple, whether for situation or magnificence. ^[790] Rabbinic literature is not particularly favorable to Herod. Nevertheless, concerning Herod's temple it states, He who never saw Herod's edifice has never in his life seen a beautiful building. ^[791] We can picture the disciples riveting their eyes on Jerusalem's pride, in deep silence and sorrow meditating on the words of doom spoken by Jesus. Finally that silence is broken by four of the men: Peter, James, John, and Andrew (Mark 13:3). Stepping up to Jesus they ask, Tell us, when shall this happen, and what (shall be) the sign of thy coming and of the end of the age? The very form in which the question is cast the juxtaposition of the clauses seems to indicate that, as these men (spokesmen for the rest of The Twelve) interpret the Master's words, Jerusalem's fall, particularly the destruction of the temple, would mean the end of the world. In this opinion they were partly mistaken, as Jesus is about to show. A lengthy period of time would intervene between Jerusalem's fall and the culmination of the age, the second coming. Nevertheless, the disciples were not entirely wrong: there was indeed a connection between the judgment to be executed upon the Jewish nation and the final judgment on the day of the consummation of all things. As has already been indicated, the first was a type, a foreshadowing or adumbration, of the second. The point has been raised, How could the disciples, to whom Christ's repeated predictions of his coming death and resurrection meant so little (Mark 9:32; Luke 9:45; 18:34), ask about his (second) coming? A distinction must be made, however, between thoroughly understanding a thing and being emotionally interested in it. The disciples, to be sure, failed to fathom Christ's predictions concerning a resurrection from the dead, but if anything of that nature was going to happen, so that Jesus would rise again and would then go to his Father and sit on the throne, they wanted to know more about this; perhaps especially also because their Lord had promised that he would return to them and that they, too, would sit on thrones (19:28; 23:39). For the term coming or parousia see on verse 27. Though it must be freely admitted that this is not a thorough explanation of their condition of mind, it may clear up the situation to some extent. At any rate, the question they asked was the occasion that gave rise to their Master's famous eschatological discourse. 2. The Beginning of Woes or Birth Pains 4 12. Jesus replied, Take care that no one misleads you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am the Christ, and shall mislead many. And you are going to hear about wars and rumors of wars, but watch out; do not be disturbed, for such things must happen, but that is not yet the end. For (one) nation shall rise up in arms against (another) nation, and (one) kingdom against (another) kingdom, and there shall be famines and earthquakes in various places, but all these things are (only) the beginning of birth pains. Then you shall be handed over to tribulation and you shall be put to death, and you shall be hated by all the nations for my name's sake. And then many shall fall away, betraying and hating each other. And many false prophets shall arise and shall mislead many; and because lawlessness shall increase, the love of the majority shall grow cold. Jesus now proceeds to correct their mistaken inference. He shows them that not everything that seems to be a sign of the end of the world is in reality such a sign. In other words, there are also signs which only in a very general sense are deserving of that name. Whenever these separate happenings are interpreted as being infallible indications that the end of the age is immediately in sight, they deserve the name mistaken signs. Thus, Jesus predicts the coming of false Christs individuals who will say: I am the Christ. and false prophets, who shall mislead many. Those who persist in being misled show that they never belonged to Christ's true flock (I John 2:19; cf. I Cor. 11:19). There have always been false prophets, deceivers. Their victims begin to oppose God's laws. This lawlessness shall increase, with the natural result: division within the family circle, decrease in love for each other, exactly as Jesus had previously predicted (cf. 24:12 with 10:34–37). It is not necessary to name any of the false prophets. They were present in connection with Jerusalem's fall, but they did not cease to be in evidence after that great catastrophe of a.d. 70. The disciples must not be led astray by them (24:4). Their claims should be rejected. Moreover, the very fact that they never vanish from the earth during this entire dispensation clearly shows that their appearance and work can never constitute a sign in the restricted sense of the term. This also holds true with respect to wars and rumors of wars (24:6). When Jesus speaks these words, the Roman empire has been enjoying a long era of peace. But about four decades later political turmoil will upset the great realm from one end to the other, so that Rome will see four emperors in one year: Galba, Otho, Vitellus, and Vespasian. But these violent revolts and insurrections cannot by any stretch of the imagination constitute definite indications that the Lord will return immediately. This is evident at once when one considers the fact that wars and rumors of war did not cease with Jerusalem's fall. Throughout the centuries the prophecy attains fulfilment: nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom (verse 7a). One author counted three hundred wars in Europe during the last three hundred years. And these wars are increasing in intensity. It is perfectly clear that when any particular war is singled out as a help for date-fixers another mistaken sign has been produced. Jesus also speaks about famines and earthquakes in various places (verse 7b). As was true with respect to other predicted events, so it is here. These disturbances in the physical realm are indeed foreshadowings and portrayals of that which, on a much more extensive and intensive scale, will take place in the realm of nature at the end of the age; but except in that very general sense they cannot be correctly termed signs. Not any single one of them could ever give anyone the right to make predictions with reference either to the date of Jerusalem's fall or to the time of the Parousia (Christ's second coming). It is true that during the period a.d. 60 80 famine, pestilence, fire, hurricane, and earthquake ravaged the empire, as Renan points out in l Antichrist. Vesuvius erupted violently in the summer of 79, destroying Pompeii and its surroundings. But, as is already clear from the preceding sentence, these catastrophes were not limited to the decade preceding the fall of Jerusalem in the year 70. Moreover, throughout the centuries there have been violent earthquakes. For example: On Nov. 1, 1755, 60,000 people perished at Lisbon, Portugal; in 1783 the great Calabrian earthquake occurred with the death of an estimated 30,000; in 1857 the Neapolitan earthquake took more than 12,000 lives. There was also the Charleston earthquake in 1886; the Assam in 1897; the one in California in 1906, which destroyed a considerable section of San Francisco; the one in Messina in 1908; in Avezzano, Italy in 1915; several in Turkey, from 1939 until very recently; the one that shook Kansu Province, China, in 1920; the one that hit Japan, in 1923, wrecking parts of Tokyo and Yokohama; those in Chile, in 1939, 1960, and even more recently; the devastating earthquake in Peru, 1970; etc. Ancient historians and philosophers such as Thucydides, Aristotle, Strabo, Seneca, Livy, and Pliny describe similar seismic phenomena in their days. And as early as the year 1668 Robert Hooke wrote his work bearing the title, Discourse on Earthquakes. A certain author counted no less than seven hundred disturbances of this nature, great and small, which had occurred in the nineteenth century! It is hardly necessary to add to this that not only false Christs and false prophets, wars and rumors of war, earthquakes and famines occur in every age throughout the history of the church, but so do also persecutions and defections, to which Jesus refers in verses 9, 10, 12, and 13. The saying has been verified in every century: And you shall be hated by all nations for my name's sake, that is, because of your vital connection with me. See also on 6:9; 7:22; 10:22, 41, 42; 12:21. The very expression all nations clearly shows that Jesus is not thinking solely of what happens during the life-time of the apostles. Now with respect to events such as these described Jesus says in verses 6 and 8, Do not be disturbed, for such things must happen, but that is not yet the end. All these things are (only) the beginning of birth pains. They mark the beginning, says Jesus. They do not mark the end. Therefore, do not be alarmed. In spite of this clear warning which our Lord gave to his disciples, many present-day church members are filled with admiration for the minister or evangelist who speaks learnedly about The Signs of the Times, and strives to show his audience that this or that terrible battle, serious earthquake, or devastating famine on the basis of prophecy is the infallible sign of Christ's imminent return. To be sure, the events here indicated have significance. They are stepping stones leading to the final goal. By means of them the end of the age is both foreshadowed and brought closer, and God's eternal plan is being carried forward. Moreover, when we realize that toward the end of the present dispensation the indicated disturbances will occur together (24:33), will probably be more numerous, extensive, and fearful than ever before (Luke 21:11, 25, 26), and are going to take place in connection with the great tribulation that shall usher in the parousia (Matt. 24:5–9), we may conclude that it would not be unreasonable to call the final outbreak of these terrors concurrent or accompanying signs. Jesus continues: 13. But he that endures to the end, he shall be saved. As in 10:22 so also here the meaning is: he who, in spite of all these disturbances and persecutions, remains loyal to Christ shall enter into glory. For himself the period of persecution and trial will last until death delivers him from this earthly scene (John 16:33; II Tim. 3:12). For the church in general it will last until Christ's return in glory (II Thess. 1:7; Rev. 11:10–12). In verses 4 12 Jesus has been speaking about a series of events which, taken by themselves, do not definitely indicate the end about which the disciples had inquired. Suddenly there is a change from but that is not yet the end to and then shall come the end. Perhaps we may regard he that endures to the end of verse 13 as the transition, since in saying the end the mind easily moves from the contemplation of the close of any believer's individual life, to the consummation of the world's history. At any rate, it is clear that the Lord did not forget the question of the disciples. Having warned them against paying undue attention to such constantly repeated disturbances which in large measure can be called false signs, he now says: 14. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then shall come the end. He does not say, Then immediately, reserving this word immediately for verse 29, but simply then. This then may well be taken as covering more territory than immediately afterward would have done. The final bitter attack against God's people, called the great tribulation (verse 21), of very brief duration (verse 22), as well as the actual coming of the Lord upon the clouds, is probably included in this reference to the end. What Jesus is saying, therefore, is that the concluding events of the world's history are going to be preceded by the preaching of the kingdom gospel to all the nations. That, as he saw and predicted it, such worldwide gospel proclamation would not be a matter of a few weeks, months or even years, but would range over a much longer period of time, many centuries, can be regarded as certain. The essence of that gospel is summarized in such passages as 3:2; 4:17, 23; 11:28–30; 26:6, 7; John 3:16; cf. Rom. 1:17; 3:24; II Cor. 5:20, 21. It is definitely the gospel of the kingdom, that is, of the reign of God in heart and life, by grace and through faith. For more on this one and only gospel its power, author, emphasis, message, etc. see N.T.C. on Philippians, pp. 81–85. It is hardly necessary to point out that there is here no promise that every person will receive a chance to be saved. Jesus is speaking about the nations of the world. He is saying that each of these nations at one time or another during the course of history will hear the gospel. This gospel will be a testimony: its acceptance or its rejection will be decisive. There is no promise here of any second chance. Whatever each nation or people does with the present gospel proclamation will have final results. It is instructive to compare these words of our Lord with (Rev. 11. In that chapter the witnesses go forth and prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days. Finally, their testimony is finished. Then, after a very brief period of persecution, they are translated to heaven. Similarly also in Rev. 20the nations receive their great opportunity (so that the dragon cannot deceive them) during the thousand year period. Then, for a little time Satan is loosed out of his prison. This, in turn, is followed by the appearance of the Christ upon a great white throne. It is therefore clearly evident that the program of history is the same in all three chaptersMatt. 24; Rev. 11; 20). A brief survey of the progress of missions from the earliest period until the present day will convince anyone that the days in which we are now living are significant indeed! By and large the gospel has been spreading from the rising of the sun to its setting. One author estimates that by the close of the Apostolic Period the total number of Christian disciples had already reached half a million.^[792] During this early period one missionary towers above all the rest, namely, Paul. Farther and farther westward he brought the gospel. He finally reached Rome as the Lord's prisoner. But even his imprisonment is a help rather than a hindrance to the spread of the good news. He states: Now I want you to know, brothers, that the things that have happened to me have in reality turned out to the advantage of the gospel, so that it has become clear to the whole praetorian guard and to all the rest that my bonds are for Christ (Phil. 1:12, 13). During the next period, 100 313 (death of John to Constantine) the gospel continues to penetrate the then-known world, and this in spite of many persecutions (Trajan to Diocletian). This is, indeed, very remarkable especially in the light of the fact that no less than 174,000 martyrs were buried in a single great tomb, namely, the catacombs of St. Sebastian in Rome. From Constantine to Charlemagne, 313 800, the tidings of salvation are carried to the countries of Western Europe by such famous heroes of the cross as Ulfilas, Patrick, Columba, Augustine, Willibrord, and Boniface. Meanwhile, Mohammedanism banishes the light of the gospel from many lands of Asia and Africa. Next comes the period of the Middle Ages, from Charlemagne to Luther, 800 1517. Norway, Iceland, and Greenland are evangelized, and the Eastern Slavs turn to Christianity in a body. The Crusades, expeditions originally intended to wreak vengeance upon the Mohammedans, turned out to be a hindrance as well as a help to the propagation of the truth. During the period 1517 1792 many missionary societies originate, and the gospel is carried still farther westward. Think of John Eliot, the apostle to the North American Indians, and those that follow in his footsteps. And so we come to the modern period, 1792 to the present. It is in the year 1792 that William Carey at a ministerial conference proposes the discussion of the theme The duty of Christians to attempt the spread of the gospel among heathen nations. On May 31 of that year this truly great man preaches his famous missionary sermon based on Isa. 54:2, 3. As a result of the enthusiasm which he arouses missionaries are sent to faraway countries so that India, southeastern Asia, China, Japan, Korea nations that are reached by traveling from America across the great Pacific in a westerly direction receive the gospel. The work has not been completed. Even today it can hardly be said without qualification that the heart of Africa, of Asia, and of South America has been thoroughly penetrated. But it cannot be denied that the prophecy of our Lord is approaching fulfilment. Consider this important fact: seventy years ago the Bible (as a whole or in part) had been translated into only 300 languages; today into about 1400 languages and dialects. And the work is still continuing; in fact, more vigorously than ever, many forces combining to bring it about. It must not be supposed, however, that the world is going to get better and better right along, until the very moment of Christ's arrival. If the preaching of the gospel to all the nations may be called the first preliminary sign of Christ's return, the second preliminary sign is now going to be pointed out. As already shown, it will cover a much shorter period of time. Cf. Rev. 20:3. In this connection it must also be stressed that in all probability the close of the gospel age and the beginning of the great tribulation overlap. As has also been shown see p. 847 in describing the brief period of great tribulation at the close of history, ending with the final judgment, Jesus is painting in colors borrowed from the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. This must be borne in mind as we now study: 3. The Great Tribulation 15, 16. Now when you see the desolating sacrilege, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place let him who reads understand, then let those in Judea flee to the hills.& Jesus had said, Behold, your house is left to you a deserted place.& I solemnly assure you, there shall not be left here one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down (23:38; 24:2). The disciples had reacted with the question, Tell us, when shall this happen, and what (shall be) the sign of thy coming and of the end of the age? (24:3). As to the erroneous implication of that question, as if the fall of Jerusalem and its temple would be immediately followed by the end of the age, Jesus has set the disciples straight on that. He has shown that many disturbances will occur and that a lengthy period of gospel proclamation is going to intervene before the day of his coming arrives. As to the first part of the question, considered all by itself, When shall this destruction of Jerusalem and its temple be? Jesus answers it now, but in such a way that the answer suits more than one event in history. To begin with, it was appropriate for the days immediately referred to by Daniel; see especially (Dan. 11:31; 12:11. In accordance with that prophet's prediction Antiochus Epiphanes (175 164 b.c.), unaware that he was indeed fulfilling prophecy, and being thoroughly responsible for his own wicked deed, erected a pagan altar over the altar of burnt-offering, thus polluting the house of God. This had happened long ago. Nevertheless, Jesus says, Now when you see the desolating sacrilege, showing that he is telling the disciples that a divine oracle may apply to more than one historical situation: the sacrilege that results in the desolation of city and temple takes place more than once in history. Let the man who reads Daniel's prophecy understand this! Just as in the past the holy places of the Lord had been desecrated, so it will happen again. And it did indeed take place when the Roman armies, with the image of the emperor upon their standards, an image and an emperor worshipped by them^[793] laid siege to the city of JerusalemLuke 21:20). But just as the pagan altar and the swine offered upon it in the very temple of Jehovah in the second century b.c. pointed forward to the idolatrous legions of Rome, so these in turn foreshadowed the great and final violation by the antichrist of all that is sacred. It is for this reason that in verses 29 31 Jesus is able to say, Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light.& And then the sign of the Son of man shall appear in the sky &and then they shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. Returning now to the second application of the prophecy, namely, to the days just previous to Jerusalem's fall (a.d. 70), when the Roman armies would arrive and desecrate the holy place, that is, the soil which, together with its holy city and holy Temple, had been historically consecrated to the Lord, Jesus warns his followers that when this occurs those in Judea should flee to the hills. Cf. Luke 21:20. They must not try to enter Jerusalem, thinking that the Lord would never allow it to be taken. Instead those who are still in the city and have a chance to get out must do so at once; those dwelling in the Judean countryside must join them in fleeing to the hills. As to the fulfilment, we know that the Jews in general rushed into Jerusalem, resulting in a horrible blood bath.^[794] But what happened to the Christians? Did they heed Christ's exhortation to flee to the hills? According to many commentators they did, and finally found refuge in Perean Pella. To substantiate their opinion these commentators appeal to the statement of Eusebius: On the other hand, the people of the Jerusalem church were commanded by an oracle given by revelation before the war to those in the city who were worthy of it to depart and dwell in one of the cities of Perea which they called Pella (Eccl. Hist. III.v.3). According to Epiphanius the exit from the city and flight to Pella began just before the Romans laid siege to Jerusalem (Ag. Her. XXIX.7). Scholars who have made a special study of the early history of the Jerusalem church doubt this fourth century a.d. report. They tell us that a. in order at this time to get to Pella, believers would have had to break their way through lines of Roman soldiers; b. the people left in Pella were filled with bitter hatred against all Jews, including Christian Jews; c. Pella could not have provided housing for all the refugees; and d. if the escape had been attempted at a slightly earlier date, the Christians would have fallen into the hostile hands of the fanatical Jewish freedom-fighters.^[795] Pella is nowhere mentioned in Scripture. With reference to the extent to which believers obeyed the Lord's instruction to flee to the hills he did not say to Pella there is no reliable information. Let us hope that many obeyed his kind and urgent warning, which continues as follows: 17, 18. let him who (happens to be) on the housetop not go down to get the things out that are in his house; and let him who is in the field not go back to get his coat. The man who is on the flat roof, from which by an outside ladder he is able to descend in order as quickly as possible to flee to the hills, must not, after descending, go into the house to rescue his goods. Similarly, the laborer, dressed only in his tunic, and thus working in the field, must not go back from the field into his house, but must immediately take off for the hills. Delay, in either case, might mean being captured, turned back, or perhaps even being killed. The sympathetic heart of our Lord, revealed on so many previous occasions as recorded in this Gospel (8:17; 9:13, 36; 11:25–30; 12:7, 30; 15:32; 19:13–15; 23:23, 37), is deeply affected by two additional considerations: a. the plight of women, and b. travel difficulties during the winter and on sabbaths: 19. But woe to those who are pregnant^[796] and to those who nurse babies^[797] in those days! In this connection it should be borne in mind that this tender concern for women with babies was revealed by Christ in days when women were often looked down upon. The words uttered came from the lips of the same Son of man who showed special kindness to widows (Mark 12:42, 43; Luke 7:11 17; 18:1–8; 20:47; 21:2, 3); to women who were, or had been, living in sin (Luke 7:36 50; John 4:1 30); and, at the time of his own crowning agony, to his own mother (John 19:26, 27). It is to him that also the women of today should turn for help and comfort! 20. Pray that your flight may not occur in winter or on the sabbath.& Even in that climate the winter has its cold days. Moreover, it is the rainy season. Snow, especially in the hills to which Jesus had ordered his followers to flee and even lower down, could not be entirely ruled out (cf. I Macc. 13:22). Traveling on the sabbath was difficult. To be sure, even the rabbis permitted flight on the sabbath when a person was in danger of losing his life. And Christ's own teaching on the subject of sabbath observance (Matt. 12:11; Mark 2:27) was sufficiently generous to make allowance for escape on that day. But the many man-made rules and regulations by means of which the scribes and the Pharisees had created the impression that man was indeed made for the sabbath would have resulted in refusals on the part of many a strict observer to help those in need. So the Lord urges his disciples to pray that they may not have to flee in winter or on the sabbath.^[798] From what immediately follows it is evident once again that for Jesus the transition from the second to the third application of Daniel's prediction was as easy as that from the first (the tribulation experienced by God's people during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes) to the second (the distress in connection with the fall of Jerusalem): 21, 22.& for then there shall be great tribulation, such as there has never been since the beginning of the world until now, and as there shall never be again. And if those days were not cut short no one would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days shall be cut short. As to the great tribulation to which Jesus here refers, care should be exercised. Rev. 7:14also speaks about a great tribulation. Are these two the same? The answer is: they are not. As the context in Rev. 7indicates, the word is used there in a far more general sense. Because of his faith every genuine child of God experiences tribulation during his life on earth. See John 16:33; cf. Rom. 8:18; II Cor. 4:17; II Tim. 3:12. But Jesus is here speaking about a tribulation that will characterize those days, a tribulation such as has never been and never again shall be, a very brief period of dire distress that shall occur immediately before his return (see verses 29 31). It is the period mentioned also in Rev. 11:7–9; 20:3b, 7 9a. For the sake of God's chosen ones see N.T.C. on Eph. 1:4in order that not all might have to die a violent death, the days of this final tribulation shall be cut short.^[799] Herein, too, the love of God is made manifest. It should hardly be necessary to add that justice is not done to the concept of this tribulation, which immediately precedes the end of the world's history and which surpasses any other distress in its intensity, if it is referred solely to the sorrows experienced during the fall of Jerusalem. Jesus continues: 23, 24. At that time if anyone should say to you, Look, here (is) the Christ! or There (he is)!, do not believe (him); for false Christs shall arise and false prophets, and shall perform great signs and miracles, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. In connection with Jerusalem's fall but certainly also with the end of the age there will be those who claim that the Christ has already arrived, and will even point to the place where he has landed. Jesus warns his disciples not to believe these deceivers. Some of them (the pseudo-Christs) pretend to be Christ; the rest (the pseudo-prophets) say that this or that other person is the Christ. By means of a mighty display of a. signs supernatural feats which point away from the performers to their enabler, and of b. wonders or marvels the same astonishing performances viewed now from the aspect of their unusual character and their effect on the spectators these deceivers shall try to mislead,^[800] if possible, even the elect. For the elect see N.T.C. on Eph. 1:4. The implication is that to successfully mislead God's elect, so that until the day of their death they would permit themselves to resemble wandering stars, is impossible. See N.T.C. on Phil. 1:6. The comforting little sentence, only three words in the original, 25. See, I have told you ahead of time literally: See I-have-foretold you reminds us of Christ's similar sayings in John 13:19; 14:29; 16:4. Lovingly the Master provides for his disciples. When the fiery trial arrives they must never be able to say, How strange and unexpected! Why did not the Lord prepare us for this? Why did he not warn us? Having been forewarned, the disciples will not be unduly disturbed when the prediction is fulfilled. In fact, their faith in Jesus will even be confirmed. 26. So, if they shall say to you, Look, he is in the wilderness, do not go out there; Look, he is in the inner rooms, do not believe (them).^[801] Some, with reflection on John the Baptist (3:1), may point to the wilderness as the place where the Messiah is to be found. Others, to the inner rooms, as if the Christ were only for a few initiates, the Head of a private fraternity, revealing himself to no one else. In fact, the very opposite is the truth. It will not be necessary in that day to go in search of the Christ, as if he were to be found in some arid waste or some dark corner. Fact is: 27. For as the lightning^[802] goes out from the east^[803] and flashes clear to the west, so shall be the coming of the Son of man. For Son of man see on 8:20; pp. 403–407. A word should be said about the important term coming, in Greek parousia. It is sometimes used in the non-technical sense of a. presence; see (I Cor. 16:17; II Cor. 10:10; Phil. 1:26; 2:12; or of b. coming, advent, or arrivalII Cor. 7:6, 7; II Thess. 2:9). In other passages see especially (Matt. 24:3, 27(the one now under study), 37, 39; I Cor. 15:23; I Thess. 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; II Thess. 2:1, 8; James 5:7, 8; II Peter 1:16; 3:4, 12; and I John 2:28the term refers to the return or advent of the Lord, his coming in order to bless his people with his presence. This meaning may be viewed as a modification of the sense: the arrival or the visit of the king or emperor.^[804] The sense of the comparison, then, is this, that just as a lightning flash is so brilliant that from one end of heaven to the other it is clearly visible, so Christ's coming shall be such that every eye shall see himRev. 1:7). As to the time of this coming, and one of its reasons, note verse 28. Wherever there is a corpse, there the vultures will gather. Cf. (Job 39:30, Where the slain (lie) there is he; also Luke 17:37. Vultures swoop down upon a carcass. When morally and spiritually the world has degenerated to such an extent that it resembles carrion, in other words when the Lord judges that the world's cup of iniquity is fullGen. 15:16; Rev. 14:18), then, and not until then, Christ shall come to condemn that world. Then his coming is a divine necessity. The final tribulation to which the wicked will subject God's children is that which will ripen the world for judgment. So it is immediately after that severest of all trials that the Son of man arrives. 4. The Sign and The Coming In view of the fact that what now follows is deeply rooted in prophecy, and must be interpreted in the light of the style that is characteristic of that type of literature, the most significant Old Testament references (and a few from the New) will at once be shown: 29 31. Immediately after the tribulation of those days, The sun shall be darkened, And the moon shall not give her light, Isa. 13:10; Ezek. 32:7; Joel 2:10b; 2:31(=3:4 Heb.); 3:15 (=4:15 Heb.); Rev. 6:12. And the stars shall fall from the sky, Isa. 34:4b; Rev. 6:13. And the powers of the heavens shall be shaken, Isa. 34:4b; Joel 2:10a; Hag. 2:6, 21; Luke 21:25, 26; Rev. 6:13. And then the sign of the Son of man shall appear in the sky, and then All the tribes of the earth shall mourn, Zech. 12:10, 12; Rev. 1:7. and they shall see The Son of man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory; Dan. 7:13, 14; Matt. 16:27; 26:64. And he shall send forth his angels with a loud trumpet blast, Isa. 27:13; Matt. 13:41; 16:27; I Cor. 15:52; I Thess. 4:16; II Thess. 1:7. And they shall gather his elect from the four winds, from the one end of heaven to the other. Deut. 30:4; Zech. 2:6. The picture is very vivid. While the earth is drenched with the blood of the saints in the most terrible tribulation of all time, all at once the sun becomes darkened. Naturally the moon now also ceases to give her light. The stars deviate from their orbits and race to their doom; they fall from heaven. The powers of the heaven are shaken. Terrifying sounds are heard. There is the roaring of the sea and the billows, causing perplexity among men. People faint with fear and with foreboding of what is beginning to happen to the world (Luke 21:25, 26). In connection with this apocalyptic picture strict literalness must be avoided. Until this prophetic panorama becomes history we shall probably not know how much of this description must be taken literally and how much figuratively. That at least some of it must be taken literally is clear from (II Peter 3:10. There will indeed be a new heaven and earthRev. 21:1). The great change that will take place may be described as follows: a. The universe will have been purged completely by a great conflagration (II Peter 3:7, 11, 12). b. Closely linked with this conflagration there is going to be a rejuvenation. The fire will not completely destroy the universe. It will still be the same heavens and earth, but gloriously renewed as explained in II Peter 3:13; Rev. 21:1–5. Not only shall God's children go to heaven, but heaven will, as it were, come down to them; that is, the conditions of perfection that will obtain in heaven will be found throughout God's rejuvenated universe. c. This wonderful transformation can also be viewed as a self-realization, a mighty change whereby the organic realm attains to self-expression and complete liberty. This thought is brought out most beautifully in (Rom. 8:18–22. In this passage the apostle states that at present creation is subjected to vanity. Now this word vanity does not at all have the meaning which we commonly attach to it. The word as used here in the original does not mean shallow pride, or saucy airs. It has no reference to ambitious display, as when we say: What a vain fellow. It means futility, lack of effectiveness. Compare the expression: Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher; all is vanityEccl. 12:8). It indicates that at present, as a result of man's sin, nature does not come to self-realization or self-expression. Its potentialities are cribbed, cabined, and confined. It is subject to arrested development. Though it aspires, it is not able to achieve. Though it blossoms, it does not reach the point of bearing fruit. It may be compared to a very powerful man, a world champion boxer or wrestler, but chained in such a manner that he cannot make use of his tremendous physical prowess. The curse of plant disease decimates the crops. The loss is estimated in millions of dollars for each separate disease. What a glorious day that will be when all the restraints which are due to sin will have been removed. And when this wonderful creation will finally be coming into its own, attaining unto the glorious liberty of the children of God, and no longer subject to futility. d. Finally and this follows from the preceding this transformation will include harmonization. At present nature can be described as raw in tooth and claw. Peace and harmony are lacking. But then all nature, gloriously transformed, will, as it were, sing a symphony. There will be concord and harmony everywhere. There will be variation, to be sure, but a most delightful blending of sounds so that the total effect will be unity. And the prophecy of Isa. 11:6 9will reach its ultimate fulfilment: And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.& They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea. Observe, moreover, that the convulsions described here in (Matt. 24do not blot out the human race. Today, by means of sensational books and articles, we are being told that this or that frightfully destructive bomb will completely wipe out humanity. There are also scientists who tell us that the sun will gradually lose its mass hence its gravitational pull and that as a result the earth will recede farther and farther away from the solar orb and from its heat. Cold winds accompanied by blinding snow will cause the human race to freeze to death. According to another theory, however, some day a celestial body call it a star or a star-fragment will come whizzing toward our planet. Before it even touches the earth, buildings and homes everywhere will be a sea of flames, and everybody will be roasted to death. But according to the passages which we are now studyingI Thess. 4:17) there will still be people on earth when Jesus returns! The souls already in heaven will regain their bodies and will quickly join God's children who are still on earth. Suddenly light streams down from heaven. The sign appears. Just what is meant by this one great final sign by which believers will know that Jesus is about to take his children to himself? Some have thought that a special mark or emblem will appear in the sky; for example, a huge cross. But there is nothing that in any way suggests this. Far more probable is the view that the very appearance of the Son of man upon clouds of glory is itself the sign, the one, great, final sign from the point of view of the earth. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ 8. The Parable of the Five Foolish and the Five Sensible Girls 25:1. Then the kingdom of heaven shall be comparable to ten girls who took [Greek] -2 _ftnref1 [Greek] lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom.As is clear from a comparison of 25:13 with 24:42, 44, there is a close connection between this parable and the immediately preceding one. Both emphasize the need of being prepared at all times for the coming of the Bridegroom, Jesus Christ. For the meaning of comparable to see on 20:1. As the ten virgins of the parable were under obligation to be well-prepared to meet the bridegroom, so all those who profess Jesus as their Lord and Savior should be ready to receive him when at his glorious return he ushers in the kingdom of heaven on which see 4:23; 13:43 in its final phase. Exactly how the going out to meet the bridegroom fits into the entire picture of a typical Jewish [Greek] -2 _ftnref2 [Greek] is not explained in the text. One might ask, for example, Who are these girls? Bridesmaids? Daughters of friends and neighbors of the bride? Is it their intention to meet the bridegroom when the latter, having taken his bride from her parental home, is conveying her to, and is now approaching, his own home, where the festivities are to be [Greek] -2 _ftnref3 [Greek] Where are these young ladies when they hear the shout, Here comes the bridegroom! Go out to meet him? Somewhere out in the open, along the road, where they had been sleeping? At the home of the bride? Or, of the groom? Or, of some friend? In defense of any of these implied theories the reader can find at least one commentator. It would be tiresome to discuss all the pros and cons in each case. Instead of doing this, therefore, I shall simply state my own position. If anyone chooses to differ he is welcome to do so. The fact that Scripture does not answer these questions would seem to indicate that they are not of supreme importance. By spending too much time on them one is apt to forget the main lesson: Preparedness is essential, for the time is coming when getting ready will no longer be possible; the door will be shut. On the basis of the fact that the bridegroom takes a long time in arriving (cf. 24:48; 25:19), and is therefore presumably coming from a distant place, I shall assume that the interested parties have already taken care of the preliminaries. Why should the bridegroom still have to fetch the bride from her home? The best Greek text has nothing whatever to say about the bride being with the bridegroom in the arriving procession! Never is the bride even mentioned! Hence, is it not more reasonable to assume that the bride is already at the place where the wedding is to be held, which then is either her own parental home or else the home of the groom? Since the latter was more usual, I shall assume it. On this assumption the situation is as follows: It is evening. The guests, the bride, and the ten girls call them bridesmaids if you wish have all gathered at the home of the groom (either his own new home or that of his parents). Everything is ready except that the bridegroom has not yet arrived! Why there were exactly ten girls we do not know. This may have been customary, or ten may simply be a round figure. The idea that it is symbolical and indicates the complete number of those who belong to the church on earth cannot be proved. Besides, it is perhaps not wise to allegorize so generously. We are definitely told, however, that these young ladies have taken their lamps, probably meaning: devices equipped with oil receptacles and wicks, and in characteristic procession-style held aloft by means of wooden poles. The statement, and went out to meet the bridegroom must be understood proleptically. The matter is here set forth in summary before being described in detail. The actual going out to meet the bridegroom is not intimated until verse 10 is reached. Even then it is only implied, and, as will be seen, strictly speaking applies to only five of the bridesmaids, though originally all ten had the intention to go out to meet the bridegroom. The bridesmaids are divided into two groups: 2 4. Five of them were foolish and five sensible. For the foolish, having taken their lamps, took no oil with them; but the sensible took oil in their vessels with their lamps.The ten are alike in ever so many respects. All intend to meet the bridegroom and to escort him to the place where the festivities are to be held. All have lamps. All are expecting the bridegroom to come before another day has arrived, but none of them knows at what hour he is coming. All are looking forward to taking part in the marriage feast. When the bridegroom lingers, all these ten girls fall asleep, a sleep from which all are suddenly aroused (verses 5 and 6). But though the ten resemble each other in so many outward points, their dissimilarity is even more striking. It is basic. It is what really counts: five were foolish, five sensible. The foolishness of the first group consisted in the fact that they were totally unprepared to meet the bridegroom; for, though they had taken lamps, they had taken no oil. That is what the text plainly indicates. Says A. T. Robertson, Probably none at all. A. Edersheim, The foolishness of the five virgins therefore consisted &in the entire absence of personal preparation[his italics], having brought no oil of their own in their lamps. Lenski, The foolish brought no oil at all that was their folly. [Greek] -2 _ftnref4 [Greek] They had lamps but no oil. They were careless, not forward-looking, guilty of inexcusable and senseless neglect, shortsighted, thoughtless. The sensible girls, on the contrary, were equipped with a generous supply of [Greek] -2 _ftnref5 [Greek] They were fully prepared. 5. Now when the bridegroom was taking his time, they all grew drowsy and (soon) were sleeping.The temptation is to attach an allegorical meaning to this verse, as if it were a reference to the debilitation of the church. But is it not better to follow the example of the Master, and to wait with the application until the end (verse 13) of the story has been reached? We cannot blame these girls for having become sleepy, so that they nodded and presently were fast asleep. After all, the excitement caused by dressing up for the wedding, taking their lamps, making the trip to the home where they now were waiting, wondering every moment whether the groom (accompanied by a procession?) would soon come in sight, again and again being disappointed, etc., all this had been exhausting. Besides, the expected one was staying away so long, much longer than anyone had expected. It should be borne in mind, however, that the nodding and the sleeping took place in the very home to which the ten had come, not outside, somewhere along the road! 6. But at midnight there was a shout, Here comes the bridegroom! Go out to meet him!We are not told who did the shouting. It may have been done by the young fellows who, let us suppose, accompanied the bridegroom. Or else, by some of the guests who had remained awake and from some dark place in or near the house had been quietly looking down the lane. Had they almost given up hope? It was already midnight! When the approach of the long awaited one was at last announced he may still have been a considerable distance away from the house what a shout must have been raised! 7, 8. Then all those girls awoke and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said to the sensible, Give us some of your oil, because our lamps are going out.All the girls, now fully awake, trim their lamps. They try to make them look bright and beautiful by lighting them. For a moment all is well. A wick that is not yet completely dry can burn brightly a few seconds. After that, however, since the foolish girls had taken no oil with them, their lamps begin to flicker and sputter and die down, resulting in their owners agonizing appeal to their wiser partners, Give us some of your oil, because our lamps are going out. We must not suppose that the ten lamps had been burning all through the evening. In the case of the five foolish girls that would have been impossible, for they had taken no oil with them. But even the idea that the five lamps of the sensible girls had been burning all this time, on top of their poles, insidethe house, would appear to be rather unreasonable. Besides, a house where a feast was about to be held would have illumination of its own. No, as far as the parable is concerned, now for the first time this night five lamps are burning brightly, and are about to be carried outside the house. The answer to the pathetic request of the foolish girls is given in verse 9. But the sensible girls answered, There may not be enough for both us and you.Instead of finding fault with these girls because of their heartlessness, we must try to understand their situation. Wedding processions generally move slowly. Besides, this is midnight. Not only must the girls go out to meet the bridegroom; they must also escort him back to the house with their lamps still brightly burning all the time. Their reply is therefore not unreasonable. It is rather in character, showing forethought, a further manifestation of the same careful planning they had done when they had filled their lamps with [Greek] -2 _ftnref6 [Greek] When they now add, You better go to those who sell (it) and buy (some) for yourselves,this need not be interpreted as a saucy remark. They may actually have thought that somewhere a bazaar might still be open, or if not, that it might be possible to awaken the bazaar keeper in order to buy some oil from him. That any attempt of this kind would be entirely futile was for the senseless girls to discover: 10. However, when they were on their way to buy, there came the bridegroom. The girls who were ready went in with him to the wedding, and the door was shut.Certain passages of Scripture are filled with pathos, with a deep feeling of tragedy. Think, for example, of II Sam. 18:33, O my son Absolom, my son, my son, Absolom.& So also the never agains at the close of the six lines of Rev. 18:21 23a. And so here also: when the bridegroom comes, those who are ready enter. The others never get in, for when they arrive they discover that the door is shut. Cf. Luke 13:25. At this point the parable gradually leaves us, and the reality begins to surface, until in verse 13 the parable has completely disappeared, having served its purpose. 11, 12. Later the other girls came also, saying, Sir, sir, open the door for us. But he replied, I solemnly declare, I do not know you. Too late, too late, ye cannot enter now. We may call this reality. We may also describe it as being contrary to reality. Both would be correct. It is surely contrary to reality that an earthly bridegroom would exclude such girls. But it is indeed reality that the Lord Jesus Christ, at his glorious coming, will exclude all those who by then are still not converted. It is to them that he will say, I do not know you, that is, I do not recognize you as belonging to those whom I am pleased to call my own. See 7:21. The Lord knows those who are his (II Tim. 2:19). He knows Abraham (Gen. 18:19), Moses (Exod. 33:12, 17), those who take refuge in him (Nah. 1:7). See also John 10:28, 29; Rom. 8:28, 29. By virtue of his sovereign grace the Lord from eternity acknowledged them as his own. Consequently in time he made them the recipients of his special love and fellowship (in the Spirit). To those who have not surrendered their lives to him for that is what readiness meanshe says, I do not know you. There must be no delay, for once he has returned, the door of grace is irrevocably closed! The one altogether obvious lesson is therefore: 13. Keep on the alert, therefore, because you do not know the day or the hour.See on 24:36, 42, 44, 50. Having now studied the parable, and having fixed our attention upon its main lesson, namely the necessity of constant preparedness, hearts and lives ever consecrated to the Lord in the here and now, we are entitled to ask, In keeping with this main application, what are some of the ancillary truths taught here? Probably the following: a. All who profess to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ are alike in many respects; especially in this, that all are on their way to meet the Bridegroom, Jesus Christ. See Matt. 25:1. b. The resemblances are, however, superficial. There is an essential difference. By no means all who read the Bible, attend and even belong to a church, sing the songs of salvation, make public profession of faith, even preach in Christ's name, are going to share in the blessings of Christ's return. (Some are sensible.Religion with them is not sham and pretense. They believe in being prepared by faith in the Savior and lives dedicated to him and therefore to God Triune. Others are foolish.They have a form of piety but deny its powerII Tim. 3:5; cf. Matt. 7:22, 23). Unprepared they travel on to meet the Judge. See Matt. 25:2–4. c. A long span of time will elapse between the first and the second coming. See Matt. 25:5; and on 24:9, 14; 25:19. d. The return of the Lord will be sudden, visible, and audible. See Matt. 25:6; and on 24:31. e. Preparedness is not transferable from one person to another. See Matt. 25:7–9; also Ps. 49:7; Prov. 9:12; Gal. 9:12. f. For those who are not readythat is, for those unsaved before they die, and for those who in their unsaved condition survive on earth until Christ's return there is no second chance. See Matt. 25:10–12; also 7:22, 23; 10:32, 33; 24:37–42; 25:34–46; II Cor. 5:9, 10; Gal. 6:7, 8; II Thess. 1:8, 9; Heb. 9:27. g. Therefore and in view of the fact that the moment of Christ's return is unknown watchfulness at all times is required. See Matt. 25:13; also Ps. 95:7, 8; II Cor. 6:2. Whether or not the oil in this parable has a symbolical meaning is not certain. Ifit does, it would point to the Holy Spirit, through whose transforming and enabling power men are preparedto welcome the Bridegroom. See Matt. 25:2–4; and cf. Isa. 61:1; Zech. 4:1–6; II Thess. 2:13. 9. The Parable of The Talents The material here presented may be divided as follows: a. How a business man, about to go abroad, distributed his talents among his servants (verses 14, 15). b. What use they severally made of them (verses 16 18). c. The reckoning that took place when the master returned (verses 19 27). d. The lesson here taught (verses 28 30). The first point is introduced as follows: 14. For (it is) like a man going abroad, who called [Greek] -2 _ftnref7 [Greek] servants and placed his property in their hands.This is clearly an instance of abbreviated expression, for which see -2 _ftnref8 N.T.C.on the Gospel according to John, Vol. I, p. 206. The meaning is in all probability that what happens in the kingdom of heaven (see verse 1) in its final manifestation resembles the outcome of the story concerning the talents. The beginning of the parable pictures a propertied individual who is about to leave on a journey. Cf. 21:33. Before he does so he entrusts his belongings to his servants. In the present parable it is not a vineyard that he entrusts to them but money(verse 27), specifically talents. 15. To one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one, to each according to [Greek] -2 _ftnref9 [Greek] ability; then he went abroad.Basically a talent is a measure of weight. So, for example, Rev. 16:21speaks of hailstones weighing a talent (125 Roman pounds) each. The same word talent is, however, also used to indicate a unit of coinage. The value differed from one place and time to another, and also with the metal that was used, whether copper, silver, or gold. It has already been pointed out (see on 18:24) that an Attic talent amounted to no less than six thousand denars. It would take an ordinary laborer almost twenty years to earn one. It is clear, therefore, that in the present parable we are dealing with a rich businessman. Naturally he does not want his money to lie idle during his absence. It must be used so that he may make a profit. The owner of all this wealth is not only rich but also sagacious. He realizes that not all servants have equal business skill. So, figuring with each man's ability, he lets one servant have five talents, another two, and another one. Then he goes on his way. As to what use the three severally made of the entrusted wealth, the parable continues: 16, 17. At once the man who had received the five talents went and put them to work and gained five more. So also the man (who had) the two gained two more.Prompted undoubtedly by the orders they had received from their master, by the confidence he had placed in them, and by the knowledge that one day they would have to give an account to him, the first and the second servants used the entrusted sums so effectively that in each case the amount doubled. 18. But the man who had received the one (talent) went off, dug a hole in the ground, and hid his master's money.The third servant did not care to be bothered by the task that had been assigned to him. So he dug a hole in the ground and buried the talent there. It was not unusual for treasures to be buried in the ground. See 13:44. What motivated this man in deciding to do this? Was it love for his master, lest some burglar might come along and steal what belonged to the absent one? Was it timidity perhaps, a feeling of inferiority strengthened by the consideration that less had been entrusted to him than to the others? From verses 24 27 we learn that it was neither of these, but rather unjustified suspicion and laziness. When the master returned, a reckoning took place: 19. Now a long while afterward the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them.This matter of settling accounts between servants and their master has been mentioned also in another parable; see on 18:23; cf. 21:34; Luke 19:15. It was ever the duty of servants to bear in mind this day of their master's return, when there would be a reckoning. Did the slothful servant think that his master would never return? How thoroughly irresponsible his action; or shall we say lack of action? Well, in a sense, both. Note especially that the return of the master occurred a long while afterward, an expression that will be taken up again when the parable's figurative meaning is pointed out. See d.on p. 884. 20 23. He who had received the five talents came forward, brought five additional talents, and said, Master, five talents you placed in my hands; look, an additional five talents I have gained! His master said to him, Well done, good and faithful servant. Over a small amount you have been faithful, over much I am going to put you in charge; come, share your master's happiness. He (who had received) the two talents also came forward, and said, Master, two talents you placed in my hands; look, an additional two talents I have gained. His master said to him, Well done, good and faithful servant. Over a small amount you have been faithful, over much I am going to put you in charge; come, share your master's happiness.The first servant, in bringing his report, hands the master two bags full of money, each containing five talents. Here the story becomes very vivid. This should not be lost in the translation. Note therefore the emphasis on the exact number of talents that had been entrusted to him. The words five talents are placed at the very head of the clause. This is followed by the subject-predicate you placed in my hands (or: entrusted to me). In the next clause the parallel object, an additional five talents, again precedes the subject-predicate, which in this case is, I have gained. But, to make the story even more vivid, between the two clauses occurs the word look (for which see footnote 133 on p. 131). The man's eyes are sparkling. He is bubbling over with enthusiasm, is thoroughly thrilled, and, as it were, invites the master to start counting! Well done, answers the master. This can also be translated, Excellent, or wonderful. When the master now adds, Over a small amount you have been faithful, we wonder, perhaps, whether this was not a gross understatement. Certainly in those days five talents could hardly be considered a small amount! To justify the expression we need not immediately resort to the figurative meaning. We can, for the time being, stay right with the story as such, and find the solution in the fact that what the master was telling this servant was that, in comparison with the even weightier responsibilities with which he would be charged in the future, those which he had shouldered so nobly were but small. Note also that the servant is called good and faithful. In the eyes of the master this man had proved himself to be thoroughly reliable. Accordingly, he was going to have a share in the master's feast. It is gratifying to notice that when the next servant, his countenance beaming with equal joy, steps forward, hands the master two talents and then another two, and with the substitution of two for five in both clauses, makes the same speech, he receives identical praise. Has he not also doubled the amount? Has he not also added 100 percent to that which had been entrusted to him? He too, therefore, had been good and faithful, just as excellent as the first servant. Such moral soundness and such loyalty was what counted. He too, therefore, was going to share his master's joy. We can picture a party at which the three the master and these two good and faithful servants tell each other what has happened, rejoice because of the business enterprises that have been carried forward so successfully, but especially share each other's joy. Each man is happy because so are the others. The time has arrived for the third servant to bring his report: 24, 25. Also he who had received the one talent came forward and said, Master, I always [Greek] -2 _ftnref10 [Greek] that you were a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter; so, being afraid, I went away and hid your talent in the ground.& In order to invent an excuse for his own dereliction of duty this fellow has the audacity to accuse his master of being hard, [Greek] -2 _ftnref11 [Greek] that is unrelenting, harsh, merciless, stern, one who exacts more than he has a right to exact. When the servant tells his master, You are reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter, [Greek] -2 _ftnref12 ([Greek] he is lying. This particular employer was not at all like Pharaoh who without giving the Israelites straw demanded that they make as many bricks as heretoforeExod. 5:7, 8); or like Rehoboam who said, My father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions (I Kings 12:11). Thismaster, in assigning tasks, had mercifully figured with each man's capacity. And as to whether he at all sowed and scattered, the answer is that he certainly did, namely, when he distributed his talents among the three servants. So now he had every right to reap and gather. What the wicked servant is saying, then, amounts to this, If in doing business with the talent which you entrusted to me I had lost it, you would have demanded it of me nevertheless. That's the kind of man you are. I was afraid, therefore. That fear was not really my fault but yours. You made it so that the only thing I could do was to dig a hole in the ground and hide the talent. Then, calling his master's attention to the bag holding the money, he adds, Look, (here) you have what is yours;as if to say, I did not keep anything back. You should be thankful that I kept it intact, and that I now return to you whatever is yours. By no means is the master satisfied with this lame excuse and this groundless accusation: 26, 27. But his master answered and said to him, You wicked and lazy servant! Did you know that I reap where I did not sow, and gather where I did not scatter? Then you should have invested my money with the bankers, and upon my return I would have received what was mine plus interest.This man was wicked because he deliberately misrepresented both his master and himself. He falsely accused his master of being cruel. He also lied, namely, when he said, Look (here) you have what is yours, for he actually owed his employer not only that one talent but also whatever it would have earned had he been faithful. But instead of admitting his guilt, he acts as if the master should have given him credit for having been so cautious and for having returned the entire talent intact. This shows that he was indeed an utterly wicked and selfish individual. His master, moreover, is as it were saying to him, Your own words convict you; for if you were so sure that I was hard, you should have exerted yourself all the more. The least you could have done would have been to put my money in the bank, so that, upon my return, I could have received it back with interest. Literally the master said, You should have invested my money with the bankers. These bankers or benchers [Greek] -2 _ftnref13 [Greek] were the men who displayed their coins on the trapezas or benches. They were money-exchangers and bankers all in one. For a small fee they exchanged money, and they also paid [Greek] -2 _ftnref14 [Greek] on money that was deposited with them. Naturally, as is the case with present-day bankers, the money invested with them was by them loaned out at a higher rate of interest. In passing, a safe inference would seem to be that Jesus, who tells this parable, is not opposed to responsible capitalism. Profit promotes employment and makes possible helping those in need, etc. But helping others was about the last thing this man thought of. He was not only wicked but also lazy, guilty of the very sin against which again and again Scripture hurls its thunderbolts (Prov. 6:6, 9, 10; 10:5; 13:4; 15:19; 18:9; 19:15, 24; 20:4, 13; 21:25; 23:21; 24:30, 31; 26:16; Eccles. 10:18; II Thess. 3:11; Heb. 6:11). Wickedness and laziness are allies, not as if the wicked person is always lazy or slothful, but the lazy one is certainly wicked. In the original the combination is unforgettable, for the words used for wicked and lazy rhyme; cf. pernicious and unambitious. While the other two servants had been busily at work, figuring out ways in which, by honest means, they would be able to multiply their master's capital, this wicked and lazy fellow had dug a hole, little realizing that in a sense he was digging it for himself! What follows also belongs, in a way, to (the reckoningthat took place when the master returned. Yet, one can also consider it separately, for here again, as in other parables, the truth which Jesus wishes to teach his disciples, the real pointof the story-illustration, comes to the surface. The lesson here taught is expressed as follows: 28 30. Take the talent from him and give (it) to the one who has the ten talents. For to everyone who has shall (more) be given, and he shall have plenty; but from him who does not have, even what he has shall be taken away.The master issues a command. To whom? To other servants present at the scene, as in Luke 19:24? Though the answer to this question is not given, the command itself is very clear. The talent must be given to the first servant, the one who had increased to ten talents the five that had been entrusted to him. In this connection the principle already announced in 13:12 is now repeated. A superficial glance at the rule here expressed might cause sharp disagreement and perhaps even resentment. One might ask, What? Does Jesus here actually justify taking from the poor in order to give to the rich? In the light of the entire context and of other passages such as 10:39; 16:26; Mark 8:34 38; Luke 9:23, 24; 17:32, 33; and John 12:25, 26one soon discovers the true meaning. It is this: the man who through diligent use of the opportunities for service given to him by God has by divine grace surrendered himself to the Lord, to love and to help othersLuke 10:29 37; Gal. 6:10; I Thess. 5:15), and who in so doing has enriched himself, shall by continuing in this course become more and more abundantly rich. On the other hand, from the person who has become poor, because he has never given himself, even whatever little he once had shall be taken away. For the rest, see on 13:12. There follows, in words strongly reminiscent of 8:12, and of 22:13, And fling the useless servant into the most distant darkness; there shall be weeping and grinding of teeth.For the second part (weeping and grinding of teeth) see also 13:42; 24:51; and Luke 13:28. For the complete thought see on 8:12. The point of the parable, then, is this, Let everyone be faithful in using the opportunities for service which the Lord has given him. These opportunities, bestowed upon each according to his (God-given) ability, should, out of gratitude to God, be improved in such a manner that the glory of God Triune is advanced, his kingdom extended, and his little ones benefited. Negligence is punished; diligence, rewarded. A few subsidiary points may be noted: a. Whatever we have, whether opportunities or ability to use them to advantage, belongs to God. We possess. God owns. What we have is still his property. We are stewards. See Matt. 25:14; also Luke 16:2; I Cor. 4:1, 2; 6:19, 20; I Peter 4:10. b. The Lord grants us opportunities for service in accordance with our ability to make use of them. Accordingly, since not all men have the same ability, therefore not all have the same, or an equal number of, opportunities. In the day of judgment the number will not matter. The question is only, Have we been faithful in their use? See Matt. 25:15, 16, 19 23; also 7:24–27. c. Not only committingmurder, adultery, theft, etc. is wrong, but so is also omittinggood deeds to the glory of God. See Matt. 25:18, 26; also 25:41–45; James 4:17. d. Jesus did not expect to return immediately. He knew that a relatively long time would elapse before his return. See Matt. 25:19; also 24:9, 14; 25:5; II Thess. 2:2, 3; II Peter 3:4–9; Rev. 20:1–3; 7 11. e. Everything should be done with a view to the day of reckoning that is coming. How will this wish, thought, word, or deed, look on the day of the final judgment? is the question that should constantly be asked. See Matt. 25:19; also 25:35–45; Eccles. 12:14; Luke 12:47, 48; Rom. 2:16; II Cor. 5:10; Rev. 20:13. f. Though, in the light of their meaning for eternity, our responsibilities here and now are very important, they will be surpassed by those in hereafter. See Matt. 25:21, 23. g. To share the Master's own joy and the joy of all the saved is the glory of the life hereafter. See Matt. 25:21, 23; also II Tim. 4:8; and N.T.C. on Eph. 3:15. h. Instead of being true to his trust, a wicked and lazy person will offer excuses. See Matt. 25:24–30; also 7:22, 23; 25:44, 45; Luke 13:26, 27. None will avail. 10. The Son of Man's Coming in His Glory to Judge All the Nations What follows is not really a parable, though it does contain parabolic elements. It is a very dramatic, frequently symbolic, description of the last judgment: 31. When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he shall sit on the throne of his glory.& Cf. 24:30b, 31. In both cases the glorious coming of the Son of man, accompanied by angels, is described. The Son of man for this title see on 8:20, pp. 403–407 is here represented as seated upon the throne of his glory. The symbol indicates a most glorious throne, that is, a throne characterized by external splendor, brightness, brilliance, or radiance, corresponding with the internal and essential splendor of its Occupant's [Greek] -2 _ftnref15 [Greek] Somewhere in the renewed universe this throne or center of majesty and judgment will be established. Where will that be? Some place it on the earth (Job 19:25; Zech. 14:4). Whether the passages to which reference is made actually prove this is another question. Two possible objections against the idea of the throne being on earth might be: a.In the book of Revelation the throne of God and of the Lamb is generally in the upper regions, not on earth; and b.Would there be room on earthfor all the generations that have ever lived, so as to stand togetherbefore the throne of judgment? But if not on earth, why not in the air?afterthe judgment . We know at any rate that at Christ's return believers will be caught up in clouds, to meet the Lord (in the airI Thess. 4:17). Why would it be impossible that believers go forth joyfully to meet their Lord and Savior, while at the same time the wicked are driven before the judgment-throne? One thing is certain. It will be a very glorious throne. God, through the Mediator Jesus Christ, will be Judge. Of course, in the outgoing divine works (such as creation, providence, redemption, judgment) all three persons of the Holy Trinity co-operate. Nevertheless, from our present passage it is clear that the honor of judging was conferred on Jesus Christ as Mediator, that is, as a reward for his accomplished mediatorial work. See also (Dan. 7:13; Joel 3:2Heb. 4:2); Matt. 13:41; 16:27; 26:64; 28:18; John 5:22, 27; Phil. 2:9, 10. Associated with the Son of man in the judgment will be the angels. They are mentioned here not only because, by forming Christ's train, they enhance his glory, but also because they are given a task to perform. They will gather the wicked before the judgment throne and cast them into the furnace of fire (II Thess. 1:7, 8; Rev. 14:17–20). That the angels will also gather the elect from the four winds and bring them to their Judge-Savior, is clear from Matt. 24:31. This gathering of both the saved and the unsaved, and their separation, are described in verse 32.& and before him shall be gathered all the nations, and he shall separate them from each other, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.& Clearly, then, the judgment described concerns everybody, the entire human race. It is as universal here as in Rev. 20:11–15. None are excluded, neither the wicked nor the righteous. All the nations indicates all people indiscriminately; not, for example, the nations as contrasted with the Jews, as if the essence of the Grand Assize would be to discover how this or that nation had treated the Jews! Those gathered before the throne are persons, individuals, without any regard to their nationality; hence, all the nations. And in the case of any given individual what matters is whether he has during his earthly life given evidence of his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; therefore, of a life in harmony with Christ's commands and example. See verses 34 46. On the basis of this determination the Judge separates those gathered, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. Cf. 13:40–43; and 13:49, 50. Though sheep and goats during the day often intermingle, yet when the shepherd calls the sheep, the goats do not respond. Sheep probably symbolize those who trust in that is, follow the Savior, are meek, and obedient (John 10:3, 4, 27); goats, those who are belligerent, unruly, and destructiveEzek. 34:17–19; Dan. 8:5, 7, 21. The manner in which anyone standing before the Son of man has treated his people, that is, all those saved by grace regardless of nationality, race, etc., determines whether he is a sheep or a goat. 33.& and he shall put the sheep at his right and the goats at his [Greek] -2 _ftnref16 ([Greek] Being thus placed, each person knew immediately that he was a.saved, or b.condemned. That believers, too, are standing before the throne is clear not only from the very description all the nations &sheep &goats but also from such passages as John 5:28, 29; Rom. 14:10; I Cor. 3:13; II Cor. 5:10. Yet believers do not come into judgment, are not condemnedJohn 3:18; 5:24). In fact, in the passage that immediately follows (see verses 34 40) not a single one of their sins is even mentioned, only their good deeds. The objection is often heard, The final judgment is entirely unnecessary and superfluous, for long before that time the reprobate will already know where they will spend eternity, and so will also the elect. Is it not true that when a person dies, his soul immediately enters heaven or hell? So, what possible purpose would a final judgment serve? However, this reasoning is faulty. Note the following facts which show that the final judgment, at the last day, is indeed necessary: a. The survivorsthat is, those individuals who will still be living on earth when Jesus returns have not yet been assigned either to heaven or to hell. Hence theyat least must still be judged. b. But the final judgment is necessary not only for them but for everyone. This is true because the exact degree, or measure of weal or woe which anyone will receive in soul and bodythroughout eternity has not yet been designated. Up to the moment of the final judgment all those who have died have been in heaven or hell with respect to their souls only. c. The righteousness of God must be publicly displayed, that he may be glorified. d. The righteousness of Christ and the honor of his people must be publicly vindicated. When the world in general last saw Jesus, he was hanging on a cross, as ifhe were a criminal! This estimate as if he were a malefactor condemned for his own personal crimes must be reversed. All men must see him whom they have pierced. They must behold him in his glory with his people on his right hand. 34. Then the king shall say to those at his right, Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you since the founding of the world.& (Since the Son of man is clothed with all authorityEph. 1:22), he is called the King (John 18:36; Rev. 19:16). To be at the King's right means to hear from his lips, Come. They are welcomed to close, loving, and abiding fellowship with their Savior, the Judge and King. No greater blessing can be i (maginedPs. 17:15; 73:23–25). They are those who have been and, as the tense of the original implies, are abidingly the blessed of or: those blessed by the Father, who bestowed upon them salvation,that is, who delivered them from the greatest evil, sin and all its consequences, and placed them in possession of the greatest good, right standing before him and all it implies. They hear the joyful words, inherit the kingdom. For kingdom see on 4:23, 13:43. Since this is the judgment day, the kingdom in its final phase is meant here. These blessed ones, who were already heirs (by rightnow also become heirs in fact,and this in the full sense of the term. All the promises of salvation full and free are now about to be fulfilled in them everlastingly and ever progressively; all this in and through ChristRom. 8:17). For the implications of the term inherit see on 5:5. It is surely wonderful and comforting to observe that before the good deeds of these sheep are mentioned (verses 35, 36) emphasis is first of all placed on the fact that the basis of their salvation, hence also of these good deeds, is their having been chosen from eternity: (the kingdom had been prepared for them,and this not just recently, but from the foundingfoundation) of the world. Whether this phrasefrom,etc. is used or (before,etc.Eph. 1:4), the result is the same: from eternity. The good pleasure of God Triune, his sovereign grace, is the foundation of their salvation. Their good works are the fruit, not the root, of grace. This must be borne in mind throughout the study of verses 35, 36. To God alone be the glory! Having pointed this out, Jesus, predicting and describing the words of welcome which he himself will one day use, is now able to continue: 35, 36 &for I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink; I was a stranger, and you welcomed me; in need of clothes, and you clothed me; I was sick, and you looked after me; I was in prison, and you came to see me.Throughout his ministry, by means of precept and example, Jesus had stressed the necessity of feelings and works of love, mercy, and generosity (5:7, 43 48; 8:17; 9:36; 11:28–30; 12:7, 20, 21; 14:16, 34 36; 15:32; 18:1–6, 22, 35; 19:13–15; 20:28; 22:9, 37 39; 23:37). So it is altogether natural that this is what he expects of his followers. Now those who are here called blessed have shown kindness to the Son of man while he was still in the state of humiliation, rejected of men. Therefore all the more they will be called blessed when he returns in glory. All these kindnesses you have shown to me,says the King when he returns in glory. The combination I &me occurs six times in succession. What is deserving of special attention is the fact that in each case of need I was hungry, thirsty, a stranger, etc. and of satisfaction of this need you gave me to eat, etc. it is the faithful discharge of humble duties pertaining to day by day living, that is given as the reason for the words of congratulation and approbation, and for the cheering invitation to come in and take possession of the blessings of the kingdom in its final stage. What Jesus is saying is, In your daily life and conduct, in what are often called the little things of life, you have furnished proof that you are my true disciples. Therefore I call you blessed. This shows that in the kingdom of heaven there is room, plenty of room, for people who have not in the technical sense prophesied in Christ's name, have not cast out demons, and have not done many mighty works in his name. In fact, for those who boastabout such great accomplishments there is no room (7:22, 23). It is Christ's unpretentious but sincere follower, who honors him in the common things of life, that is here pronounced blessed. That these people are indeed genuine children of God is clear from their reaction to the words of the Son of man, the King: 37 39. Then the righteous shall answer, saying, Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee a drink, and when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or in need of clothes and clothe thee, and when did we see thee sick or in prison and come to thee?Thoroughly unaware are these people of ever having performed any good deeds which was exactly what made these deeds so good! It seems strange to them that they who had accomplished so little should now receive the ultimate accolade, a bestowal of praise uttered by the One who was their Lord and King. Note also that they are called the righteous. To limit this term as here used entirely to the forensic [Greek] -2 _ftnref17 [Greek] would seem to be impossible. Certainly the forensic sense is basic. But righteousness of imputation cannot be separated from that of impartation. Justification goes hand in hand with sanctification. In the present context the emphasis may well be on conduct that is in conformity with the law of God, deeds that are pleasing to him. The astonishment expressed by these followers of the Lord was that borne of service spontaneously, gladly, gratefully, and humbly rendered, and then completely forgotten. Their utterance of surprise receives a memorable reply: 40. And the King shall answer them, I solemnly assure you,see on 5:18 whatever you did for one of these brothers of mine, (even) for one of the least, you did it for me.The very close connection between Christ and his genuine followers is shown here, as also in 10:25, 40, 42; Mark 13:13; John 15:5, 18 21; Acts 9:4, 5; 22:7; 26:14, 15; II Cor. 1:5, 10; Gal. 2:20; 6:17; Col. 1:24; Rev. 12:4, 13. Cf. Prov. 19:17. Whatever was done for Christ's disciples, out of love for Christ, is counted as if done for Christ. Note especially for one of these brothers of mine, a marvelous word of condescending love, made even more glorious by the addition of (even) for one of the least. The reference is to the little favor to one of Christ's little ones, one who will never be mentioned in the headlines, the little favor almost instantly forgotten by the doer, but by the little one's Lord and Savior remembered throughout all the coming ages, and mentioned on the day of the final judgment! Wonderful! Jesus now also addresses those on the left, and in doing this he shows that not only human beings but even angels are judged. Cf. 8:29; II Peter 2:4; Jude 6; Rev. 20:10, 14, 15: 41. Then he shall also speak to those at his left (saying): Depart from me, you accursed ones, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.& This passage describes the punishment of the wicked as consisting of: a.separation; b.association; c.fire, to which may be added d.(see verse 30) darkness. It must be borne in mind that hell's most dreadful torment is for those who, though they knew the way, rejected it (Luke 12:47, 48). First of all, then, hell means (separation. The wicked will hear the terrible words, Depart from me, you accursed, which is the opposite of Come, you blessed. Besides 25:41 see also 7:23; Luke 13:27. They will go away into everlasting punishment (25:46). Their dwelling-place will be outside the banquet hall, the wedding feast, the shut door (8:11, 12; 22:13; 25:10–13). Within is the bridegroom. Within are also all who accepted the invitation before it was too late. Outside are the sons of the kingdom who, having spurned the gracious summons, are knocking at the door in vainLuke 13:28). Outside are dogs (Rev. 22:15). The wicked are cast down down down into the bottomless pit (Rev. 9:1, 2; 11:7; 17:8; 20:1, 3). Thus they sink away endlessly from the presence of God and of the Lamb. Secondly, hell means association,the most gruesome togetherness of all. The wicked will dwell forever with the devil and his angels, for whom the everlasting fire was prepared. Thirdly, then, hell is the place of (fire,of the flame. This is the language of Scripture throughoutIsa. 33:14; 66:24; Matt. 3:12; 5:22; 13:40, 42, 50; 18:8, 9; Mark 9:43 48; Luke 3:17; 16:19–31; Jude 7; Rev. 14:10; 19:20, 20:10, 14, 15; 21:8). This fire is unquenchable. It devours forever and ever. Fourthly, hell is the abode of (darkness(8:12; 22:13), the place where evil spirits are kept in everlasting chains under darknessJude 6). For the impenitent the gloom of darkness has been preserved forever (Jude 13). This description gives rise to questions: (a.How is it possible for the wicked to be sent away from (or: to depart from) God? Is not God omnipresent?Ps. 139:7–12). Answer: Although God is indeed everywhere, that presence is not everywhere a presence of love. It is from this presence of love, patience, and warning that the wicked are finally banished forever. (b.If hell is the place of fire, of the flame, of burning, how can it also be the abode of darkness? Answer: Burning and darkness are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, by a certain form of radiation a person may be seriously burned while he is in a dark room. It has happened. We also speak of burning thirst and of burning fever. It is therefore possible that in some literal, semi-literal, at least physical, sense hell can be the place of burning even though it is also the abode of darkness. Moreover, the term everlasting fire here in 25:41 may be used mainly as a symbol. At least, the physical sense does not exhaust its meaning. Everlasting fire has been prepared for the devil and his angels, yet these are spirits. Also, Scripture frequently associates two other concepts with that of fire, namely, divine wrath and human anguishDeut. 32:22; Ps. 11:6; 18:8; 21:9; 97:3; 140:10; Jer. 4:4; Amos 1:4, 7, 10, etc.; Nah. 1:6; Mal. 3:2; and Rev. 14:10, 11). See also on Matt. 27:45, 46. As a statement of the reason why the wicked are consigned to everlasting fire the sixfold I was &of verses 35, 36 is now repeated, the last two items being condensed into one, so that we now have a fivefold description of Christ's condition. Each of the five items is followed by the dismal and you did not &instead of by the joyous you gave me &you welcomed me &of verses 35, 36: 42, 43 &for I was hungry, and you did not give me to eat; I was thirsty, and you did not give me a drink; I was a stranger, and you did not welcome me; in need of clothes, and you did not clothe me; sick and in prison, and you did not look after me.It should be noted that all these sins are negative. Not a single sinful deed such as idolatry, murder, adultery, theft, etc. is mentioned. Only sins of omission are enumerated, sins of neglect. Cf. Heb. 2:3. This neglect proves that these people have not believed in the Son of man. For this unbelief, thus demonstrated, they are condemned. In abbreviated form the wicked now ask the same question as that asked by the righteous (vss. 37 39): 44. Then they, too, shall answer, saying, Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or in need of clothes or sick or in prison, and did not wait on thee?It cannot be proved that any special significance should be attached to this abbreviated form. The question in both cases is essentially the same. In both cases it is an utterance of astonishment. Nevertheless, the root of the question reveals a sharp contrast. In the case of the righteous we are dealing with astonishment borne of service gratefully rendered, and then completely forgotten. In the case of the wicked the expression of surprise, if not actually feigned, is rooted in self-delusion, the product of unbelief. Continued: 45. Then he shall answer them, saying, I solemnly assure you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.Because of the close connection between Christ and his genuine followers see on verse 40 whatever was not done for Christ's disciples is counted as if not done for Christ. Final result: 46. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into everlasting life.Cf. Dan. 12:2. Common to the concept everlasting in both of these cases is the idea without end. There is going to be an enduring separation. Punishment and life are everlasting. There will be no change (F. W. Grosheide). Contrary to -2 _ftnref18 (A.V.everlasting &eternal the adjective must be rendered by the same word in both of these balanced and co-ordinate clauses; hence, either eternal &eternal or everlasting &everlasting. Along with Williams, Beck, Goodspeed, and Norlie I prefer the latter. See Isa. 66:24; Mark 9:48, where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched; Rev. 14:11, the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever. Note also the sixfold no more at all of Rev. 18:21–23. Similarly, with respect to God's children, They shall hunger no more, nor thirst any moreRev. 7:16). Nowhere not even in Rev. 10:6does Scripture support the notion that either after death or after the judgment day there will be no more time. Nowhere does Scripture eternalize or deify the inhabitants of the coming [Greek] -2 _ftnref19 [Greek] And since here in 25:46 the same adjective is used in both clauses, the word to be used in the translation should make clear in which respect the two, namely, punishment for the wicked and life for the righteous, are the same. They are the same in this one respect, namely, that they last on and on and on, without ever coming to an end. Having said this, it must now immediately be emphasized that qualitively there is, of course, a vast difference between the punishment and the life. In connection with life this has been shown above; see on 19:16; cf. N.T.C. on John 3:16. Briefly, life in the expression everlasting life means salvation full and free. On the contrary punishment in the phrase everlasting punishment means damnation and all this [Greek] -2 _ftnref20 [Greek] With this important word of instruction, prediction, warning, and consolation, the last of Christ's six discourses, as reported by Matthew, is ended. -2 _ftn1 814 Here [Greek] probably simply means their. As in 21:8; Luke 11:21; 12:36, it seems to be used in the place of the possessive pronoun. -2 _ftn2 815 For the various elements of such a wedding see my book, More Than Conquerors, pp. 215, 216. -2 _ftn3 816 In that case these girls would be going out to meet the bridegroom and the bride, as a few textual variants represent the situation. But the preponderance of textual evidence omits and the bride. -2 _ftn4 817 Respectively, Word Pictures, Vol. I, p. 196; The Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah, Vol. II, p. 457; op. cit.,pp. 942, 944. -2 _ftn5 818 This is true whether one interprets the term [Greek] (in the New Testament occurring only here; but see the related word in 13:48) to refer to the oil receptacles that were part of the lamps (thus A. Edersheim) or to separate oilcans (thus A. T. Robertson). H. N. Ridderbos, op. cit.,Vol. II, p. 164, leaves room for either possibility. I agree. -2 _ftn6 819 Shall we say that their refusal was all the more justifiable if the vessels mentioned in verse 4 were not extraoil flasks? See footnote 818. -2 _ftn7 820 Acc. pl. of [Greek], which here, as frequently, is used for the gen. of [Greek]. -2 _ftn8 N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary -2 _ftn9 821 Or in this case his own, his respective. -2 _ftn10 822 first per. sing. aor. act. ind. of [Greek], indicating experimentalknowledge; hence, here I always knew (Phillips) can be considered a good translation. -2 _ftn11 823 [Greek], hard,cf. arteriosclerosis:hardening of the arteries. -2 _ftn12 824 Note the balancing of the verbal forms, the positive pres. act. participles [Greek] and [Greek] contrasted with the negative sec. per. sing. aor. act. indicates [Greek] and [Greek]. -2 _ftn13 825 [Greek] = banker,from [Greek], bench, small table(cf. 21:12) equipped with four feet or legs ([Greek]: four-footed). -2 _ftn14 826 (The Greek word [Greek], interest,is related to [Greek], child,and to [Greek], to bear, to bring forth. ) -2 _ftn15 827 For the concept [Greek] see N.T.C. on Philippians, footnote 43 on pp. 62, 63. -2 _ftn16 828 Rightand leftare plurals in the original; hence, literally, from the right parts of his body and from the left parts of his body. -2 _ftn17 829 See Lenski, op. cit.,pp. 971, 972. He claims that the adjective is never used in any but a forensic sense. -2 _ftn18 A.V. Authorized Version (King James) -2 _ftn19 830 For more on this see my book, The Bible on the Life Hereafter, pp. 72–74. -2 _ftn20 831 (The idea that since [Greek], comes from [Greek]: to prune(as a tree), and so to restrain, discipline,and since [Greek] basically means agelong,hence the hope of ultimate salvation for everybody is here taught, is worthless. Words have histories. Punish seems to be the meaning in Acts 4:21. In II Peter 2:9the punishment on the day of the final judgment is indicated. I John 4:18teaches that fear has to do with punishment. And as to [Greek], if we limit the duration of the punishment, then why not also that of the life? But this hardly anyone wishes to do. Also, though it is true that [Greek] may indicate either without beginningRom. 16:25; II Tim. 1:9), or without end (Matt. 18:8; 25:41), or both (Heb. 9:14), this does not help us in the present context, which, as has been shown, must be interpreted in the light of parallel passages, and therefore means without end. CHAPTER XXVI Outline of Chapter 26 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him to Do 26:1–5 God's Counsel versus Man's Collusion 26:6–13 The Anointing at Bethany 26:14–16 The Agreement between Judas and the Chief Priests 26:17–25 The Passover 26:26–30 The Institution of the Lord's Supper 26:31–35 Peter's Denial Foretold 26:36–46 Gethsemane 26:47–56 The Betrayal and the Seizure of Jesus 26:57–68 The Trial before the Sanhedrin 26:69–75 Peter's Threefold Denial 26:1–5 God's Counsel versus Man's Collusion Cf. Mark 14:1, 2; Luke 22:1, 2 26 1 It came about that when Jesus had finished all these words, he said to his disciples, 2 You know that after two days the Passover is held; then the Son of man is handed over to be crucified. 3 Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled in the palace of the highpriest named Caiaphas, 4 and plotted by some trick to take Jesus into custody and kill him. 5 But they went on to say, Not at the Festival, lest there be a riot among the people. 1, 2. It came about that when Jesus had finished all these words, he said to his disciples, You know that after two days the Passover is held; then the Son of man is handed over to be crucified. The formula, When Jesus had finished all these words, or something similar, has been discussed in connection with 19:1. See on that passage. The expression holding or celebrating the Passover obviously refers here to the eating of the Passover lamb on Thursday, the fourteenth of the month Nisan (Exod. 12:6, 7). The entire Festival of Unleavened Bread lasted seven additional days; that is, until the twenty-first of the month. It is clear, therefore, that when Jesus reminds his disciples that after two days the Passover would be held, Tuesday that very memorable day on which so many events transpired and so many words were spoken (beginning at 21:20) is not yet over. The disciples knew, of course, when the Passover would be held. They also knew, at least should have known, that Jesus was going to be crucified, for this he had predicted again and again. See above, p. 9. Something new is added when Jesus now designates the very day when this being handed over for crucifixion would take place, namely, during the night from Thursday to Friday, with the crucifixion itself to occur on Friday. It is not only the precise prediction, indicated by the prophetic present tense that arrests our attention, but also the implied determination on the part of the Son of man for this title see on 8:20, pp. 403–407 that the counsel of God shall stand (Isa. 53:10; Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23; 3:18; 4:28), and that he himself shall, in accordance with that counsel, actually lay down his life (John 10:11, 15). Apart from this voluntary sacrifice salvation for sinners would be impossible. The clash between God's counsel and man's collusion is indicated in 26:3–5; 27:1, 35, 50, 62. These passages clearly show that while the Jewish authorities insisted that the arrest, trial, and death of Jesus must not take place during the Festival, the divine decree that it would indeed happen at that particular time triumphed. Even in and by itself this victory of God over every wicked design of man is a source of comfort for every believer (Isa. 46:10; Eph. 1:11, 12). Moreover, was it not also very appropriate that the type, namely, the slaying of the Passover lamb, and the antitype, the crucifixion of the Lamb of God, who was taking away the sin of the world (John 1:29), should follow each other in such close succession? The narrative relating how vain men tried to overthrow God's eternal plan and to vent their fury on Jesus begins as follows: 3 5. Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled in the palace of the highpriest named Caiaphas, and plotted by some trick to take Jesus into custody and kill him. The envy of the leaders had been aroused by Christ's miracles, climaxed by the raising of Lazarus from the dead, causing many people to believe in Jesus (John 11:45 53). The wrath of these same religious authorities had been further uncorked by the triumphal entry's effect upon the crowds (Matt. 21:1–11), the cleansing of the temple (21:12, 13, 23), parables which they knew were meant for them (21:45), and the discourse by means of which the seven woes were pronounced against the scribes and Pharisees (chap. 23). Consequently the Sanhedrin, here indicated by two of its three groups the chief priests and the elders held a meeting. No doubt the third group, consisting of the scribes (see on 2:4 and 16:21), was also represented. The plan to put Jesus to death did not originate at this meeting. That purpose was of long standing (John 5:18, 7:1, 19, 25; 8:37, 40; 11:53). What is now decided is how to carry out this plan. The leaders agree on a scheme to take Jesus by surprise, by trickery. Were they even now devising the kind of plot in which Judas would play an important role? But see on verses 14 16. However that may have been, one thing is certain, their presiding officer was not going to restrain them from using questionable methods to attain their end. Who was this presiding officer? His name was Caiaphas ( Joseph who was called Caiaphas, says Josephus). The exact meaning of the name Caiaphas is not known, though it has been interpreted as physiognomist (expert in the art of reading character in the lineaments of a person's face or form) or, by a slight modification of this interpretation, fortune-teller, prophet. See John 11:49 51. Having been appointed to the highpriesthood by Valerius Gratus, the predecessor of Pontius Pilate, in the year a.d. 18, he was going to be deposed by Vitellus, the successor of Pontius Pilate, in the year a.d. 36. Caiaphas was the son-in-law of Annas, who was highpriest from a.d. 6 15. See Josephus Antiquities XVIII.35, 95. That Caiaphas was a rude and sly manipulator, an opportunist, who did not know the meaning of fairness or justice and who was bent on having his own way by hook or by crook, is clear from the passages in which he is mentionedMatt. 26:3, 57; Luke 3:2; John 11:49; 18:13, 14, 24, 28; Acts 4 6 . He did not shrink from shedding innocent blood. What he himself ardently craved, for selfish purposes, he made to look as if it were the one thing needful for the welfare of the people. In order to effect the condemnation of Jesus, who had aroused his envy (Matt. 27:18), he was going to use devices which were the product of clever calculation and unprecedented boldness (Matt. 26:57–66). He was a hypocrite, for in the night trial, at the selfsame moment when he was filled with inner glee because he had found what he considered a ground for Christ's condemnation, he tore his priestly robe as if overcome by profound sorrow! Such was Caiaphas. Leadership in hatching insidious plots could be expected from such a man. Judged by worldly standards both he and his father-in-law Annas on whom see N.T.C. on the Gospel according to John, Vol. II, p. 388 were very clever individuals. The meeting, moreover, took place in the palace^[832] of Caiaphas, a probable reference to the spacious and sumptuous residence, one wing of which may have been occupied by Annas, another by his son-in-law.^[833] Just why it was held here and not at the more usual place, namely, the hall of hewn stone on the south side of the great temple court, is not indicated. One guess would be: because secrecy was required. This sounds reasonable. Besides, old Annas may have considered it more convenient for himself to have the meeting right in or near his own home! Or, one other possibility, those who were to attend the meeting may have known that it would last on into the night, when no meetings were allowed within the temple complex. It is entirely in line with the spirit of these clever manipulators to read: But they went on to say, Not at the Festival, lest there be a riot among the people. The plotters knew that especially among the thousands of Galileans attending the festivities lasting eight days Jesus had many friends and adherants, people who in case of any action against their Leader might make trouble for the authorities. So it was decided to wait with the arrest, etc. until the followers of Jesus were no longer around. That this part of the plan miscarried was due to the fact that, because of the unexpected help offered by one of Christ's own disciples (verses 14 16), events took a much more rapid course than had been anticipated. Not at the Festival, said the plotters. At the Festival, said the Almighty; after two days, echoed Jesus. His words and those of the conspirators seem to have been spoken at the same time, for the context seems to imply that here, for once, the full temporal sense must be given to the opening word of verse 3, Then. The divine decree always wins; in the interest of the kingdom, and to God's glory (Ps. 2:4; 33:10, 11). 26:6–13 The Anointing at Bethany Cf. Mark 14:3 9; John 12:1 8 6 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, at the home of Simon the leper, 7 there came to him a woman having an alabaster jar of very precious perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at table. 8 But when the disciples saw (this) they were indignant. Why this waste? they said, 9 for this perfume could have been sold at a high price, and (the money) given to the poor. 10 But when Jesus perceived it he said to them, Why are you bothering this woman? For it is a beautiful thing she has done to me; 11 for the poor you always have with you, but me you have not always. 12 For when she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. 13 I solemnly assure you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, also what she has done shall be told in memory of her. Though the fact that Jesus would be handed over to be crucified after two days was news for The Twelve, it cannot be said that among Christ's true followers there was no one who had a presentiment of his impending death. See 26:12. The story begins as follows: 6, 7. Now when Jesus was in Bethany, at the home of Simon the leper, there came to him a woman having an alabaster jar of very precious perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at table. There is no conflict between this account and (John 12:1, Now six days before the Passover Jesus came to Bethany.& The time indication in Matt. 26:2, after two days does not apply to the anointing at Bethany (verses 6 13). At verse 6 Matthew begins to tell a new story. To do so he must go back a few days, to the preceding Saturday evening, when a supper was given at Bethany in honor of Jesus. Present at this supper were at least fifteen men: Jesus, The Twelve, LazarusJohn 12:2), and a certain Simon, mentioned only here (Matt. 26:6) and in Mark 14:3. The idea readily suggests itself that the supper (or dinner if one prefers) was prompted by love for the Lord, specifically by gratitude for the raising of Lazarus and for the healing of Simon, the man who had been a leper, is still called Simon the leper, but had presumably been healed by Jesus. It was at the home of this Simon that the dinner was given. From John 12:2we learn that Martha, the sister of Mary and of Lazarus, was serving, while Lazarus was one of those reclining with Jesus. While the guests, according to the custom prevailing in that region, were reclining at table, there came to him a woman. That this woman was Mary of Bethany we learn from (John 12:3.^[834] She has taken a position behind the reclining Jesus. In her hand she holds an alabaster jar of very precious perfume, that is, a jar of white (or perhaps delicately tinted) fine-grained gypsum. It is filled with perfume or ointment, characterized as being very preciousMatt. 26:7), very costly (Mark 14:3). In fact, the perfume had been extracted from pure nard (John 12:3). The same passage also informs us that there was a large quantity of this precious and very fragrant extract, not less than a Roman pound (twelve ounces)! Suddenly she purposely breaks this jar and pours its contents over Jesus. According to Matthew and Mark she pours it on his head (Ps. 23:5); according to John she anoints his feet. There is no conflict, for Matthew and Mark clearly indicate that the perfume was poured over Christ's body (Matt. 26:12; Mark 14:8). Evidently there was enough for the entire body: head, neck, shoulders, and feet. Simon's house was filled with fragrance. The true meaning of what happened here will never be grasped until it is realized that when Mary was pouring out her perfume, she was also pouring out her heart, filled with genuine religious love, gratitude, and devotion. The vessel in which the perfume was stored generally had a rather long and narrow neck. This bottle could have been opened or even broken at the top in such a manner that the perfume would have trickled out. But that would not have satisfied Mary. So she broke it in such a manner that the ointment came gushing out over Jesus. The rest of the paragraph describes the reaction on the part of a. the disciples (verses 8 and 9), and b. Jesus (verses 10 13). 8, 9. But when the disciples saw (this) they were indignant. Why this waste? they said, for this perfume could have been sold at a high price, and (the money) given to the poor. John 12:4 6(see N.T.C. on this) supplies further details, showing that it was the treasurer of The Twelve, namely Judas Iscariot, who voiced the strongest objection, and who quickly calculated the value of the gift, assessing it at three hundred denarii, for which, he implies, it should have been sold, the money to be given to the poor. But Matthew and Mark make it clear that the other disciples chimed in. With one exception, wherever Mary looked she met angry glances, shocked disapproval. That the native language of love is lavishness they did not understand. Noble people, these disciples, especially Judas, the protector of the simple way of life, the defender of the poor! But see John 12:6. It is almost beyond belief that the disciples should, by implication, mark as lacking in sufficient sympathy for the poor a most generous hostess; in fact one who together with her sister was in the habit of showing hospitality to them and to their Master whenever these poor people (Matt. 8:20), in need of constant help (27:55, 56), were in the neighborhood. It is even more amazing when one considers that at this very hour these adverse critics, the disciples, were being entertained at the home of one of Mary's friends! He is ungrateful who denies that he has received a kindness which has been bestowed upon him; he is ungrateful who conceals it; he is ungrateful who makes no return for it; most ungrateful of all is he who forgets it (Seneca, De Beneficiis III.1). Moreover, in view of all that Jesus had already done for them, was doing for them, and was going to do for them, should not these men have been happy that Mary was in this marvelous manner honoring their Benefactor? It is not surprising that Jesus rushes to Mary's defense: 10, 11. But when Jesus perceived it he said to them, Why are you bothering this woman? For it is a beautiful thing she has done to me; for the poor you always have with you, but me you have not always. Jesus did not want his disciples to worry about the perfume, as if it had been wasted, nor did he desire that they concentrate their attention exclusively upon the poor. He is saying, as it were, Consider what Mary has done for me. Not that the Master was unconcerned about the needs, both physical and spiritual, of those to whom help and mercy should be shown. Far from it, as the following passages indicate: (Matt. 5:7; 6:2–4; 12:7; 19:21; Luke 6:20, 36 38; 21:1–4; John 13:29. On this subject, as well as on all others, his teaching was in line with the rest of special RevelationExod. 23:10, 11; Lev. 19:10; Deut. 15:7 11was he not in a sense quoting Deut. 15:11? Ps. 41:1; Prov. 14:21b, 31; 19:17; Isa. 58:7; Jer. 22:16; Dan. 4:27; Amos 2:6, 7; and for the New Testament see II Cor. 8:1–9; Gal. 6:2, 9, 10; II Thess. 3:13; James 5:1 6). But there would be many more opportunities to attend to the cause of Christian charity or benevolence. On the contrary, the opportunity to show love and honor to Jesus in the state of humiliation had almost vanished. Gethsemane, Gabbatha, and Golgotha were just around the corner. What Mary had done was therefore right, beautiful even, for it was prompted by thankfulness of heart. It was also unique in the thoughtfulness it revealed. Moreover, it was regal in its lavishness. Last but not least, it was marvelous in its timeliness. As to the latter Jesus continues: 12. For when she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. On this difficult passage much has been written. As some see it, Jesus is saying that Mary, without realizing it herself, had anointed Jesus for his impending death and burial.^[835] Now it must be admitted that this interpretation makes sense: God's purpose is often accomplished through the deeds of human beings, even though the latter are unaware of what is actually happening. Besides, Mary may not have known that her Master's death was so close at hand. On the other hand, the fact should not be overlooked that Mary of Bethany was perhaps the best listener Jesus ever had. The woman who now anointed Jesus feet was the same one who had previously been sitting at his feet (Luke 10:39). If even the enemies of Jesus knew about the predictions Jesus had made concerning himself (27:63), can we not assume that Mary knew fully as much? If so, is it not probable that the thought had occurred to her, This may well be the last opportunity I shall ever get to bestow a kindness upon Jesus; and when, according to his own prediction, his enemies kill him, will his friends be accorded the privilege of anointing his body? The view, accordingly, that Mary's conscious purpose was to prepare Jesus for burial must not be ruled out. For more detail on this see N.T.C. on the Gospel according to John, Vol. II, pp. 178–180. Jesus concludes his defense of Mary as follows: 13. I solemnly assure you see on 5:18 wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, also what she has done shall be told in memory of her. As already indicated, it was now Saturday evening, the day before the triumphal entry. Then on Tuesday Jesus was going to make the astounding prediction that the gospel of the kingdom would spread throughout the world (Matt. 24:14). But before that announcement is even made, he now, that is three days earlier, solemnly promises that wherever the joyful story concerning Jesus is told there the deed of Mary will march hand in hand with it. The memory of Mary's noble act must be kept alive. The Master will not allow it to be forgotten. This, of course, is a lesson for all time. The gospel and Mary's beautiful deed, the message of salvation and the response of gratitude for salvation received, these two must never be separated. 26:14–16 The Agreement between Judas and the Chief Priests Cf. Mark 14:10, 11; Luke 22:3 6 14 Then one of the twelve, named Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests 15 and said, What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you? And they weighed out for him thirty pieces of silver. 16 And from then on he was looking for an opportunity to hand him over. In sharp contrast with Mary's manifestation of loyalty stands forever Judas deed of disloyalty: 14, 15. Then one of the twelve, named Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you? For a description of Judas and a discussion of the reasons which may have prompted him to commit the deed of treachery which from this moment on is linked forever with his name see on 10:2–4, pp. 454, 455. The word then, as so often in Matthew, is again rather indefinite. It seems reasonable, nevertheless, to conclude that the agreement between Judas and the chief priests occurred not only after the Saturday evening supper (verses 6 13) but even after the Tuesday meeting of the Sanhedrin (verses 3 5). In order to allow enough time for Judas to work out his plans it is probably correct to say that he went to the chief priests immediately or almost immediately after their recorded session. Not before, for it is clear from verses 3 5 that the decision reached at the meeting was still rather indefinite. They agreed by means of some trick or strategem to take Jesus into custody, not during the festival however. The exact nature of their dark device seems not to have been clear even to themselves at that time. They were hoping that something would turn up, or someone would show up. After all, everybody knew that they were seeking the help of the public in arresting Jesus (John 11:57). Did Judas arrive on Tuesday evening, just as the members of the Sanhedrin were leaving, and did they then quickly re-assemble? We do not know. One of the twelve, that was the tragedy. One cannot help thinking of (Ps. 41:9, Even my bosom friend, in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me. In fact, Scripture itselfJohn 13:18) encourages us to look in this direction in order to sense something of the depth of this man's sin and of his responsibility. What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you? Naturally the chief priests were glad (Mark 14:11) when they heard these words. Here, just when they were in a quandary, thinking perhaps that the crowds of Jewish Passover pilgrims were rather solidly on the side of Jesus, this man one of the twelve closest companions of him whom they considered their enemy volunteers his services! The chief priests must have considered this an answer to their prayers. And they weighed out^[836] for him thirty pieces of silver. Right there, on the spot, the deal was finalized, the money paid. This is not in conflict with promised to give him (Mark 14:11). Luke 22:5, 6a solves the puzzle: they came to an agreement with him, to pay him money. He consented. The implication is, So they paid. We can perhaps picture the situation as follows: Judas: What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you? The chief priests: We promise to give you thirty pieces of silver as soon as you agree to deliver him into our hands. Judas: I agree. The chief priests, after weighing out the money: Here are the thirty silver coins. Judas takes them and departs. This interpretation is in harmony with the psychology of the situation. The chief priests would not have allowed their golden opportunity to pass by unheeded. They knew very well that if Judas had the money in his pocket he would not have dared to back out before committing the deed. Besides, if it is Matthew's intention that the words regarding the thirty pieces be interpreted as a fulfilment of the prophecy of Zech. 11:12, as is probably true, they must have the meaning they weighed out for him, for that is their connotation in that prophecy, as Zech. 11:13makes clear. As to the price paid, namely thirty pieces of silver, these pieces were tantamount in value to tetradrachmas or Hebrew shekels. Thirty of these, figured at 64 72 cents each, add up to (a sum) slightly more or less than $20. But with money values, both then and now, constantly fluctuating, it is impossible to determine with any exactness what this would amount to in present currency. For a price of a slave, gored by an ox, the Savior was sold to his enemies. See Exod. 21:32. For such a pitiful sum^[837] Judas betrayed the Master! With the money already in his possession, Judas now feels obliged to go into action. We are therefore not surprised to read: 16. And from then on he was looking for an opportunity to hand him over. That opportunity would come his way very soon. 26:17–25 The Passover Cf. Mark 14:12 21; Luke 22:7 14, 21 23; John 13:21 30 17 Now on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, Where do you want us to get the Passover supper ready for you to eat? 18 He said, Go to the city, to So-and So, and say to him, The Teacher says, My time is near; at your house I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples. 19 So the disciples did as Jesus had instructed them, and prepared the Passover meal. 20 When it was evening Jesus was reclining at table with the twelve. 21 And while they were eating he said, I solemnly assure you that one of you shall betray me. 22 Filled with deep distress they, one by one, began to say to him, Surely not I, Lord? 23 But he answered and said, He who has dipped his hand into the bowl together with me, he shall betray me. 24 The Son of man goes as it is written concerning him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed. It would have been better for that man if he had not been born. 25 Judas, who was betraying him, said Surely not I, Rabbi? He said to him, You said (it)! Finally the morning of the fourteenth of Nisan arrived. When, as sometimes happens, the term Festival of Unleavened Bread is taken in its broadest sense, even the day on which occurred the eating of the Passover lamb is included. We are not told where Jesus and his disciples spent Wednesday, the day between the announcement recorded in verse 2 (Tuesday), and the Passover, verses 17 25 (Thursday).^[838] We read: 17. Now on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, Where do you want us to get the Passover supper ready for you to eat? Nothing is said about the purchase of a lamb. We may probably assume that this had been attended to a few days earlier. See (Exod. 12:3. Further preparations had to be made however. During the afternoon the lamb must be killed in the forecourt of the templeExod. 12:6). A room of sufficient size must be obtained, and everything in connection with this room and its furniture must be arranged. Besides, purchases must be made: of unleavened bread, bitter herbs, wine, etc. The lamb must be made ready for use, the sauce must be prepared. Since it was now Thursday morning, there can be no delay. 18. He said, Go to the city, to So-and-So &Mark 14:13informs us that these instructions were given to two of his diciples. Luke 22:8supplies the names Peter and John. Both of these Gospels also supply a more detailed description of Mr. So-and-So, without naming him, however. Is the indefiniteness of the three accounts due to the fact that not until later in the day must Judas know where the Passover will be kept, so that Jesus may indeed observe it with his disciples, and the plan of God regarding the subsequent events may be fully carried out? However this may be, the two apostles are told that upon entering the city (Jerusalem) they will be met by a man carrying a pitcher of water. Ordinarily not a man but a woman or a girl would be doing this; hence, this man with a jar of water, probably carrying it on his head, will be rather conspicuous. The disciples will have no difficulty singling him out from the crowd. Jesus instructs them to follow this man into whatever house he enters, and then to bring Christ's message to the master or owner of that house: and say to him, The Teacher says, My time is near; at your house I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples. It was the rule in Israel that if anyone at this time had space available it must be given free of charge to whatever family or group wished to make sacred use of it. Besides, this particular person, the owner of the house, may well have been one of Christ's followers, who accordingly would be glad to accommodate the Master and his disciples.^[839] The words, My time is near, clearly indicate Christ's consciousness of the fact that he was accomplishing the work which the Father had given him to do. Every detail of this task had been marked out in the eternal decree, so that for each event there was a stipulated moment. See (John 2:4; 7:6, 8, 30; 8:20; 12:23; 13:1; 17:1; and the climax: 19:30. The time, to which Jesus refers hereMatt. 26:18), must not be limited to the hours of the Passover but should be interpreted in a somewhat broader sense, the time appointed to me to bring to its conclusion the task of redemption assigned to me by the Father. 19. So the disciples did as Jesus had instructed them, and prepared the Passover meal. Christ's detailed prediction was literally fulfilled. The disciples are met by the man carrying the pitcher, etc. They make all the necessary preparations. The exact prediction and its precise fulfilment reminds one of similar occasions when the omniscience pertaining to Christ's divine nature seems to have conveyed information to his finite and by no means omniscient (see on 24:36) human mentality (John 1:48; and perhaps Luke 19:29, 30, but see on its parallel, Matt. 21:1, 2). 20, 21. When it was evening Jesus was reclining at table with the twelve. And while they were eating he said, I solemnly assure you see on 5:18 that one of you shall betray me. According to John's Gospel (13:1–20) Jesus has already washed the feet of his disciples, giving them a lesson in humility. Afterward he startles them by telling them that one of them is going to betray him (13:21–30). The pointing out of the betrayer occurred, according to our passage, while they were eating, that is, after the meal had been proceeding for some time. For the elements that pertained to the Passover meal, as far as possible chronologically arranged, see N.T.C. on the Gospel according to John, Vol. I, p. 121.The reference in while they were eating is probably to item f. on that page. In the same commentary see also p. 242. One of you! It came as a bolt from the blue. It was a stunning blow. What! Did the Master actually mean to say that one of their own number was going to hand him over to the authorities, for them to deal with as they pleased? Why, it was almost unbelievable Yet, the One who never told an untruth and whose very name was the Truth (John 8:46; 14:6) was saying this; so it must be true. Christ's shocking announcement evoked three responses, in the form of questions, as follows: a. a question of wholesome self-distrust, Surely not I, Lord? That was the reaction on the part of all the disciples with the exception of Judas Iscariot. In Matthew's Gospel the question is found in 26:22, Christ's answer in verses 23, 24. There was also b. a question of loathsome hypocrisy, Surely not I, Rabbi? That, probably after considerable hesitation, was Judas reaction. For both his question and Christ's answer see Matt. 26:25. Finally, there was c. a question of childlike confidence, Lord, who is it? That was the way in which John, prompted by Peter, expressed himself. The question in this form, the events relating to it, Christ's response, and the disciples reaction to that response, are recorded only in John 13:23 30, which also in verse 30 mentions the traitor's departure. Therefore for c. read N.T.C. on the Gospel according to John, Vol. II, pp. 245–250. Here in Matthew, therefore, we are dealing only with a. and b. As to a. the question of wholesome self-distrust, note verse 22. Filled with deep distress they, one by one, began to say to him, Surely not I, Lord? Eleven hearts those of The Twelve minus Judas Iscariot are filled with misgiving. Each of these eleven men feels that he could not possibly be the one meant by the Lord and yet one never can tell. And so, one by one, each of them, caught with a certain dread of himself, asks, Surely not I, Lord? As to its form in the original, the question expects a negative answer, the kind of answer each ardently hopes the Master will give. 23. But he answered and said, He who has dipped his hand into the bowl together with me, he shall betray me. It is clear that Jesus did not immediately allay the fear of these men or cure their self-distrust. Nor did he at once satisfy their suddenly aroused curiosity. Were not all the twelve disciples dipping morsels of food into the bowl filled with a broth consisting of mashed fruit (probably dates, figs, and raisins), water, and vinegar? Judas surely was not the only man doing this. What the Lord is doing, therefore, is this: he is emphasizing the base character of the betrayer's deed. He is saying. Think of it, my betrayer is a man who is sharing his meal with me. Jesus was himself the Host. All the others were eating his food. That very fact, especially in the Near East, a region where accepting someone's hospitality and then injuring him, was considered most reprehensible, should have tied the hands of all. It should have made it impossible for any of The Twelve to take any action against their Host. Think of Ps. 41:9. The answer given by Jesus here in verse 23 served the following purposes: (1). It was a warning for Judas. Let Judas ponder what he is doing. I know your designs, Judas, the Master seems to be saying. The revelation of this detailed knowledge should have put Judas on guard even at this late hour to return those thirty pieces of silver! Yes, in God's incomprehensible and all-comprehensive decree there is room even for solemn admonitions given to those who ultimately are lost. You ask, How is that possible? I answer: I do not know, but the fact remains, nevertheless. If one does not want to accept the idea of warnings even for reprobates, he misses something of the meaning of this account. The serious character of the implied admonition increases the guilt of Judas. Before one is ready to deny the possibility of earnest warnings even for the reprobate, he should study Gen. 4:6, 7; Prov. 29:1; Luke 13:6 9, 34, 35. (2). It rivets the attention upon the depth of Christ's suffering. In a treacherous and humiliating manner he, the Lord of glory, is being handed over to his enemies. It is very important that we see this. Our reflection on the account of Christ's Passion should not become lost in all kinds of details regarding Judas and Peter and Annas and Pilate. It is, after all, the story of his suffering. It centers in him, and we must never forget to ask how all these things affected him! (3). It showed, once again, that Jesus was in full control of the situation. He was not taken by surprise. He knew exactly what was happening and what was going to happen, the very details. (4). It furnished an opportunity to the disciples to examine themselves. This point is often passed by. It is, nevertheless, very important. By giving the answer that is recorded here in Matt. 26:23Jesus did not identify the betrayer, and exactly by not identifying him the Lord was actually doing all a favor. He knew that self-examination would be the very best exercise for men such as theseLuke 22:24! . Let each disciple be filled with grave misgivings, with wholesome self-distrust. These men need time for self-examination. Jesus continues: 24. The Son of man goes as it is written concerning him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed. It would have been better for that man if he had not been born. Cf. Mark 14:21; Luke 22:22. For Son of man see on 8:20, pp. 403–407. Jesus, the One who via the path of humiliation attains to glorification, and in fact was glorious from the very beginning, goes, that is, lives on earth, suffers, dies, all this not as a victim of circumstances, but as it is written concerning him, hence as predicted by the prophetsIsa. 53, etc. and established in God's eternal decree. It was necessary for the Master to emphasize this truth once again, for it was so very difficult for the disciples to reconcile themselves with the idea of a Messiah who would die. Besides, when, on the day of tomorrow by Jewish reckoning today he dies on the cross, let the disciples reflect on this solemn statement, that they may know that this death does not mean the triumph of his enemies but rather the realization of God's gracious, sovereign, and ever victorious plan. However, nowhere in Scripture does predestination and prophecy cancel human responsibility. So also here: the expression Woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed fully maintains the guilt and establishes the doom of the traitor. Not to have been born would have been better for such a man. But he was born, and is in the process of committing the gruesome deed. Therefore the entire statement, It would have been better for that man if he had not been born is an expression of unreality a situation that can be changed only if Judas, who remains fully responsible, still repents. We know that he did not repent. Hence he faces everlasting damnation (25:46). What makes his guilt all the heavier is the fact that he not only planned the treachery and took the next step volunteering to deliver Jesus to the enemy and the next accepting the thirty pieces of silver but even now, in spite of Christ's impressive warnings, goes right ahead. As to b., the question of loathsome hypocrisy, note verse 25. Judas, who was betraying him, said, Surely not I, Rabbi? Thus speaks the man who has the blood-money on his person! Was he thinking, Perhaps Jesus does not really know; perhaps he is only guessing. Besides, if I don't imitate the others, I'll be exposing myself. So I better put on a bold front? It may be significant, however, that he does not say Lord, as did the others, but Rabbi. Did his real self momentarily rise to the surface when he made this change? Jesus shot back the answer. He said to him, You said (it)! Yes, Judas, you yourself are the man! And after this reply and the additional word, What you are doing, so do it faster (John 13:27), Judas, into whose heart Satan has entered, rushes out of the room and into the night (John 13:30), with night in his heart.^[840] 26:26–30 The Institution of the Lord's Supper Cf. Mark 14:22 26; Luke 22:15 20; I Cor. 11:23–25 26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks, and broke it. He then gave it to his disciples and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27 Then he took the cup and gave thanks. He gave it to them, saying, All of you drink from it; 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 But I tell you that from now on I will certainly not drink from this fruit of the vine until that day when I am drinking it new with you in my Father's kingdom. 30 And when they had sung a hymn they went out to the Mount of Olives. 26. While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks, and broke it. At this point Passover passes over into the Lord's Supper; for it was while, toward the close of the Passover meal, the men were all eating freely (see on verse 21) that Jesus instituted the new sacrament that was to replace the old. A few more hours and the old symbol, being bloody for it required the slaying of the lamb will have served its purpose forever, having reached its fulfilment in the blood shed on Calvary. It was time, therefore, that a new and unbloody symbol replace the old. Nevertheless, by historically linking Passover and Lord's Supper so closely together Jesus also made clear that what was essential in the first was not lost in the second. Both point to him, the only and all-sufficient sacrifice for the sins of his people. Passover pointed forward to this; the Lord's Supper points back to it. Having taken from the table a thin slice or sheet of unleavened bread, Jesus gave thanks and then started to break up the slice. Though the original, in referring to the prayer, uses one word in verse Mark 14:22 (), and another in verse Mark 14:23 () the first participial form occurring in connection with the bread, the second in connection with the cup there is no essential difference. Both Luke (22:19) and Paul (I Cor. 11:24) read having given thanks where Matthew and Mark read having blessed. It is not incorrect therefore, in both Matt. 26:26and 27, to adopt the rendering, Jesus &gave thanks. For more on this see on 14:19. The words which the Lord used in this thanksgiving have not been revealed. To try to reconstruct them from Jewish formula prayers would serve no useful purpose. How do we even know that our Lord availed himself of these prayers? The breaking of the bread, to which reference is made in all four accounts, must be considered as belonging to the very essence of the sacrament. This becomes clear in the light of that which immediately follows, namely, He then gave it to his disciples and said, Take, eat; this is my body. To interpret this to mean that Jesus was actually saying that these portions of bread which he handed to the disciples were identical with his physical body, or were at that moment being changed into his body, is to ignore a. the fact that in his body Jesus was standing there in front of his disciples, for all to see. He was holding in his hand the bread, and giving them the portions as he broke them off. Body and bread were clearly distinct and remained thus. Neither changed into the other, or took on the physical properties or characteristics of the other. Besides, such an interpretation also ignores b. the fact that during his earthly ministry the Master very frequently used symbolical language (Matt. 16:6; John 2:19; 3:3; 4:14, 32; 6:51, 53 56; 11:11). It is striking that in all of the instances indicated by these references the symbolical or figurative character of our Lord's language was disregarded by those who first heard it! In each case also, the context makes clear that those who interpreted Christ's words literally were mistaken! Is it not high time that the implied lesson be taken to heart? Finally, there is c.: when Jesus spoke of himself as being the vine (John 15:1, 5), is it not clear that he meant that what a natural vine is in relation to its branches, which find their unity, life, and fruit-bearing capacity in this plant, that, in a far more exalted sense, Christ is to his people? Is it not clear, therefore, that the vine represents or symbolizes Jesus, the Genuine Vine? Thus also he calls himself or is called the door, the morning star, the cornerstone, the lamb, the fountain, the rock, etc. He also refers to himself as the bread of life (John 6:35, 48), the bread that came down out of heaven (John 6:58). So, why should he not be, and be represented and symbolized by, the broken bread? Accordingly, the meaning of the broken bread and the poured out wine is correctly indicated in a Communion Form which represents Christ as saying: Whereas otherwise you should have suffered eternal death, I give my body in death on the tree of the cross and shed my blood for you, and nourish and refresh your hungry and thirsty souls with my crucified body and shed blood to everlasting life, as certainly as this bread is broken before your eyes and this cup is given to you, and you eat and drink with your mouth in remembrance of Me. ^[841] It was the desire of our Lord, therefore, that by means of the supper, here instituted, the church should remember his sacrifice and love him, should reflect on that sacrifice and embrace him by faith, and should look forward in living hope to his glorious return. Surely, the proper celebration of communion is a loving remembrance. It is, however, more than that. Jesus Christ is most certainly, and through his Spirit most actively, present at this genuine feast! Cf. Matt. 18:20. His followers take and eat. They appropriate Christ by means of living faith, and are strengthened in this faith. Having said all this, it will not be necessary to expatiate to any great extent on verses 27, 28. Then he took the cup and gave thanks. He gave it to them, saying, All of you drink from it; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Note the following: a. Not much significance should be attached to the fact that Mark speaks of a cup, for in the parallel accounts Matthew's text varies, while Luke and Paul both use the definite article; hence the cup. At the Passover it was customary to drink several cups of diluted wine. Since, as has been shown, the Lord's Supper was linked with the last part of the Passover, it is clear that the cup here mentioned reflects the final drinking that occurred at this feast. Hence both Luke and Paul speak of the cup after supper. The emphasis, moreover, is never on the container. All the stress is on its contents, the wine (see on 26:29), as symbol of Christ's blood. b. By ordering all his true disciples to drink this wine, the unity of all believers in Christ is stressed. Moreover, the practice of having one person, a priest, drink for all is hereby condemned. c. In all four accounts a relation is established between Christ's blood and his covenant. As reported by Matthew and Mark, Jesus said, my blood of the covenant. The expression goes back to (Exod. 24:8. See also the significant passage Lev. 17:11. And note: Apart from the shedding of blood there is no remissionHeb. 9:22; cf. Eph. 1:7); therefore also no covenant, no special relation of friendship between God and his people. Reconciliation with God always requires blood, an atoning sacrifice. And since man himself is unable to render such a sacrifice, a substitutionary offering, accepted by faith, is required (Isa. 53:6, 8, 10, 12; Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; John 3:16; 6:51; Rom. 4:19; 8:32; II Cor. 5:20, 21; Gal. 2:20; 3:13; I Peter 2:24). Thus the covenant comes into being. Scripture refers again and again to God's covenant with his people. The Lord established it with Abraham (Gen. 17:7; Ps. 105:9); hence, also with all who share Abraham's faith (Gal. 3:7, 29).^[842] d. Jesus says that his blood is poured out for many, not for all. Cf. Isa. 53:12; Matt. 1:21; 20:28; Mark 10:45; John 10:11, 14, 15, 27, 28; 17:9; Acts 20:28; Rom. 8:32–35; Eph. 5:25–27. Nevertheless, for many, not for just a few. Cf. John 1:29; 3:16; 4:42; 10:16; I John 4:14; Rev. 7:9, 10. In both Matthew and Mark Jesus indicates that this is certainly the very last time that he is going to be with his disciples at this kind of supper. By means of this saying and its implications, he both predicts his imminent death and instructs them, and their followers throughout the ages, to continue until his return (I Cor. 11:26) this manner of remembering him: 29. But I tell you that from now on I will certainly not drink^[843] from this fruit of the vine until that day when I am drinking^[843] it new with you in my Father's kingdom. By speaking of the fruit of the vine Jesus undoubtedly refers to wine. Note close relation between vine and wine in Isa. 24:7. See also Num. 6:4; Hab. 3:17. At this time of the year (April), and under conditions then prevailing in Judea, it is hard to think of anything but fermented grape juice, that is, wine, the kind of wine used at Passover; hence, diluted or paschal wine.^[844] By saying until that day when I am (or: shall be) drinking it new with you in my Father's kingdom Jesus in all likelihood means until in the kingdom see on 4:23; 13:43 of my Father a favorite phrase with Jesus; see pp. 287, 326, 378, 543, 644 I shall enter into everlasting, festive fellowship with you. Then both passover and eucharist will reach their fruition (Luke 22:16). See also on 19:28. We see, therefore, that communion not only points back to what Jesus Christ has done for us but also forward to what he is still going to mean for us. Drinking new wine in my Father's kingdom in all probability must be interpreted as a symbol for the glorious reunion and never-ending festivities awaiting the children of God in the hereafter. Cf. Isa. 25:6; Rev. 19:19; and see also on Matt. 8:11. 30. And when they had sung a hymn they went out to the Mount of Olives. When they had hymned, says the original. Since, as has been shown, the Lord's Supper was the natural outgrowth of the Passover, it is probable that the hymns of praise that were lifted up to God were Pss. 115 118. These are songs of praise, thanksgiving, and trust, as anyone can see by reading them. They not only constituted a fitting conclusion to the blessings enjoyed but also a most appropriate preparation for the ordeal that was about to begin. For the entire subject of songs appropriate for the home as well as for public gatherings see N.T.C. on Eph. 5:19and on Col. 3:16. When the meeting had been thus concluded, Jesus and his disciples, no longer twelve but eleven, went to the Mount of Olives; for which see on 21:1; 24:3. Specifically, they crossed the Kedron and entered the Gethsemane grove, located at the foot of that mountain. See 26:36; cf. John 18:1. 26:31–35 Peter's Denial Foretold Cf. Mark 14:27 31; Luke 22:31 34; John 13:36 38 31 Then Jesus told them, This very night all of you shall become untrue to me, for it is written, I will strike down the shepherd, And the sheep of the flock shall be scattered. 32 But after I have been raised, I will go ahead of you to Galilee. 33 But Peter answered him, Even though all may become untrue to you, I will never become untrue. 34 Jesus said to him, I solemnly declare to you: this very night, before the rooster crows, you shall deny me three times. 35 Peter said to him, Even if I have to die with you, I will certainly not deny you. Similarly spoke also all the (other) disciples. 31. Then Jesus told them, This very night all of you shall become untrue to me, for it is written, I will strike down the shepherd, And the sheep of the flock shall be scattered. Though Then may again be rather indefinite, the most natural interpretation is that what is reported here took place on the way from the Upper Room to Gethsemane. It must have been rather late in the evening eleven o clock perhaps?^[845] when Jesus and the eleven men who were with him wended their way toward the garden. That adds meaning to the expression, this very night. In all of you shall become untrue to me, the basic meaning of the verb that is used is, as always, become trapped or ensnared. See footnote 293 on p. 303. In connection with Jesus, and because of their own weakness, these men would be lured into sin, in this specific case probably referring to becoming untrue to their Master.^[846] This would happen to all of them, says Jesus. There are three significant all's in this story. Taken together and fathomed in their depth and in connection with the attitude of Jesus toward these men, they reveal human weakness as contrasted with divine strength. Note: All of you shall become untrue to me (verse 31). All protest that this will never happen (verse 35). They all left him and fled (verse 56). Nevertheless, all of these eleven were saved men, so regarded by the Lord in his bounteous, forgiving love (John 17:6, 14, 16). Not one of them perished (John 17:11). In this momentary lapse of the disciples the failure to show their loyalty this night Jesus sees the fulfilment of the prophecy of (Zech. 13:7. The application of the prophecy to Jesus and his disciples does not present any great difficulty. It is true that in the context of Zechariah's prophecy the one who smites the shepherd is not mentioned. An order is simply issued, namely, to strike down the shepherd. On the other hand, the entire context refers repeatedly to Jehovah as being the Actor. It is he who will turn, bring, refine, try, hear, say. Accordingly, Jesus was entirely justified in saying, for it is written, I will strike down the shepherd. Interpreting this in the light of prophecy and of the New Testament, we can say that it was Jehovah himself who laid upon the Mediator all our iniquitiesIsa. 53:6). It was he who struck him down, bruised him, put him to grief, made his soul an offering for sin. Cf. (Acts 8:32 35. It was God the Father who spared not his own SonRom. 8:32). As indicated (see verse 56), the sheep were scattered. They fled were going to flee in every direction. The beauty in all this is not only that Jesus loved them all the same, but also that this very prediction would serve the purpose of bringing the scattered sheep together again, once they reflected on the fact that their Master had lovingly forewarned them. Jesus continues, 32. But after I have been raised, I will go ahead of you to Galilee. Another revelation of love is this, for here, even before these eleven men have become scattered, they already receive the assurance that they will be regathered. In clear and unfigurative language Jesus again speaks about his being raised from the dead. He assures them that, having been raised, he will go ahead of them to the very region, Galilee, where their homes were, and what is even more significant where their Lord had originally called them to himself. Immediately after Christ's resurrection a messenger from heaven is going to remind the disciples of this promise (28:7), and so, at his own direction, will the women, with the instruction that they must therefore go and meet the Lord in Galilee (28:10). It was indeed in Galilee that the risen Savior met with these eleven men (28:16), with seven of them (John 21:1 23), and with more than five hundred of his followers (I Cor. 15:6). Peter now reflects on Christ's prediction recorded in verse 31: 33. But Peter answered him, Even though all may become untrue to you, I will never become untrue. At the moment Peter said this he meant every word of it. His desire to be and remain loyal to Jesus, come what may, must not be questioned. However, the very language he used proves that he committed at least three closely related errors. He revealed a threefold weakness. First of all, he treated the word of Jesus, previously spoken (see verse 31) with disbelief. All of you shall become untrue to me, the Master had said. Not true, was essentially Peter's response, though he did not use these very words. But secondly, he also made himself guilty of disdain: with respect to his fellow disciples he revealed an attitude of unwarranted superiority. In the original the pronoun I, Even though all &I never, is very emphatic, not only because it is spelled out separately not just part of a verbal form but also because it heads the concluding clause of the conditional sentence. The apostle, therefore, was mentally drawing a comparison. He was as it were saying, Matthew, the former publican, might perhaps stoop down to that low moral level of abandoning the Master in his hour of affliction. My former fishing partners, James and John, might also conceivably fall into this trap. In fact, I wouldn't even put it past my own brother Andrew &but not I. In reality he does not even say not, but never, which is stronger. But basic to his disbelief and disdain was a very dangerous distention or swelling. Colloquially we speak about the swelled head. Peter had an inflated opinion of himself. He was guilty of overconfidence, conceit. He should have known better. As a child he must have received instruction in what we now call the Old Testament. However, he was not taking to heart the lesson which the stories of other boasters, such as Goliath (I Sam. 17:44, 51), Benhadad (I Kings 20:11, 21), Sennacherib (II Chron. 32:14, 19, 21), Haman (Esther 5:11, 12; 7:10), and Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 4:30–33) should have taught him; nor was he applying to himself the inspired counsel found in such precious passages as (Prov. 16:18; 26:12. Worst of all, he was ignoring Christ's constant emphasis on the necessity of humilityMatt. 18:1–6) and his prediction, which was after all a warning, that all would become untrue to him. In response Jesus now sharpens the prediction of a moment ago: 34. Jesus said to him, I solemnly declare to you: this very night, before the rooster crows, you shall deny me three times. In comparison with verse 31 we notice that the present prediction a. is introduced in a more solemn and impressive manner, I solemnly declare see on 5:18 and b. is far more specific, being addressed to just one person, Peter; indicating even more precisely when it will be fulfilled, namely, before the rooster crows, that is, before dawn; and describing the nature of the disloyalty trap into which that disciple will fall, namely, deny me three times. Rooster-crowing served as a time indication. Mark 13:35shows that it marked the third of the four watches. These were: evening: 6 9, midnight: 9 12, rooster-crowing: 12 3, and morning: 3 6. That the reference is to the second part of the 12 3 period is clear from Mark 14:30. However the mention of the crowing of the rooster refers not only to the time, but also to the actual crowing. We see Jesus here as the great Prophet. Though Peter did not know his own heart, Jesus not only knew it but also revealed it. Note the detailed character of this knowledge: three times. We see Jesus also as the great Sufferer. How what he foresaw must have grieved him. Finally, we see him as the great Savior. The reference to the crowing of the rooster does double duty: a. It indicates the shallow character of Peter's boast. Within just a few hours, yes, even before dawn, Peter will publicly disown his Master! Yet, b. this very rooster-crowing is also a means of bringing Peter back to repentance, for Christ's reference to it becomes firmly embedded in his mind, so that at the appropriate moment this hidden memory will suddenly pull the rope that will ring the bell of Peter's conscience. See Matt. 26:74; Mark 14:72; Luke 22:60; John 18:27. The disciple who by the Lord had been singled out for this specific prediction persists, however, in his profession of unswerving loyalty: 35. Peter said to him, Even if I have to die with you, I will certainly not deny you. His boast grows louder and louder. He speaks more and more emphatically note certainly not and even vehemently (Mark 14:31). If need be, he is willing even to die with (Matt. 26:35; Mark 14:31; Luke 22:33) and for (John 13:37) Jesus! Similarly spoke also all the (other) disciples. They were swept off their feet by Peter's mighty boasts. They must have felt that they could not very well promise less than Peter, their leader. With respect to this all (the others) see above, on verse 31. It would seem as if Jesus allows Peter to have the final say, for the Master does not again answer his erring disciple. Nevertheless, also in the present case Jesus proves that he is the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last. Had he not already prayed for Simon (Luke 22:31, 32)? And at the conclusion of the sad story was he not going to answer Peter by means of a tender, meaningful, marvelous look (Luke 22:61), to be followed after his (Christ's) resurrection by a private visit (Luke 24:34; I Cor. 15:5), and an unforgettable public restoration (John 21:15 17)? 26:36–46 Gethsemane Cf. Mark 14:32 42; Luke 22:39 46 36 Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and said to them, Sit here, while I go over there and pray. 37 And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be filled with sorrow and anguish. 38 He said to them, I am overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep awake with me. 39 And going a little farther he threw himself face down to the ground in prayer, saying, My Father, if it is possible, let this cup be spared me; nevertheless, not as I will but as thou wilt. 40 And he came to the disciples and found them sleeping, and said to Peter, So, were you men not able to stay awake with me for a single hour? 41 Keep on the alert and keep on praying, that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit is eager but the flesh is weak. 42 Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, My Father, if it is not possible that this (cup) be spared me except I drink it, thy will be done. 43 He came again and found them asleep, for their eyes were heavy with sleep. 44 So he left them, went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same thing. 45 Then he comes to the disciples and says to them, Sleep on now and take your rest. Behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners. 46 Get up! Let us be going. Look, my betrayer is near. In Gethsemane Jesus agonized 36. Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and said to them, Sit here, while I go over there and pray. Out of the eastern gate, located north of the temple, Jesus and his disciples proceed along the road that crosses the winter brook Kedron (John 18:1). They continue to a point near the place where this road divides into three branches, each leading to the Mount of Olives. Somewhere near this fork was a grove called Gethsemane, in all probability meaning oil-press. It must have been a secluded spot, fenced in and containing some olive trees and perhaps a grotto used in the fall of the year for an olive oil-press. Was the owner of the grove a follower of Jesus? That would almost seem so, for Jesus went there often with his disciples (John 18:2). It was therefore a quiet place, a place to teach, pray, rest, and sleep. At or near the entrance of the grove Jesus leaves eight of his disciples. 37. And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee.& Also at other occasions these same three men were selected by the Master to be with him. Why just these three? See on 17:1. Is it not remarkable that on two occasions Jesus bestowed this honor not only on James and John but also on Peter when this very disciple had just sinned grievously against the Master by sharply contradicting him? See 16:22, cf. 17:1; and 26:33, 35, cf. 26:37. This is one more indication of the tenderness and the forgiving love of the Savior. That Jesus would take some of his disciples with him into the grove is not strange. Being human himself, he stood in need not only of food, drink, clothing, shelter, and sleep, but also of human fellowship. Cf. (Heb. 4:15. He needed these men. Even more, they needed him! Continued: &and began to be filled with sorrow and anguish. All the waves and the billows of distress came pouring over his soul. Cf. Ps. 42:7b. Why this terror and dismay? Was it because he knew that even now Judas was approaching or preparing to approach in order to deliver him to his enemies? Was it because he was painfully aware that Peter would deny him, that the Sanhedrin would condemn him, Pilate sentence him, his enemies ridicule him, and the soldiers crucify him? No doubt all that was included. However, as the story develops we notice that it was especially this one thought, namely, that he, a most tender and sensitive soul, is more and more being driven into isolation. Many of the people have already left himJohn 6:66). His disciples are going to forsake him (Matt. 26:56). Worst of all, on the cross he will be crying out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (27:46). Did he, perhaps, here in Gethsemane see this tidal wave of God's wrath because of our sin coming? Cf. Isa. 63:3. It was alone the Savior prayed In dark Gethsemane; Alone he drained the bitter cup And suffered there for me. Alone, alone, He bore it all alone; He gave himself to save his own, He suffered, bled, and died alone, alone. Ben H. Price This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XXVII Outline of Chapter 27 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him to Do 27:1, 2 The Sanhedrin's Decision to Put Jesus to Death. Jesus Brought before Pilate 27:3–10 Judas Death by Suicide 27:11–14 Jesus Questioned by Pilate 27:15–26 Jesus Sentenced to Die 27:27–31 The Mockery 27:32–44 Calvary: The Crucifixion of Jesus 27:45–56 Calvary: the Death of Jesus 27:57–61 The Burial of Jesus 27:62–66 The Guard Stationed 27:1, 2 The Sanhedrin's Decision to Put Jesus to Death Jesus Brought before Pilate Cf. Mark 15:1; Luke 22:66; 23:1; John 18:28 27 1 Early in the morning all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death. 2 And having bound him they led him away and handed him over to Pilate the governor. 1. Early in the morning all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death. From about three o clock until daybreak Jesus must have been held in imprisonment somewhere in the palace of Caiaphas. Then early in the morning for the reason already stated (see on 26:59, 60, 66) the Sanhedrin is convened once more. A few minutes may have sufficed, since the verdict, Guilty of blasphemy and therefore worthy of death had already been agreed upon. Besides, Jesus must be rushed off to Pilate before the crowds know what is going on. So, very quickly Jesus is sentenced to death. 2. And having bound him they led him away and handed him over to Pilate the governor. The binding had occurred also earlier (John 18:12, 24). Jesus had to be led before Pilate because the Sanhedrin had no right, without Rome's approval, to carry out its decree (John 18:31). John 18:28 (states that Jesus was led to the governor's residence or praetorium. The language used in Luke 23:7makes it well-nigh impossible to believe that Herod's palace is meant. The reference must be to the fortress of Antonia at the northwest corner of the temple area. Pilate had rooms in this fortress, in close proximity to the garrisonMark 15:16), though his main residence was in Caesarea. Pontius Pilate was the fifth governor of the southern half of Palestine. He was governor in the sense of being procurator, ruling over an imperial province, and as such directly responsible to the emperor. Although he had been endowed with civil, criminal, and military jurisdiction, he was under the authority of the legate of Syria. From the sources that have come down to us^[862] we may conclude that he was not a very tactful person. Once he caused soldiers who were under his command to bring with them into the holy city of Jerusalem, ensigns with their images of the emperor. To the Jew this was sacrilege. None of the procurators who preceded him had done this. When he threatened with death those who had come to petition him for the removal of these idolatrous standards they called his bluff, and he yielded. At another time he used the temple-treasure to pay for an aqueduct. When a crowd complained and rioted, he ordered his soldiers to club them into submission. The incident which finally led to his removal from office was his interference with a multitude of fanatics who, under the leadership of a false prophet, were at the point of ascending Mt. Gerizim in order to find the sacred vessels which, as they thought, Moses had hidden there. Pilate's cavalry attacked them, killing many of them. Upon complaint by the Samaritans, Pilate was then removed from office. He started out for Rome in order to answer the charges that had been leveled against him. Before he reached Rome, the emperor (Tiberius) had died. An unconfirmed story, related by Eusebius, states that Pilate was forced to become his own slayer. From the Gospels we gather that he was proud (John 19:10); and cruel (Luke 13:1). He was probably just as superstitious as his wife (Matt. 27:19). Above all, as all the accounts of the trial of Jesus before him indicate, he was a self-seeker, wishing to stand well with the emperor. He thoroughly hated the Jews who, as he saw it, were always causing him trouble upon trouble. That he was utterly devoid of any remnant of human sympathy and any sense of justice cannot be proved. In fact, there are passages which seem to point in the opposite direction. At any rate, though his guilt was great, it was not as great as that of Annas and Caiaphas, cf. John 19:11. 27:3–10 Judas Death by Suicide Cf. Acts 1:18, 19 3 When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, 4 saying, I have sinned by betraying innocent blood. But they said, What is that to us? That's your problem. 5 And after he had thrown the pieces of silver into the temple^[863] he departed. Then he went off and hanged himself. 6 But the chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, It is not permissible to put these into the temple treasury, since it is blood money. 7 So they took counsel and bought with them the Potter's Field, as a burial place for foreigners. 8 Therefore to this day this field has been called the Field of Blood. 9 Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah, saying, And I took the thirty pieces of silver, the price for the man whose price was set, on whom the children of Israel had set a price, 10 and I gave them for the field of the potter, as the Lord had directed me. 3, 4a. When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, I have sinned by betraying innocent blood. Exactly when it was that Judas was seized with remorse is not indicated, but the text leaves the impression that it was immediately after he knew that Jesus had been sentenced to death. He may have rushed to the chief priests and elders at the very moment when the procession was forming to lead Jesus to the praetorium. Judas was seized with remorse. He, in a sense, was sorry afterward. See on 3:2 and on 21:28–30, especially footnote 736 on pp. 778, 779. He was burdened with self-reproach. Not that he now, had the opportunity been given, would have confessed his sin to the Savior and begged his forgiveness. A basic change of heart and mind he did not experience. But the feeling of guilt and fear of what might be the result for himself made it impossible for him to face the future. So, to the chief priests and elders not necessarily the Sanhedrin still in session, for nothing is here said of their being assembled he rushes in order to return to them the thirty pieces of silver, while he sobs, I have sinned by betraying innocent blood. We should not form too favorable an opinion of this self-reproach of Judas. Origen (Against Celsus II.xi) was of the opinion that the traitor's sorrow, exceeding great, was the result of the teaching of Jesus. We are rather of the opinion that it resembled the sentiment of Cain as expressed in Gen. 4:14. But however that may be, the chief priests and elders were not ready to co-operate with the betrayer. One is reminded of Benedict Arnold, another traitor. The reward he received from the British was of a very temporary character. He was hated by those whom he had betrayed and disliked even by the British whom he had favored. He died in poverty. So it was also in the case of Judas. How did his friends of a moment ago react to his confession? We read: 4b. But they said, What is that to us? That's your problem.^[864] It must have been with sublime unconcern, with scorn and loathing, that they uttered these words. Judas had served their purpose. They wanted to have no further dealings with him; nor did they, at this particular moment, want to have anything to do with his blood-money. In despair Judas now goes to the temple. 5. And after he had thrown the pieces of silver into the temple he departed. The flinging away of these coins is the action of a desperate man. Exactly where in the temple they landed is not certain. Some interpreters are of the opinion that the silver was hurled into the sanctuary, comprising the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies. According to this theory the traitor flung the bag with its silver into the entrance of the Holy Place. They base this conclusion on the fact that the original uses a word for temple which really means sanctuary. However, words have histories. Thus, for example, in (John 2:19Matt. 26:60b, 61) the same word sanctuary is used. Nevertheless, probably the entire temple, including the courts, is indicated; otherwise the Jews could not have said, Forty-six years this sanctuary has been in the process of building. It is rather immaterial whether, in translating this word,^[865] one uses sanctuary or temple as an English equivalent, just so it is understood that sanctuary does not always have to refer to the inner shrine but can also have a broader meaning. When this is granted, it becomes clear that Judas did not necessarily fling the silver pieces into the Holy Place. He may, in fact, have intended to donate them to holy causes. Shall we add, thus, in a small measure, as he may have thought, to compensate for his terrible crime? Whatever his intention may have been, verse 6 would seem to lend support to the theory that Judas threw the pieces into the Treasury. ^[866] Against the wall in the Court of Women stood thirteen trumpet-shaped chests in which the people deposited their gifts assessments and free donations for various religious causes. Hence, using the part for the whole, this court was sometimes called the Treasury (John 8:20). We can picture Judas, emotionally upset, flinging these pieces, either singly, more probably still in his bag, into this court. If the string of the bag was loose, did the silver pieces ring loudly on the stone floor and scatter in every direction? Were Judas clothes torn and his eyes filled with alarm?^[867] Having returned the money, the traitor departed. The verb used in the original probably has the meaning generally assigned to it, namely, depart, go away, leave, withdraw. See also 2:12, 13, 14, 22; 4:12; 9:24; 12:15; 14:13. In view of its prefix, and the deed which the traitor was about to perform, some believe that in this instance it means, went to a higher place. But that is by no means certain. Then he went off and hanged himself. Why this should be regarded as in conflict with Luke's account: Falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out (Acts 1:18) is not clear. If he hanged himself from a tree located on a high cliff, above a valley, and if then the rope broke and the traitor fell on rocky ground, the result could very well have been as pictured in the book of Acts. Of course, this attempt at harmonization may be erroneous. There could be another and better explanation, but at least there is no reason whatever to cry, Discrepancy. 6. But the chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, It is not permissible to put these into the temple treasury, since it is blood money. This sounds as if these priests, charged with the care of the temple, are saying, What Judas intended cannot be done. To use such tainted money for sacred purposes would be illegal. Cf. Deut. 23:18. It must not be put into the qorbana (Aramaic), or temple treasury.^[868] The very thought of blood money is repugnant to these holy (?) men. The fact that they themselves had in a sense created this kind of money did not seem to bother them in the least. When it came to meticulous fulfilment of the law in matters, even rather minor matters, that did no harm to what they regarded as their own personal interests, these men could be very conscientious. On matters far more important, such as justice and mercy and faithfulness (23:23), they were not nearly as scrupulous. They did not mind at all to pay out blood money in order to be able to lay hands on their enemy, Jesus, and to murder him! In this respect these priests resembled the scribes and the Pharisees. See on 15:3 ff.; 23:23, 24. The result of their deliberation regarding the thirty pieces of silver is recorded in verse 7. So they took counsel and bought with them the Potter's Field, as a burial place for foreigners. They decide to use this money for a cause not directly connected with the temple and its maintenance or with any other strictly religious project. Instead, they used it for the purchase of the Potter's Field, the Acre of Ceramics. This term probably indicates a field from which potters (or a potter) used to obtain their (his) clay, but which had become depleted as a source of further supplies, and had therefore been offered for sale. The priests, then, intend to transform this plot into a burial place for strangers. They were probably thinking especially of Jews living outside the Holy Land and coming to Jerusalem to attend one of the great festivals, and then overtaken by death, without any friends or relatives who were able to provide a funeral for them. In this way the blood money, having been already used for the murder of the Friend of the poor, could now also serve as a help for the poor themselves in their ultimate need! But if the priests thought that by means of this good deed they would be able to cleanse their hearts and hands, they were mistaken. In the future this field would be called the Field of Blood, cf. %aqel dema (Acts 1:19): 8. Therefore to this day this field has been called the Field of Blood. The meaning here is evidently that the place was called the Field of Blood because it was purchased with blood money. The name of the field would then be a continuing testimony against Judas, the priests, and all who had agreed with them. There are those (for example, A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, I, p. 224) who interpret Acts 1:8to mean that the field derived its name from the circumstance that Judas blood was shed there. If the passage in Acts really implies this, there is still no conflict with Matt. 27:8, for the two reasons are not irreconcilable. Since the fourth century a.d. a location has been assigned to this field, namely, south of the city, in the Valley of Hinnom near the latter's junction with the Kedron (or Kidron) Valley. In a passage on which much labor by many commentators has been spent Matthew continues: 9, 10. Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah, saying, And I took the thirty pieces of silver, the price for the man whose price was set, on whom the children of Israel had set a price, and I gave them for the field of the potter, as the Lord had directed me. Note: I took &I gave, a reading followed also by Ridderbos. Cf. Zech. 11:13. The problem is that nowhere in the prophecy of Jeremiah is there any mention of the thirty pieces of silver, the price for the man whose price was set.& On the other hand, in Zech. 11:12, 13, we read, And I said to them, If it is good in your eyes, give me my wages; but if not, let it go. So they weighed as my wages thirty shekels of silver. Then the Lord said to me, Throw it to the potter, ^[869] the lordly price at which I was appraised by them. So I took the thirty shekels of silver, and I threw them into the house of the Lord to the potter. It appears that the people of Zechariah's day had a low opinion of Zechariah as a shepherd, and accordingly paid him only thirty pieces of silver for his labors. So the prophet is directed by the Lord to go to the house of the Lord and to throw these thirty pieces to the potter whom he will meet there. The question, To what extent must this prophecy be interpreted literally, to what extent figuratively? need not detain us. See commentaries on Zechariah. For our present purpose it is only necessary to note the following points of resemblance between Zech. 11:12, 13and Matt. 27:9, 10: a. The labor of Jesus, as well as that of Zechariah, was held in low esteem by many of those who were the objects of it. b. As the lordly price this is irony of thirty shekels was paid to Zechariah, so Jesus was betrayed for the same paltry sum. These thirty pieces of silver were the price which the children of Israel set on Zechariah, and subsequently on Jesus. c. As the thirty pieces at which the labor of Zechariah had been appraised were thrown to the potter at the Lord's commandZech. 11:13; cf. Matt. 27:10b so also the thirty pieces for which Jesus was betrayed landed at last in the hands of the potter. d. In both cases also the throwing of the pieces took place in the house of the Lord. Cf. Zech. 11:13with Matt. 27:5. Up to this point there is agreement between Zechariah's prophecy and its fulfilment in connection with Jesus. The problem, however, is that Matthew says Jeremiah, not Zechariah. Instead of bothering the general reader with various theories which I, the author of this Commentary, reject, I refer to the footnote for a brief enumeration of solutions which I cannot accept, so that those who are interested may study them.^[870] My own solution, to the extent in which I deem a solution to be possible, is as follows. First of all, the close connection of (Matt. 27:9, 10with the prophecy of Zech. 11:12, 13cannot be denied. Secondly, Zechariah's prophecy, taken by itself, does not fully satisfy the requirements of Matthew's fulfilment passage. One might ask, Where in Old Testament prophecy is there mention of a plot of ground, used for burial purposes, which became known as the Field of Blood, because innocent blood had been shed? It is such a plot to which Matthew, according to the context, is clearly referring. Yet nothing of the kind is mentioned in Zechariah. It is described, however, in Jeremiah,^[871] chapter 19. Note all the resemblances: Judah and Jerusalem have shed innocent bloodJer. 19:4; Matt. 27:4). Chief priests and elders are mentioned prominently (Jer. 19:1; Matt. 27:3, 6, 7). A potter is mentioned (Jer. 19:1, 11; Matt. 27:7, 10). Topheth, that is, the valley of Hinnom the very valley where, according to tradition, the Potter's Field was located has its name changed to the Valley of Slaughter, which is about the same as the Field of Blood (Jer. 19:6; Matt. 27:8; cf. Acts 1:19). And this valley becomes a well-known burial place (Jer. 19:11; Matt. 27:7). As has already been implied, the solution is not complete. That Jeremiah actually bought a potter's field (Matt. 27:10) is not stated in Jer. 19nor anywhere else in the Old Testament. Did Matthew derive this bit of information from oral tradition? It is clear, however, that in many other respects Matthew's passage reflects Jer. 19. What Matthew does, therefore is this: he combines two prophecies, one from Zechariah and one from Jeremiah. Then he mentions not the minor prophet but the major prophet as the source of the reference. This mentioning of only one source when the allusion is to two is not peculiar to Matthew. Mark does this also. Thus (Mark 1:2, 3refers first to Malachi, then to Isaiah. Nevertheless Mark ascribes both prophecies to Isaiah, the major prophet. And similarly the quotation found in II Chron. 36:21is drawn from Lev. 26:34, 35and from Jer. 25:12(cf. 29:10), but is ascribed only to Jeremiah. We are safe, therefore, in allowing the words through the prophet JeremiahMatt. 27:9) to stand, just so we realize that the background of the passage is actually both Jeremiah and Zechariah, and that the first part of the quotation resembles a passage from Zechariah even more strongly than any from Jeremiah. The main point to bear in mind, however, is that also in the suicide of the traitor and the purchase of a field with his blood money prophecy is again being fulfilled, and God's plan is being carried out. 27:11–14 Jesus Questioned by Pilate Cf. Mark 15:2 5; Luke 23:2 5; John 18:33 38 11 Now Jesus stood before the governor. And the governor questioned him, saying, You are the king of the Jews? Jesus replied, You said (it). 12 And when he was being accused by the chief priests and the elders, he made no answer. 13 Then Pilate said to him, Don t you hear how many accusations they are bringing against you? 14 But he gave no answer, not even to a single charge, so that the governor was exceedingly astonished. The story started in verses 1 and 2 Jesus Brought before Pilate is now resumed. Since several elements enter into the narrative represented by the two sections, Jesus Questioned by Pilate (Matt. 27:11–14) and Jesus Sentenced to Die (27:15–26), and since the other Gospels, too, make their distinct contributions, it may be helpful before presenting an interpretation of these two sections of Matthew's Gospel, first of all to give a brief summary of events. Combining the Gospel accounts, one gains the impression that from the start almost to the finish Pilate did everything in his power to get rid of this case. He had no love for the Jews. He hated to please them and to grant their request with respect to Jesus. Yet, on the other hand, deep down in his heart he was afraid of them and of the possibility that they might use their influence to hurt him. Up to a point he is willing to do what justice demands, but only up to a point. When his position is threatened, he surrenders. As indicated, from the start he wanted to avoid the necessity of making a definite decision regarding Jesus. So, first he tries to return the prisoner to the Sanhedrin, Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your own law, he says (John 18:29 31). When the members of that body make clear to Pilate that they desire nothing less than the prisoner's death, and when they then are made to understand that to secure their objective definite charges will have to be made against Jesus, they quickly present three of them: a. he perverts the nation; b. he forbids us to pay tribute to Caesar; and c. he claims that he himself is king (Luke 23:2). In reality these three charges amounted to one: This man is a revolutionary, a seditionist, a politically dangerous person. Pilate could not afford to allow such an alleged claim to kingship to remain unexamined. It is at this point that our present section, Jesus Questioned by Pilate (Matt. 27:11–14), takes up the story. Having examined Jesus on this point, Pilate returns a verdict of Not guilty. However, the answer of the Jews is, He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee even to this place (Luke 23:5). The mention of Galilee is music to Pilate's ears, for to him it means that he may be able to turn the case over to the tetrarch Herod Antipas, now in Jerusalem (Luke 23:6 12). When also this does not bring about the result which Pilate had in mind, he tries to escape from his difficult situation by meeting the Sanhedrin halfway, that is, by suggesting that Jesus be first scourged and then released (Luke 23:13 16). When this proposal is also rejected, the procurator tries to get rid of his problem by making a very peculiar and wholly unwarranted use of his custom at a festival to permit the Jews to choose a prisoner of their nationality to be set free. Here begins Matthew's next section, Jesus Sentenced to DieMatt. 27:15–26; cf. Mark 15:6 15; Luke 23:13 25; John 18:19 19:16. Pilate offers the Jews the opportunity to choose between Barabbas and Jesus, as if the latter were already a man condemned by the Roman government. But, contrary to his hope and expectation, the people, urged on by their leaders, choose Barabbas. The result is that Pilate, after more desperate attempts to force them to accept his earlier proposal that Jesus be scourged and then set free, etc. (Luke 23, but see also John 19:1 11) finally surrenders. Capitulating to the wishes of the people who are screaming, If you release this man, you are no friend of the emperor (John 19:12), he sentences Jesus to be crucified. By publicly washing his own hands the corrupt judge tries to appease his conscience and to place all the blame upon the crowds. With this brief outline in mind, we are now ready to return to Matthew's account: 11. Now Jesus stood before the governor. Pilate, having probably been informed by the soldiers on guard duty that a prisoner had been brought by a Sanhedrin delegation which refused to enter the Praetorium, went out to them. Standing on a gallery or porch over the pavement in front of his temporary residence, he asked the Jewish rulers to present the indictment. When, after some dilly-dallying, as indicated above, the Jews finally present their accusation Jesus alleged claim to kingship the governor simply could not afford to ignore this charge, not with suspicious Tiberius in the saddle at Rome! So he re-enters his residence in order to examine Jesus. As Matthew's story opens here at verse 11 Jesus is standing in front of Pilate. And the governor questioned him, saying, You are the king of the Jews? By the Sanhedrin Jesus had been accused of blasphemy (26:65, 66), and had been declared deserving of death. Before Pilate, however, the Jewish leaders did not immediately present this charge. They must have been of the opinion and rightly so that a more definitely political accusation would have a better chance to be considered legally valid from the aspect of Roman jurisprudence. Besides, they may have felt that a strictly religious charge would make little impression on a pagan. This does not mean, however, that they have altogether discarded the idea of ever bringing this religious indictment to the attention of the governor. They did in fact do this very thing (John 19:7), but for the present they hold it in abeyance. When Pilate now asked Jesus, You are the king of the Jews? he asked it because he felt that for his own protection as already explained he had to do this, and not because he himself believed the charge. How could he believe it? The situation was entirely too ridiculous, too unreal. As if Jews, grievously vexed by the yoke of the oppressor and yearning for the time when they would be able to shake it off and once again enjoy victories under their own kings, would be so very displeased with one of their own countrymen who supposedly was of one mind with them and was even willing to be their leader, that for this reason, out of love for Rome, they wanted him to be crucified! No, Pilate could not believe that. Besides, he already knew the real reason why they hated Jesus and had him arraigned. See Verse 18. But, as explained, Pilate feels that he has to ask the question. Jesus replied, You said (it). That this was no evasive answer, as if Jesus meant, That is what you are saying, but I have never said that, has already been shown. See on 26:25, 64; also N.T.C. on John 18:37. 12. And when he was being accused by the chief priests and the elders, he made no answer. The substance of these charges may be gathered from Luke 23:2, 5; see above, p. 949. For reasons already enumerated (see on 26:62, 63a) Jesus did not answer. 13, 14. Then Pilate said to him, Don t you hear how many accusations they are bringing against you? But he gave no answer, not even to a single charge, so that the governor was exceedingly astonished. This is virtually a repetition of 26:62b, 63, but takes place before a different judge. The silence on the part of Jesus, a silence even after Pilate had urged him to speak, amazed the governor. He is confronted with a double contrast: a. Between Jesus and ever so many other accused persons who had appeared before him, and had probably been very vocal and excited in defending themselves; and b. between the boisterous, troublesome, aggressive person as Jesus had been pictured by the chief priests and the elders; and the quiet, dignified, serene individual who was now standing before him. 27:15–26 Jesus Sentenced to Die Cf. Mark 15:6 15; Luke 23:13 25; John 18:19 19:16 15 Now at a feast it was customary for the governor to release to the crowd any one prisoner whom they wanted. 16 There was at that time a notorious prisoner, named Barabbas.^[872] 17 So when they were assembled Pilate asked them, Whom do you want me to release to you, Barabbas or Jesus who is called Christ? 18 For he knew that because of envy they had handed Jesus over to him. 19 Now while he was occupying the Judicial Bench, his wife sent him a message, saying, Don t have anything to do with that righteous man; for this very day I have suffered much in a dream because of him. 20 Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed. 21 So when the governor asked them, Which of the two do you want me to release to you? they said, Barabbas. 22 Pilate said to them, Then what shall I do with Jesus, who is called Christ? They all answered, Let him be crucified! 23 But he said, Why, what wrong has he done? All the louder they were screaming, Let him be crucified! 24 So when Pilate saw that he was not getting anywhere, and that on the contrary a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, Innocent am I of the blood of this man. That's your problem. 25 All the people answered, Let his blood be upon us and upon our children. 26 Then he released Barabbas for them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified. Matthew, probably omitting certain incidents reported elsewhere, as has been shown, continues as follows: 15. Now at the feast it was customary for the governor to release to the crowd any one prisoner whom they wanted. Whether the reference here is to any of the great religious festivals or exclusively to the Passover is not clear, though the idea of setting a prisoner free would seem to be most appropriate in connection with Passover, the commemoration of the deliverance of the Israelites from the house of bondage. One thing is clear: Pilate at this particular moment is most willing to grant the request of the people (Mark 15:8) that, according to custom, a prisoner be released; for, as he sees it, this may be the way he can get Jesus off his hands. 16, 17. There was at that time a notorious prisoner, named Barabbas.^[873] So when they were assembled Pilate asked them, Whom do you want me to release to you, Barabbas or Jesus who is called Christ? This too was suffering for Jesus, the thoroughly sinless One, to be treated as if he were in a class with Barabbas, who was a condemned robber or insurrectionist^[874] (John 18:40), a man who had committed murder in an insurrection (Mark 15:7; cf. Luke 23:19). It seems altogether probable that Pilate expected the multitude to choose Jesus. After all, the echoes of their hosannas in honor of the prophet from Galilee had scarcely died. If five days ago the whole world applauded him and Pilate was not completely ignorant of this; cf. Matt. 27:18; Mark, 15:9, 10 would the people now turn against him? Were there not some who called him Christ? Would even the ardent patriots among them prefer a violent man to Jesus, a man in whom Pilate could find no evidence of any crime? See on verse 23. Pilate realizes that he is playing off the people against the leaders. By this time the crowds had begun to swell, and not the leaders only but the people in general were given the opportunity to select a prisoner for release. The governor, moreover, would be happy to triumph over these leaders, all the more in this particular case, 18. For he knew that because of envy they had handed Jesus over to him. For a word study on the concept envy see N.T.C. on I and II Timothy and Titus, p. 388, where one can also find several Biblical illustrations of this sinful characteristic. Envy is the displeasure aroused by seeing someone else having what you do not want him to have. So, for example, the leaders envied Jesus because of his fame and following, his ability to perform miracles, etc. Surely, now Pilate is going to have his way. Why, even the leaders cannot with any consistency ask for the release of a proved, condemned, violent, murderous insurrectionist, since just a little while ago they have accused Jesus of insurrection, a man whose guilt in this respect has not even been proved; in fact, has been disproved. And as to the crowds, Pilate knows how they will vote! So once again Pilate is ready to ask the question of verse 17.& And then there is a sudden interruption. The next two verses should be read together. At least to a considerable extent they explain what otherwise would seem very strange, namely, the contents of verse 21. 19, 20. Now while he was occupying the Judicial Bench, his wife sent him a message, saying, Don t have anything to do with that righteous man; for this very day I have suffered much in a dream because of him. Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed. Pilate was sitting on his official chair on the platform, reached by steps, in front of the praetorium.^[875] His wife Claudia Procula, or simply Procla was that her real name? has had a dream, a kind of nightmare. That she dreamt about Jesus is not strange. Did not everybody in Jerusalem know about Jesus, and is it not even possible that she had been awakened by the procession which, so early in the morning, had brought a prisoner to the praetorium? Besides, though neither she nor her husband were regularly living in Jerusalem, nevertheless it seems rather natural that the procurator, who already knew certain facts about the attitude of the Jewish leaders toward Jesus (see verse 18), had conveyed some of this information to her. Perhaps after the early morning disturbance she had fallen asleep again. And then, in the providence of God, according to which Jesus must die for the salvation of his people, this woman dreams. The content of her dream has not been revealed. All we really know is that it was a very alarming experience. Did she perhaps see Jesus standing in front of her husband? Did she receive an impression of his innocence, even better: of his righteousness? And was she overwhelmed with agony when her husband was about to sentence him to be crucified? These things have not been revealed. But something of the kind must have occurred. Otherwise, why would she have rushed a message to her husband, Don t have anything to do with that righteous man&? Did this woman become a Jewish proselyte and afterward a Christian? The Coptic church honors her memory; the Greek church includes her name in the calendar of saints. But such honors prove nothing. Was she really giving good advice to her husband? In a certain sense she certainly was doing exactly that, for by means of her message she was urging her husband not to condemn Jesus, whom she called that righteous man. The inclusion of this story in the Gospel of Matthew is therefore one more piece of evidence attesting the righteousness of our Lord, which makes it possible for him to be the Savior. For more about this see on verse 23. As far as this woman's advice was good, it can also be considered a divinely directed warning addressed to Pilate. There is, however, another side to the story. Her advice cannot be called wholly good. She was urging her husband not to have anything to do with Jesus. Now this was what he himself was constantly attempting, namely, not to have anything to do with the accused; that is, to dodge his responsibility as a judge. But that was wrong. He should have been brave enough and fair enough not only to pronounce Jesus Not guilty, which, in fact, he did again and again, but also to acquit him! His wife's advice, though good to a certain extent, could have been much better. And the beautiful stories about her are merely legends. When Christ returns he will not shy away from his duty as a Judge. That is our comfort. See Matt. 25:31ff.; II Tim. 4:8. While Pilate was being kept busy with the message from his wife, the chief priests and the elders took full advantage of the interruption and used it to persuade the crowds to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed. Did these wretched leaders remind the people that by choosing Jesus they would be playing into the hands of their deadly enemy Pilate? Did they recount all the crimes which Pilate had previously committed against the Jewish nation? And did they intimidate those who at first were inclined to choose Jesus? If they did, it would not have been the first time; see John 7:13; 9:22; 19:38; nor would it be the last; see John 20:19; Acts 4:18. Accordingly, we are not as surprised as the governor must have been. 21. So when the governor asked them, Which of the two do you want me to release to you? they said, Barabbas. The procurator must have been fully confident that the people would answer, Jesus. But with one voice they shout, Barabbas. What follows is one of the most dramatic and also in a sense precious passages in all of Scripture. 22. Pilate said to them, Then what shall I do with Jesus, who is called Christ? Pilate was desperate. He did not want to sentence Jesus to death. Yet, it was becoming more and more clear to him that this by now had become the desire of the fickle multitude. When the prophet of Galilee was still healing the sick, raising the dead, cleansing the lepers, holding the multitudes spellbound by means of his marvelous discourses, he was popular. When he rode into Jerusalem, he was applauded. But now that he is seemingly helpless, and the leaders have used their strongest arguments to persuade the people to demand his crucifixion, they turn their backs on him. As to Pilate, when he asked, Then what shall I do with Jesus? his immediate answer should have been, I shall pronounce him innocent and therefore I shall order his immediate and definite release. In fact, the judge should not even have asked the question at all. He knew the answer. Hymnology has caught the deeper meaning, the broader application. See Jesus is standing in Pilate's hall, by an anonymous author; also What will you do with Jesus? by N. Norton. There are those who think that the words Jesus, who is called Christ indicate that the man whose release the people demanded was Jesus, who is called Barabbas, or simply Jesus Barabbas. Although the possibility must be granted, more probable, it would seem to me, is the theory that the words who is called Christ were added not for the mere sake of identification but rather to stress the vast difference between a. Barabbas, the criminal; and b. Jesus, by some even then considered the Anointed. Even Pilate, though a heathen, sensed something of the vast difference between the two. They all answered, Let him be crucified. It should be borne in mind, however, that not the people in general but their leaders had started the shouting (27:20). The guilt of the leaders was greater than that of the people as a whole, though they too were surely guilty. 23. But he said, Why,^[876] what wrong has he done? That was one way of saying, He has done no evil, has committed no crime. It is rewarding to count the number of times the governor uttered the words, I do not find any crime in him, or something similar. In addition to the present passage see also 27:24; Mark 15:14; Luke 23:4, 13 15, 22; John 18:38; 19:4, 6. Even when due allowance is made for parallel (duplicate) passages, the fact remains that Pilate stresses and constantly re-iterates the truth that in Jesus there is no cause of indictment. And by means of Pilate it was God himself who declared his Son's complete innocence, his perfect righteousness. Nevertheless, in a few more moments this same Pilate is going to succumb to the persistent clamor of the Jews, and is going to sentence Jesus to die the accursed death of crucifixion. No guilt in him &no guilt in him &no guilt in him &no guilt in him.& So then he handed him over in order to be crucified. Thus reads the sacred record. But how could a righteous God permit this? There is only one solution. It is found in Isa. 53:6, 8, Jehovah has laid on him the iniquity of us all.& He was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due. Cf. Gal. 3:13. In answer to Pilate's question the people did not even say, He did this or, He did that. They followed what must have been for them the easier course: All the louder they were [or: kept on] screaming, Let him be crucified. Over and over again these terrible words are yelled until they become a monotonous refrain, an eery, ominous chant: Let him be crucified.& Let him be crucified.& The crowd has become a riotous mob, an emotion-charged screaming rabble. 24. So when Pilate saw that he was not getting anywhere, and that on the contrary a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, Innocent am I of the blood of this man.^[877] The governor noticed that he was not getting anywhere, and that matters were getting worse instead of better. The people were becoming more and more clamorous and excited. A riot or turbulence^[878] was developing. So in front of everybody Pilate, having ordered water to be brought to him, washes his hands in token of his (pretended) innocence. Whether or not such an action had this symbolic meaning among the Romans is not definitely known. But the Jews must have understood it immediately. Cf. Deut. 21:6, 7; Ps. 26:6; 73:13. Moreover, if there were any that did not understand, they must have quickly grasped the meaning, for the governor added a verbal explanation, saying Innocent^[879] am I of the blood of this man. It is evident that Pilate even if he merely said of this man and not (as a variant has it) of this righteous man was implying that, as he saw it, Jesus was innocent. The judge was saying, as it were, Since I do not at all believe that Jesus is guilty of any crime, I refuse to assume any responsibility for his death by crucifixion. I am free from the guilt of shedding his blood. Once more, therefore, as on several occasions during this trial (see on verse 23), the innocence of Jesus is being proclaimed. So far, so good. But when Pilate disclaims any responsibility for the murder that is about to be committed, he makes himself guilty of an act of cowardice, untruthfulness, and dishonesty. And when he adds, That's your problem; literally, You must see (to that), he is again making an unsuccessful attempt to shift responsibility away from himself, and uttering what, at best, was only a half-truth. To the extent in which he was saying, It is your and therefore not my responsibility, he was telling a lie, for it most certainly was his duty as a judge to pronounce a just verdict and, in the present case, to acquit the accused. But to the extent in which Christ's suffering and death were being brought about by the Jewish leaders and their followers, what Pilate said was the truth. To bear the burden of this guilt was indeed in large measure their problem. In God's providence the very expression with which the leaders had reproached Judas (see on verse 4 above) was now cast in their own teeth. How did those who heard Pilate's declaration of innocence react to his words? The answer is found in verse 25. All the people answered, Let his blood be upon us and upon our children. It seems as if they said this flippantly, light-heartedly. Also, they said it unanimously: all the people. The Israel of that day was hereby rejecting the Christ, and in the same breath accepting full responsibility for doing this. In such passages as II Sam. 1:16; 3:28, 29; Acts 18:6someone (David, Paul) is saying that others (an Amalekite, Joab, the Jews) must bear the guilt that attached to their deed(s). In each case the man who utters the statement is doing what Pilate did in verse 24; with this difference, however, that the governor unjustly tried to shift responsibility away from himself, while David and Paul were justified in fixing it where it actually belonged. But here in 27:25 the people are loading themselves with responsibility for their attitude and action regarding Jesus. Though they do not realize it, they are in fact pronouncing a curse upon themselves, even involving in this curse their own posterity. By means of openly rejecting the Messiah, the Jewish people cease to be in any special sense the people of God. See Heb. 10:29. This does not mean that God is through with the Jews. No, also with respect to them it remains true that a remnant shall be saved, and this throughout the ages, for God is love, hence not merely toward the end of the world's history. By means of this interpretation justice is done both to the goodness and to the severity that characterize God's attitude toward the Jews. See Rom. 11:22. For the rest see on Matt. 8:11, 12. As Matthew summarizes the story, the sentence is now ready to be pronounced. It has already been indicated that John adds certain significant details (19:1–11) and also shows (19:12) what finally brought about the complete moral discomfiture of Pilate and the sentencing to death of Jesus. There is no conflict between Matthew's account and that of John. The fact is simply this, that at this point John gives us a more complete account. 26. Then he released Barabbas for them. This was in accordance with the governor's implied promise (Matt. 27:17, 21). But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified. The Roman scourge consisted of a short wooden handle to which several thongs were attached, the ends equipped with pieces of lead or brass and with sharply pointed bits of bone. The stripes were laid especially on the victim's back, bared and bent. Generally two men were employed to administer this punishment, one lashing the victim from one side, one from the other side, with the result that the flesh was at times lacerated to such an extent that deep-seated veins and arteries, sometimes even entrails and inner organs, were exposed. Such flogging, from which Roman citizens were exempt (Acts 16:37), often resulted in death. One can picture Jesus after the scourging, covered with horrible bruises and lacerations, with wales and welts. It is no surprise that Simon of Cyrene was compelled to bear the cross after Jesus had carried it a short distance (Luke 23:26; John 19:16, 17). Scourging was hideous torture.^[880] It must, however, be borne in mind that the suffering of the Man of Sorrows was not only intense but also vicarious: He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed (Isa. 53:5; I Peter 2:24). Sometime after Jesus had been flogged in the manner described, but not immediately afterward, as the next section will show, Pilate handed him over to be crucified. 27:27–31 The Mockery Cf. Mark 15:16 20; John 19:2, 3 27 Then the governor's soldiers took Jesus into the governor's headquarters,^[881] and gathered around him the whole band.^[882] 28 And they stripped him, threw a scarlet robe around him; 29 and having woven a crown of thorns they set it on his head, and a stick in his right hand. Then they knelt in front of him and mocked him, saying, Hail, king of the Jews. 30 And having spit on him they took the stick and hit him on the head again and again. 31 When they had finished mocking him, they took off his robe, put his own clothes on him (again), and led him away for crucifixion. 27. Then the governor's soldiers took Jesus into the governor's headquarters, and gathered around him the whole band. The soldiers, as many as were available note the entire cohort, though this does not necessarily mean a full cohort of six hundred men now gather around Jesus in order to make sport of him. They desire to gratify their sadistic urges. They wish to have some fun with this King of the Jews. These soldiers, though Roman in the sense that they were in the service of the Roman government, were probably recruited from the province of Syria; and if so, were able to converse in the Aramaic language, spoken also by the Jews, and were acquainted with Jewish ways. They probably regarded Jesus as a fake claimant to the royal throne, a person who deserved nothing better than to be mocked. To say that this mockery had been ordered by Pilate (thus Lenski) is unwarranted. Nowhere does the record support that interpretation. It was Pilate who had ordered the scourging. Though it is true that he could and should have prevented the mockery, and was therefore partly responsible for it, we have no right to say that he ordered it. For a correct view of this mockery it is necessary that we see it not only in its separate parts, but also as a whole. Matthew mentions seven items some of which can also be found in Mark and/or in John. The soldiers, having taken Jesus inside Matthew Mark John disrobed him 27:28a robed him 27:28b 15:17a 19:2b crowned him 27:29a 15:17b 19:2a sceptered him 27:29b adored him 27:29c 15:18 19:3a spat on him 27:30a 15:19b hit him 27:30b 15:19a 19:3b The mockery in general, and particularly the last two items, should be compared to what Jesus had already endured in the house of Caiaphas, just a few hours earlier. See Matt. 26:67, 68; Mark 14:65; Luke 22:63 65. In summary, the entire picture is as follows. The soldiers, having stripped Jesus of his outer garments, throw a royal robe around him. Since a king must wield a scepter, they thrust a stick into his right hand. Then, one by one, they kneel down in front of him in mock adoration, saying, Hail, king of the Jews. They spit on him and hit him on the head with his own scepter. 28 30. And they stripped him, threw a scarlet robe around him; and having woven a crown of thorns, they set it on his head, and a stick in his right hand. Then they knelt in front of him and mocked him, saying, Hail, king of the Jews. And having spit on him they took the stick and hit him on the head again and again. And now the separate items: a. They disrobed him This had been done once before, just before he was scourged. How terribly it must have hurt him when the robe had been cast around his scourged body. And now again they strip him of his outer garments in order that in sheer mockery they may take the next step: b. They robed him They throw around Jesus what was probably a discarded and faded soldier's mantle, of a scarlet^[883] hue, representing the royal purple. Cf. Matt. 27:28b: scarlet with Mark 15:17a and John 19:2b: purple. Again, how throwing this around the scourged Savior must have hurt him! c. They crowned him Somewhere in the vicinity of the praetorium the soldiers find some thorny twigs. Whether the plant from which they obtained these twigs was the Spina Christi or Palinrus Shrub, as some think, is not known. It has been pointed out by botanists that few countries of the size of Palestine have so many varieties of prickly plants. The identity of the species is of little importance. Far more significant is the fact that thorns and thistles are mentioned in Gen. 3:18in connection with Adam's fall. Here in Matt. 27:29a and its parallels Jesus is pictured as bearing the curse that lies upon nature, in order to deliver nature and us from it. With fiendish cruelty the soldiers, having made a crown out of these thorny twigs, press it down upon Christ's head. It represented not an imperial wreath but a crown such as would be appropriate for a king of the Jews. Those who were engaged in this bit of fun wanted to mock Jesus. They also wanted to torture him. The crown of thorns satisfied both purposes. Rivulets of blood must have started to run down his face, neck, and other parts of his body.^[884] Did his molesters realize that they were doing this to him who is King of kings and Lord of lords? d. They sceptered him Having forced Jesus to sit down, in his right hand they now place a sturdy reed, for a king must have a scepter. Matthew is the only evangelist who reports this incident. e. They adored him Of course, this was cruel mockery. A soldier would drop to his knees in front of Jesus and say, Hail, king of the Jews! Then another would take his turn, and still another, until all had shared in this fun.^[885] f. They spat on him They descend to a level lower than the beasts. Gleefully for they're having fun each soldier, when his turn comes around, after getting up from his knees spits into the face of God's only begotten and beloved Son! g. They hit him It is clear that all of these elements that pertain to the mockery belong together. This is especially true with respect to points e., f., and g. Before any of these mockers vacates his position in front of Jesus, he removes the stick from the hand of the victim and strikes him on the head with it, as if to say, What a king you are! One that gets hit over the head with his own scepter! And as the fiend hits Jesus, the thorny spikes are driven deeper into the flesh. One look at any plant representing a species of what is still known as the crown of thorns, thriving not only in what is now called Israel but also in Florida and many other parts of the United States and other countries, will deepen the impression of the sadistic brutality that was taking place here. And even this was not all, for, as John 19:3b informs us, the mockers not only repeatedly used the stick on Jesus but also slapped him with their hands. They did all this to him who had already been scourged! 31. When they had finished mocking him, they took off his robe, put his own clothes on him (again), and led him away for crucifixion. Finally they have all had their turn. According to John 19:4ff. Pilate now enters into the picture again. He brings Jesus out before the crowd, the sorely afflicted one still wearing the thorny crown and the purple robe. A pathetic spectacle is exposed to the view of the public: blood-streaked Jesus, covered with gashing wounds. Look! The man! says the governor, in order to arouse the people's sympathy and to testify once again that he, Pilate, finds no crime in him. But this effort on the part of the judge fails as tragically as have all the previous ones. When the chief priests and the officers see Jesus they cry out, Crucify &crucify! They now use their final argument, the one which up to this time they have held in abeyance, namely, We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. Having re-examined Jesus and all the while still trying to release him, Pilate finally surrenders when he hears the cry, If you release this man, you are no friend of the emperor. That was the bombshell. The governor, functioning all the while as judge, sits down on his tribunal, which stood on the Stone Pavement Gabbatha, and sentences Jesus to die. The soldiers game having ended somewhat earlier, these men now remove their victim's royal accouterments and put his own clothes on him again. Then they lead him away to be crucified. 27:32–44 Calvary: The Crucifixion of Jesus Cf. Mark 15:21 32; Luke 23:26 43; John 19:17 27 32 Now while they were coming out (of the city) they came upon a man of Cyrene, Simon by name. Him they forced to bear his cross. 33 And when they came to a place called Golgotha, that is, Place of the Skull, 34 they offered him wine to drink, mixed with gall; but when he had tasted it he refused to drink. 35 And having crucified him they divided his garments by casting lots. 36 And sitting down they were keeping watch over him there. 37 And they put above his head the indictment^[886] against him which read: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS 38 Then there were crucified with him two robbers, one on his right and one on his left. 39 And those who passed by were blaspheming him, shaking their heads, 40 and saying, You who destroy the temple^[887] and in three days rebuild it, save yourself if you are the Son of God, and come down from the cross. 41 Similarly also the chief priests mocking (him), along with the scribes and the elders, were saying, 42 Others he saved, himself he cannot save; king of Israel is he; let him now come down from the cross and we will believe in him. 43 He has placed his trust in God. Let him deliver (him) now if he desires him; for he said, I am God's Son. 44 And the robbers also who had been crucified with him reviled him in the same way. Though the center of interest is always on Jesus himself, what he did, said, or endured, our attention is here also fixed upon five subsidiary persons or groups: a. Simon of Cyrene renders a service to Jesus (verse 32). b. Arrived at Golgotha the legionaries or soldiers offer Jesus drugged wine, which he refuses. Having crucified him between two robbers, and having affixed a label above his head, they cast lots for the division of his clothes. Beneath the cross they sit down, keeping guard (verses 33 38). c. Bypassers blaspheme (verses 39, 40). d. Scribes (and their companions) scoff (verses 41 43). e. Robbers revile (verse 44). The paragraph that could be captioned Women weep is not found in Matthew but in Luke 23:27 31.^[888] Luke also pictures the multitudes deeply moved (23:48). With the exception of verse 32, the entire section (Matt. 27:32–44) relates what happened to Jesus from nine o clock A.M. (Mark 15:25) until noon (Mark 15:33) on (Good) Friday. Simon of Cyrene In reality what is said in verse 32 might also have been included under the next heading, because Simon did not act of his own accord. By the soldiers he was forced to do what he did. But since the New Testament and early tradition place such emphasis on him and (probably) his family, a separate caption is given to verse 32. Now while they were coming out (of the city) they came upon a man of Cyrene, Simon by name. Him they forced to bear his cross. As was customary and according to law, the execution was carried out outside the city (Exod. 29:14; Lev. 4:12, 21; 9:11; 16:27; Num. 15:35; 19:3; cf. John 19:20; Heb. 13:12, 13). Those condemned to be crucified had to carry their own cross. Commentators are divided on the question whether this refers to the crossbeam alone, the upright having already been set in place on Golgotha, or to the entire cross. Since there is nothing in text or context that suggests otherwise, it is here assumed that the latter position the entire cross is correct. In the light of the fact that the title or indictment was written above Christ's head (verse 37), it is well-nigh certain that artists are correct in their preference for the dagger-type or Latin cross:. For the reasons why death by crucifixion must be considered a curse see N.T.C. on the Gospel according to John, Vol. II, p. 425. Jesus, too, carried his own cross (John 19:16, 17), but not for long. Sheer physical exhaustion made it impossible for him to carry it very far. Consider what he had already endured within the last fifteen hours: the tense atmosphere of the Upper Room, the betrayal by Judas, the agonies of Gethsemane, the desertion by his disciples, the torture of a totally hypocritical trial before the Sanhedrin, the mockery in the palace of Caiaphas, the denial by his most prominent disciple, the trial before an unjust judge, the terrible ordeal of being scourged, the pronunciation of the death sentence upon him, and the seven-itemed abuse by the soldiers in the praetorium! Humanly speaking, is it not a wonder that he was able to carry the cross any distance at all? When Jesus succumbed beneath his load, the legionaries, exercising their right of requisitioning or making demands on people (Matt. 5:41), forced Simon, a man from Cyrene located on a plateau, ten miles from the Mediterranean Sea, in what is now Libya (west of Egypt) to carry Christ's cross for the rest of the distance. The theory that Simon could not have been a Jew, because he gave his sons Greek names (Mark 15:21), is without merit, since many Jews followed that practice. Besides, in Cyrene there was a large colony of Jews (Acts 2:10; 6:9; 11:20; 13:1). The further speculation that the man must have been a farmer, because on this particular Friday morning he came from the country (Mark 15:21), is also without any basis. Even today many people besides farmers have business or social connections in the country. Some even live there! The following reconstruction, though not certain, is however probable. Simon, a Jew, has come to Jerusalem to attend one of the great festivals (in this case Passover), as was the custom of many Jews, including those from Cyrene (Acts 2:10). There was even a Cyrenian synagogue in Jerusalem (Acts 6:9). Now on this particular Friday, returning to the city from a visit to the country, Simon is pressed into service by the soldiers who are leading Jesus to Calvary, perhaps (but this is by no means certain) along the Via Dolorosa (Sorrowful Way), and are just now coming through the gate out of the city. So reluctantly at first? Simon carries Christ's cross, arrives at Calvary, and witnesses what happens there. The behavior of Jesus and his words from the cross leave such an impression on Simon that he becomes a Christian. Subsequently he and his family are living in Rome. He may have been living there before, but in any event he was a Cyrenian by birth. (Acts 11:19; 13:1.) Mark, writing to the Romans, mentions Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, as if to say, people with whom you, in Rome, are well acquainted. Paul, in his letter to the Romans (16:13), writes, Greet Rufus, outstanding in the Lord, and his mother and mine. Evidently the mother of Rufus hence, the wife of Simon had rendered some motherly service to Paul. If this reconstruction is factual, then the service which Simon rendered, though initially forced, turned out to be a genuine blessing for himself, his family, and many others. The Legionaries 33 38. And when they came to a place called Golgotha, that is, Place of the Skull, they offered him wine to drink, mixed with gall; but when he had tasted it he refused to drink. And having crucified him they divided his garments by casting lots. And sitting down they were keeping watch over him there. And they put above his head the indictment against him which read: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS Then there were crucified with him two robbers, one on his right and one on his left. Just where was Golgotha and why was it called Place of the Skull? For the discussion of these questions the reader is referred to N.T.C. on the Gospel according to John, Vol. II, pp. 425, 426. The wine which the soldiers offered to Jesus and which he refused is described by Matthew as mixed with gall, that is, with something bitter. The evangelist was probably thinking of Ps. 69:21a, and if so, correctly regarded what was now happening as a fulfilment of that Old Testament passage. According to Mark 15:23the bitter substance was myrrh. Having tasted this mixture, Jesus refused to drink it, no doubt because he wanted to endure with full consciousness all the pain that was in store for him, in order to be our perfect Substitute. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XXVIII Outline of Chapter 28 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him to Do B. The Resurrection 28:1–10 The Lord Risen; The Guard Frightened; The Women Surprised 28:11–15 The Guard Bribed 28:16–20 The Great Claim; The Great Commission; The Great Comfort 28:1–10 The Lord Risen; The Guard Frightened; The Women Surprised Cf. Mark 16:1 8; Luke 24:1 12; John 20:1 10 28 1 Now after the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the tomb. 2 Suddenly there was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven, stepped forward, rolled away the stone and was sitting on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his garment white as snow. 4 And for fear of him the guards shook and became like dead men. 5 The angel, answering, said to the women, Don t yoube afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here, for he has been raised, just as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples, He has been raised from the dead, and look, he is going ahead of you into Galilee; there you shall see him. Now I have told you. 8 So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to report to his disciples. 9 And suddenly Jesus met them and said, Good morning. They approached, took hold of his feet, and worshiped him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, Do not be afraid; go, tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they shall see me. 1. Now after the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the tomb. (The Sabbath has come and goneMark 16:1). It is now Sunday morning at dawn. It is definitely the first day of the [Greek] -2 _ftnref1 [Greek] It was then that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, that is Mary the mother of James and Joses (27:56, 61) came to look at the tomb. Matthew abbreviates. As in 27:61 so also here he mentions only these two. Mark adds Salome (16:1). Luke adds Joanna, and indicates that there were others (24:10). Though at this point John 20:1mentions only Mary Magdalene, even that Gospel implies that other women had accompanied herWedo not know . There is no conflict between John's story about Mary Magdalene, and Matthew's about several [Greek] -2 _ftnref2 [Greek] Nor is there any conflict about the time when the women's trip to the tomb took place. John 20:1states, while it was still dark, Mark 16:2when the sun was risen, Matthew 28:1at dawn, Luke 24:1at early dawn. Probable solution: although it was still dark when the women started out, the sun had risen when they arrived at the tomb. They came to look at the tomb. Here too Matthew summarizes. We must remember that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus had already wound linen bandages around the body, strewing in a mixture of myrrh and aloes. However, the dead body had not as yet been anointed. Sometime after 6 P.M. on Saturday evening hence, when the sabbath was past the women had bought whatever was necessary to anoint the body. So now, very early Sunday morning, they come to the tomb to do this, in order to prevent rapid decomposition (Mark 16:1; Luke 24:1). It is true that they should have paid more attention to the Lord's repeated prediction that he would rise again on the third day. On the other hand, while we may criticize their lack of sufficient faith a lack which they shared with the male disciples let us not overlook their exceptional love and loyalty. They were at Calvary when Jesus died, in Joseph's garden when their Master was buried, and now very early in the morning, here they are once more, in order to look at the tomb; that is, to see to it that everything is in good order, and to anoint the body. Meanwhile, where were the eleven? Mark 16:3 (informs us that on the way toward the tomb the women were worried about the stone. They said to each other, Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb? But suddenly they saw probably at a turn in the path that the heavy stone had already been removedMark 16:4). What had happened? Matthew by divine inspiration, answers as follows: (2. Suddenly there was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven, stepped forward, rolled away the stone and was sitting on it.In connection with the presence of the Lord, his mighty redemptive acts, and the manifestation of his anger poured out upon the enemies of his people, Scripture makes frequent mention of the occurrence of earthquakes. The earthquake means as much as, Listen, the Lord is speaking! See Exod. 19:18; Num. 16:31; I Kings 19:11; Job 9:6; Ps. 18:7; 68:8; 77:18; Isa. 2:19; 5:25; 13:13; 24:18; 29:6; Jer. 10:10; 49:21; Joel 2:10; Nah. 1:5; Hag. 2:6; Rev. 6:12; 8:5; 11:13–19. Appropriately there had been an earthquake at the moment of Christ's deathMatt. 27:51); and there will probably be numerous fearful earthquakes in connection with Christ's second coming. See above, on 24:7. So also now, in connection with Christ's resurrection, there [Greek] -2 _ftnref3 [Greek] occurred a great or violent earthquake. The reason for the quake was the descent from heaven of God's special messenger, an angel. He stepped forward and must have taken the stone completely out of its groove and turned it over on its side. Result: the heavy slab was lying flat on the ground and the angel was sitting upon it, to symbolize Christ's triumph. The women did not see this happen. They saw only the result. Not even the witnesses of the resurrection (Acts 1:22), saw Jesus rise from the grave. They did however, at one time or another, see the risen Christ, which was indeed a mighty proof of his resurrection. Why did the angel have to remove the stone? Not to enable Jesus to make his way out of the tomb for see (John 20:19, 26but to enable the womenMark 16:5) and also Peter and John (20:6–8) to enter it. With reference to the angel, Matthew continues: 3. His appearance was like lightning, and his garment white as snow.The marvelous radiance of his countenance gave proof of his descent straight from heaven. The sparkling luster of his garment indicated his holiness. Compare, in this connection Dan. 7:9; Matt. 17:2; Rev. 1:16; 10:1; 12:1; 20:11. The story about the guard see on 27:62–66 is now continued, The Guard Scattered: 4. And for fear of him the guards shook and became like dead men.The original uses words derived from the same root to describe both the action of the earth and of the guard, so that the rendering might be: Suddenly there was a violent earthquake& the men on guard quaked.& So overcome with fright were they that if anyone had been present at the scene he could hardly have guessed what was shaking more: the earth or the members of the guard! The latter were knocked unconscious. For a while they lay there in a condition of utter powerlessness and discomfiture, motionless as if dead. From verse 11 it appears that when they finally came to they were no longer an organized unit, for not all of them but only some came into the city, etc. The stone, the seal, the guard! What a sense of security all this had given to the chief priests and the Pharisees. Yet, in the sight of heaven all this show of strength spelled clumsy, fantastic futility. In Joseph's garden the Almighty was laughing (Ps. 2:4). He uttered his voice and the earth melted. See also Ps. 46:6; 48:4–8. By means of the resurrection of Christ from the grave, and the mighty earthquake that appropriately accompanied it, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ not only laughed in the facts of the plotters who had requested this guard; he also smiled benignly upon all his dear children, for what he was actually saying was this: I have accepted my Son's sacrifice as a complete ransom for the sins of all who take refuge in him. See Rom. 4:25. And the watchers? No thanks to them, and notwithstanding the machinations of those who had asked for them, they were becoming tools in the hands of God for the confirmation of his truth. See on verse 11. Christ's resurrection was the work of the Triune God. The Father raised him from the dead (Rom. 6:4; Gal. 1:1; I Peter 1:3). So did the SpiritRom. 8:11; and see -2 _ftnref4 (N.T.C.on I Tim. 3:16). And the Son took back the life which he had laid down (John 10:18; cf. 2:19, 21; 11:25). For the comfort of believers, these three are and always will be One. The story of the guard will be continued at verse 11. For the present Matthew returns to the women: 5, 6. The angel, answering, said to the women, Don t yoube afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified.Luke 24:2and John 20:12speak of two angels; Matthew and Mark, of only one. Why this difference? Some answer, Although two angels were actually present, one alone was the speaker. But this will hardly do, for according to Luke both of the two men in dazzling apparel addressed the women. So do also the two angels in John's account. The reason for the difference has not been revealed to us. There is, of course, no contradiction, for neither Matthew nor Mark states that there was onlyone angel. Don t youvery emphatic in the original be afraid, says the angel. In other words, Don t yoube like others who were scattered in every direction, and some of whom you may even have met. Why do not these women need to be afraid? Why must they stop their weeping and rejoice [Greek] -2 _ftnref5 [Greek] The angel answers, for I know that you are looking for Jesus the crucified. In other words, Youhave no reason to fear, for you are the loyal friends of Jesus. Yes, you have remained loyal to him even though the world despised and crucified him. It was to show that loyalty that you came here this morning. We might have expected a different message, for example, a stern rebuke, in view of the fact that these women showed by their action that they had not taken seriously enough Jesus prediction of rising on the third day. But no, all this is passed by though not completely. A mercifully veiled rebuke better, a gentle admonition, a loving reminder comes at the very end of the angel's message: (He is not here, for he has been raised just as he said.Just as he said. The angel does not even say, just as he said again and again and again. See above p. 9. It is as if the angel is saying, In view of your marvelous courage and loyalty, your lack of sufficient faith is hereby forgiven. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that the heavenly messenger did not create this message. It was given to him, as a comparison between verses 5 and 10 clearly shows. Reassuringly, the angel adds, Come, see the place where he lay.According to Mark 16:5, by this time the women were already inside the tomb. But the angel bids them come even closer, so that they may see whatever there is to be seen; for example, not only the empty tomb He is not here but also the linen bandages lying there, and the sweatband not lying with the linen bandages but folded up in a place by itselfJohn 20:7). They must convince themselves that everything is orderly in this tomb. No disciple has been here to remove the body, nor has an enemy pillaged the tomb. In either case the bandages would no longer have been present. The women just like Peter and John that same morning must see that the Lord, restored from death to life, had himself removed the bandages and the sweatband, had provided for himself a garment such as is worn by the living, had calmly and majestically put everything in its place in the tomb, and had then departed from the tomb gloriously alive. For the church to believe that Jesus rose from the dead is fine, but it is not enough. It should also consider what kind of Saviorit was who rose from the dead. Is he still the same loving Redeemer who before he died healed the sick, cleansed the leper, raised the dead, comforted the mourning, pardoned and died for the sinner who accepts him by a living faith? Careful study of the resurrection account answers this question with a thunderous affirmative. As if to make this even clearer, the angel continues, 7. Then go quickly and tell his disciples, He has been raised from the dead, and look, he is going ahead of you into Galilee; there you shall see him.The marvelous message must be imparted. It must be proclaimed everywhere by those who at one time were, and soon will again be, The Twelve. Therefore they themselves must hear the glad news. They must get to know that Christ's repeated prediction, I am going to rise again on the third day has now become a fact. Not only that, but for further confirmation of their faith, they must be told that the promise of Matt. 26:32, But after I have been raised, I will go ahead of you into Galilee is also going to be fulfilled. It is there, in the very region (4:15, 16) where death and darkness once ruled supreme, but where the Light of the world had performed most of his work, that he again will meet with his disciples. Galilee! That region of rejection, but also of acceptance; of hardship, but also of joy; of unbelief, but also of faith, must rejoice once more. See further on 26:32. Now I have told you,the angel adds, as if to say, Now youhave heard the glad tidings, and know what to do. So now it is your responsibility. Objection: But Jesus first appearance to his disciples did not occur in Galilee but in Jerusalem. These men did not have to wait until they had arrived at last in Galilee, but were going to see the risen Savior this very evening. Answer: this simply shows that God or if one prefers, that the risen Savior is even better than his promises. But what about Peter, who had bragged in such unrestrained language about his loyalty, but had broken his promises so shamefully, must he also be told? Yes, says the young man, that is, the angel, Go, tell his disciples (and PeterMark 16:7). 8. So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to report to his disciples. (That fear and joy can go together is clear from Ps. 2:11. Moreover, was it not natural for these women to be struck with fear at the sight of such a brilliant angel and upon receiving the news of so great a mystery: Jesus risen from the dead? Also, was it not equally natural for them to rejoice when they heard that Jesus, whose loyal friends, disciples, and subjects they were, had conquered Death? Note also that in the struggle between fear and joy, the latter triumphed, for the adjective great modifies only joy, not fear. These women did not walk. They ranto tell the tidings. Luke 24:9reports that the women fulfilled their mission. How was their report received by the apostles? Answer: it was not believedLuke 24:10, 11). It began to spread, but by and large was not accepted as true (Mark 16:13; Luke 24:22 25). However, though the disbelief that was going to greet the women everywhere would not be pleasant, their present joy, great as it was, was going to become even greater: 9. And suddenly Jesus met them and said, Good morning. They approached, took hold of his feet, and worshiped him.To put them at ease Jesus used an ordinary greeting when he met them, one that can perhaps be best rendered Hello, or How do you do? or Good morning. See also 26:49; 27:29. Immediately they recognized him, fell down before him, taking hold of his feet and worshipping him. He was real, even physical. He was Jesus, no one else, the very Jesus whom they had known for a considerable time, and to whom they had rendered valuable service. The question has been raised, But why did not Jesusappear first of all to the eleven? Why first to the women? Or, going back a little: Why did the angelappear to the women, not to Peter and John? We do not have the answer. Could it be that the special recognition accorded to the women was a reward for their singular ministry of love and loyalty? Jesus, too, has a message for these women. It is essentially the selfsame message which they have already received from the angels (see 5a, 7b), showing that in the realm of the sinless there is perfect harmony. If there is any difference, the words now spoken are even more touching: 10. Then Jesus said to them, Do not be afraid; go, tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they shall see me.My brothers, not: those habitual quarrelers, those men who promised to remain loyal to me no matter what would happen, but who when the crisis arrived left me and fled; those men who, with one exception, were not even present at Calvary when I was laying down my life for them. None of that. Instead, my brothers, those whom I acknowledge as members of my family, those who share the inheritance with me, those whom I love. Cf. Matt. 12:49; 25:40; Rom. 8:16, 17, 29; Heb. 2:11, 12. See also N.T.C. on Eph. 3:14, 15. For the rest, Jesus virtually repeats the message of the angel, telling the disciples to go to Galilee, and promising that they shall see him there. 28:11–15 The Guard Bribed 11 Now while they were going, some of the guards came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened. 12 And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave the soldiers a considerable sum of money, 13 instructing them, Say, His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were sleeping. 14 And if this (report) should reach the governor's ears, we will persuade him and keep you out of trouble. 15 So they took the money and did as they had been instructed. And this story has been widely spread among the Jews, to this very day. 11. Now while they were going, some of the guards came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened.Two paragraphs in connection with the guard placed at Christ's tomb (a story found only in Matthew's Gospel) have already been discussed. How it was that the guard was posted in Joseph's garden, and how the soldiers belonging to it were frightened and scattered has been shown (respectively, in 27:62–66 and in 28:3, 4). Now follows the concluding paragraph, describing how the guard was bribed. The women were on their way to spread the truth about the resurrection. The soldiers were going to allow themselves to be used to hush the truth and to hold forth the lie (verses 12 14). Note: some of the guards, apparently not all; at least, not all at once. The guard had been scattered, perhaps in every direction. There are those who think that a few of the men were brave enough to bring a report to the authorities; while the rest held back, somewhere outside, wondering how their representatives would fare, and anxiously awaiting their return. However that may have been, some did indeed bring in a report. That they reported to the chief priests, in charge of the temple, and not directly to Pilate, is not strange; for by saying, Take a guard, Pilate had temporarily placed these men under the authority and supervision of the chief priests. These men, then, told the chief priests what had happened, that is, what they themselves had seen and experienced: the sudden descent of a flaming angel, the earthquake; perhaps even the removal of the stone from the entrance of the tomb and together with it the breaking of the seal. The result was that the Sanhedrin here indicated by two of its three groups; see on 2:4 and 16:21 hastily met in formal session: 12 14. And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave the soldiers a considerable sum of money, instructing them, Say, His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were sleeping. And if this (report) should reach the governor's ears, we will persuade him and keep you out of trouble.We do not read that the Sanhedrin rejected the soldiers report in utter disbelief. Neither is it correct, however, to say that the Sanhedrin believed it. One fact is certain: this body did not want to have the people believe what the soldiers had just now reported. It was afraid that any such news would readily be linked with the idea of a resurrection from the grave, and that this belief, in turn, would cause the people to lose confidence in their leaders, who had been chiefly responsible for the murder of Jesus. So the Sanhedrists pass a resolution containing three items, namely, to give the soldiers: a.a large sum of money; b.a story to spread; and c.assurance of freedom from punishment. As to a.the sum had to be large, for the admission that they, the men on guard duty, had been sleeping instead of watching, would not reflect honor on themselves. As to b.the story his disciples &stole him would explain why the tomb was empty, and would hopefully counteract belief in a resurrection. And as to c.what had happened at Calvary see Matt. 27:23–26; cf. John 19:12, 13had strengthened the Sanhedrin's conviction that Pilate could be bent according to its [Greek] -2 _ftnref6 [Greek] We will persuadeor satisfyhim, says the council. As to the Sanhedrin, it may seem strange that a body of such dignitaries and clothed with such high authority would actually resort to this crookedness. But is it so strange that men who had committed murder now also resort to lying in order to cover up what they had done? The soldiers reaction is described in verse 15. So they took the money and did as they had been instructed.From the point of view of expediency or (seeming) self-interest, this must have looked to them as the best course to follow. Though it was painful to admit that they had been sleeping at their post, yet by agreeing to do as they had been directed, they gained the promise of protection by the Sanhedrin, and a considerable sum of money besides. Matthew concludes this account by stating: And this story has been widely spread among the Jews, to this very day.To the very day that Matthew was writing these words this false rumor was being circulated among the Jews. Justin Martyr (probable dates a.d. 114 165) writes, You have sent chosen and ordained men throughout the whole world to proclaim that a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus, a Galilean deceiver &whose disciples stole him by night from the tombDialogue with Trypho108 . Even today, late in the twentieth century, this false rumor is still being [Greek] -2 _ftnref7 [Greek] We feel sure, however, that Matthew is not recording this merely to tell an interesting story about The Guard, Stationed, Scattered, and Bribed. As was indicated earlier, he was writing to the Jews, though he was aiming also for the conversion of a much wider circle. What he is doing in conveying this truthful account found in 27:62–66; 28:3, 4, 11 15, is this: he is showing how utterly ridiculous is the denial of Christ's resurrection; in other words, how well-founded is the true account of what happened in Joseph's garden. That is why, as I mentioned in the beginning, this theme can be turned into an inspiring Easter message. Let us, then, for a moment try to recall the concrete situation that must have resulted from the spread of the rumor that the disciples had come by night and stolen the body. Let us try to picture what may have happened: Monday morning, presumably the day after the rumor of the stolen body had begun to spread, one of these guards, let us suppose, is being stopped by a friend who says to him, What is this we hear about the tomb being empty, and the body missing? Answer: What actually happened was that his disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were sleeping. O, says the inquirer, then that explains it. He continues on his way, satisfied that the problem has been solved. He tells all his friends and relatives about it. Many of them also believe the rumor. However a little farther along this same guard meets someone else, who asks him the same question. He receives the same answer. But this man is not entirely satisfied with it. As in disbelief he stares at the soldier and asks, Do you really mean to stand there and tell me that all of you twelve men or whatever was the number remained asleep when some Galilean fishermen entered the garden, and that while they were busily engaged in removing and turning on its side the heavy slab, entering the tomb, and carrying out the corpse, none of you men even so much as woke up? Some sleepers you must be! A third person enters into conversation with the same soldier. His retort is: What kind of guards are you people, that you actually allowed all this to happen? I have always learned that guards were supposed to stay awake. Finally, the real bombshell! This person, after looking at the watchman in sheer unbelief for a long time, says to him, Would you please repeat that? I don't know whether I understood you the first time. So very slowly the soldier repeats, His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were sleeping. The man answers, Do you really want me to believe that? You said that you yourself and all the other men who were supposed to be on guard were sleeping. Well, if you were sleeping,then how do you know what happened? If you were sleeping, you didn't see anybody enter the garden and carry away the body. You are merely guessing. I, too, will give my solution of the problem of the empty tomb. It is far more reasonable than yours. It is this: the tomb is empty because Jesus arose triumphantly. He is my Savior and my Lord. Here ends this illustration. The trouble with all the so-calledsolutions of the problem of the empty tomb is that not one of them is reasonable even on the surface. The stolen body, the swoon theory (according to which Jesus did not really die), mass hallucination, etc., etc., all are absurd. On the other hand, the faith of the Christian, He lives, he lives, and because he lives I too shall live, is reasonable, true, and satisfying. Not only that, but as already indicated, He is still the same wonderful Savior, filled with holiness, kindness, and forgiving love for all those who, by sovereign grace, take refuge in him. 28:16–20 The Great Claim; The Great Commission; The Great Comfort Cf. Mark 16:14 18; Luke 24:36 49; John 20:19 23; Acts 1:9 11 16 So the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had directed them to go. 17 And when they saw him, they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came nearer and spoke to them, saying, All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in(to) the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and remember, I am with you day in day out until the close of the age. [Greek] -2 _ftnref8 [Greek] 16. So the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had directed them to go. (Note eleven. Judas has gone to his own placeActs 1:25). These eleven went to Galilee, for that is where Jesus had promised to meet them (26:32), and where the women, upon the instruction of the angel and of Jesus himself (28:7, 10) had directed them to go. In the previous references no mention was made of any mountain. Whether this can be explained by assuming that such passages as the ones already mentioned 26:32; 28:7, 10 and their parallels in Mark give us an abbreviated account of what was spoken, or whether the risen Savior had indicated this mountain at one of his other appearances, we do not know. What we do know is that it was certainly kind of the risen Savior to meet with his disciples at a place in the neighborhood of where their homes were, and where many friends and fellow believers were living. This mountain must have been a place of picturesque scenery and subdued quietness away from the turmoil of the busy cities and villages. Above all, a scene of tender reminiscences, both for Jesus himself and for his followers, reminding them of what had happened earlier; perhaps on this particular elevation, perhaps on others (Matt. 5:1; 14:23; 15:29; 17:1; Mark 3:13; John 6:3, 15). It was on a mountain that Jesus had called his disciples; it was also on a mountain that he would take his leave from them. About a dozen appearances of the risen Christ are recorded in Scripture. See the list, together with references, in N.T.C. on the Gospel according to John, Vol. II, p. 477. It is very well possible that the present appearance to the eleven coincides with, or is part of, the appearance to the five hundred brothers (I Cor. 15:6), the majority of whom were still alive when Paul wrote I Corinthians. When the Lord ascended to heaven this event occurred not in Galilee but from the Mount of Olives, near Jerusalem. For that story one must turn to (Luke 24:50, 51; and to Acts 1:4 11. Except for the summarizing statement in the disputed portion of Mark's GospelMark 16:19), the (storyof the ascension is found only in the writings of Luke. But the factitself is confirmed by ever so many passagesJohn 6:62; 14:2, 12; 16:5, 10, 16, 17, 28; 17:5; 20:17; Eph. 1:20–23; 4:8–10; Phil. 2:9; I Tim. 3:16; Heb. 1:3; 2:9; 4:14; 9:24; Rev. 12:5). Returning then to Galilee, and to the account of the last appearance of Jesus that is recorded in Matthew's Gospel, and may have taken place very shortly before the ascension, we read: 17. And when they saw him, they worshiped him, but some doubted.When the disciples suddenly saw Jesus they fell down before him in the act of [Greek] -2 _ftnref9 ([Greek] Some, however, doubted. From the very beginning the disciples had difficulty believing that Jesus had actually risen from the deadLuke 24:10, 11). When ten finally believed it, one (Thomas) was still unconvinced. He, too, became convinced (John 20:24 29). Must we believe that shortly before the ascension there were still a few of the disciples who disbelieved the fact of Christ's resurrection? Probably not. Of that fact all, no doubt, were by this time thoroughly convinced. However, another question was whether thisman, who suddenly appears to them here in Galilee, was the risen Christ. Was he perhaps someone else? Many solutions have been offered with respect to this problem. Could it be that the most simple one is also the best, namely, that at first this mysterious person appears to them from a considerable distance? He then steps closer, and the doubt disappeared, though this is not recorded in so many words. What we read is: 18. Then Jesus came nearer and spoke to them, saying.& Jesus steps forward, so that they may be able to see and hear him better. Then follows the great claim, the great commission, and the great comfort. The Great Claim All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.Cf. Dan. 7:14; Matt. 16:28; 24:30; 26:64. Jesus is here claiming all power and right to exercise it. When he says, To me has been given we naturally interpret this to mean that he is referring to a gift he has received as Resurrected Mediator. One might add: as a reward upon his accomplished mediatorial work, the atonement which he rendered. But did he not make a somewhat similar claim long before his death and resurrection? See 11:27. Not only this, but did he not, even during the days of his humiliation, exercise power over every sickness, including leprosy, and over hunger, demons, winds and waves, human hearts, death even? Did he not prove this on many occasions? True, but there is, nevertheless, an important difference. Before his triumph over death the enjoyment of that gift was always in some way curtailed. For example, he must tell the leper not to make known that he was cured (8:4). The blind men whose eyes were opened receive a similar order (9:30). He is kept from calling on the Father to send legions of angels to rescue him (26:53). To be sure, he himself does not desire this help, but self-restraint is also restraint. He does indeed raise from the dead the daughter of Jairus, the son of the widow at Nain, and Lazarus. At the moment of his death some saints are raised. But though all of this was indeed astounding, it is not the same as actually exercising unlimited power over both heaven and earth, having it proclaimed everywhere without any restriction, and then at the end of the age raising allthe dead, and judging allmen. It is the investiture of the risen Christ with such unrestricted, universal sovereignty, that Jesus now claims and which, especially within a few days, that is after his ascension to heaven, he is beginning to exercise. That is the reward upon his laborsEph. 1:19–23; Phil. 2:9, 10; Rev. 5; etc. . Why does Jesus make known this claim? Answer: so that when he now commissions his apostles to proclaim the gospel throughout the world, they may know that moment by moment, day by day, they can lean on him. Is not this the clear teaching of such precious passages as (John 16:33; Acts 26:16 18; Phil. 4:13; and Rev. 1:9 20? Not only this, but these apostles and those that follow afterward must demand that everyone, in every sphere of life,shall joyfully acknowledge Jesus as Lord of lords and king of kingsRev. 17:14). The Great Claim is therefore a fitting introduction to: The Great Commission 19, 20a. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in(to) the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.We might say that this passage is of such fundamental significance that something should be said about each word or combination of words. Go This stands in rather sharp contrast to Go not of 10:5. Cf. 15:24. It is clear that the particularism of the pre-resurrection period has now definitely made place for universalism. Not as if Jesus has changed his mind. It is very clear from the story of the non-Jewish wise men (2:1–12), who came to worship the newborn King, and from such other passages as 8:11, 12; 15:28; 21:43; 22:8–10, that from the very beginning the evangelization of the world was included in the purpose of God. See also (John 3:16; 10:16. Matthew too, as has been pointed out, had nothing less than this in mind. But as was stated in connection with 10:5, In God's plan it was from Jerusalemthat the gospel must spread out among the nations. Cf. Acts 1:8. Therefore the divinely instituted order was, To the Jew first, and also to the GreekRom. 1:16). The time to make earnest preparations for the propagation of the gospel throughout the world had now arrived. Go also implies that the disciples and this holds for God's children in general must not concentrate all their thought on coming to church. They must also go to bring the precious tidings to others. Of course, they cannot go unless they have first of all come, and unless they keep coming as well as going. They cannot give unless they are willing to receive. Therefore This has already been explained in connection with The Great Claim. Briefly it means: Go, a.because your Lord has so ordered; b.because he has promised to impart all the needed strength; and c.because he is worthy of the homage, faith, and obedience of all men. Make Disciples Literally the original says, Having gone, therefore, make disciples.& In such cases the participle as well as the verb that follows it can be in the present case must be interpreted as having imperative force. Make disciples is by itself an imperative. It is a brisk command, an order. But just what is meant by make disciples? It is not exactly the same as make converts, though the latter is surely implied. See above on 3:2; 4:17. The term make disciples places somewhat more stress on the fact that the mind, as well as the heart and the will, must be won for God. A disciple is a pupil, a learner. See on 13:52. Also, see on 11:29 for words related to it in the English language. The apostle, then, must proclaim the truth and the will of God to the world. It is necessary that sinners (learnabout their own lost condition, God, his plan of redemption, his love, his law, etc. This however, is not enough. True discipleshipimplies much more. Mere mental understanding does not as yet make one a disciple. It is part of the picture, in fact an important part, but only a part. The truth learned must be practiced. It must be appropriated by heart, mind, and will, so that one remainsor abidesin the truth. Only then is one truly Christ's discipleJohn 8:31). Not every person who presents himself as a candidate for church membership should immediately be accorded all the rights and privileges pertaining to such membership. There are expositors who place all the emphasis on The wedding-hall was filled with guests (Matt. 22:10). They forget verses 11 14. Of All the Nations See above, under the heading Go. Baptizing Them in(to) the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit The main verb is Make disciples. Subordinate to this are: a.baptizing them, and b.teaching them. In such a construction it would be completely wrong to say that because the word baptizingprecedes the word teaching,therefore people must be baptized before they are taught. It is rather natural that baptizing is mentioned first, for while a person is baptized once (ordinarily), he continues throughout his life to be taught. The concepts baptizing and teaching are simply two activities, in co-ordination with each other, but both subordinate to make disciples. In other words, by means of being baptized and being taught a person becomes a disciple, with the understanding, of course, that this individual is ready for baptism and is willing to appropriate the teaching. The context makes very clear that Jesus is here speaking about those who are old enough to be considered the objects of preaching. He is not here speaking about infants. To be ready for baptism requires repentance (Acts 2:38, 41). It requires receiving the word (Acts 2:41). This also shows that a certain amount of teaching must precede being baptized. The baptizing must be into the name note the singular: onename; hence oneGod of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. A name,as indicated previously see on 6:9; 7:22; 10:22, 41, 42; 12:21 represents the one who bears it. Being baptized into the name of, therefore means being brought into vital relationship with that One, viewed as he has revealed himself. Should we baptize in or into? The debate on this has already lasted many [Greek] -2 _ftnref10 [Greek] Now since even in English at least in conversational style in frequently has the sense of into Children, come in the house a decision on this point may not be quite as important as some try to make it. Nevertheless, all things considered, I believe into is defensible. Neither into nor in is necessarily wrong. A good case can be made for either. But when we say, I baptize &in the name of, this could be understood to mean, I baptize at the command of, or on the authority of, which certainly is not what is meant. I Cor. 1:13seems to mean, Were you baptized into the name of Paul? Similarly verse 15, &baptized into my name. Cf. I Cor. 10:2. And so here in Matt. 28:19, into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit makes good [Greek] -2 _ftnref11 [Greek] Not as if the rite of baptism as suchbrings a person into vital union with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But, according to Scripture the following are true: a.circumcision was a sign and a seal of the righteousness of Christ accepted by faithRom. 4:11in its context ; (b.baptism took the place of circumcisionCol. 2:11, 12); c.therefore baptism, too, must be regarded as a sign and a seal of the righteousness of Christ accepted by faith. Accordingly, when through the preaching of the Word a person has been brought from darkness into light, and confesses the Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to be the one Object of his faith, hope, and love, then the sacrament of baptism is the sign and seal that God the Father adopts him as his son and heir; that God the Son washes his sins away by his precious blood; and that God the Holy Spirit dwells in him, and will sanctify him; actually imparting to him that which objectively he already has in Christ, and at last bringing him from the Church Militant into the Church Triumphant. Baptism, therefore, is very important. The one who submits to it, if sincere, is proclaiming that he has broken with the world and has been brought into union with the Triune God, to whom he intends to devote his life. For Infant Baptism see on 19:15. And Teaching Them to Observe All That I Have Commanded You As already remarked, this teaching both precedes and follows baptizing. The early church insisted that before the person to whom the gospel had been proclaimed be admitted to membership he give evidence of genuine repentance and of knowledge of the basics of Christianity. The early church was interested in edification as well as evangelism, in sanctification as well as conversion, in church government as well as preaching. [Greek] -2 _ftnref12 [Greek] That such teaching should not stop when a person has been baptized is clear from the words, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you Think of: a. All of Christ's marvelous discourses. b. All of his parables; both a.and b.including ever so many commands, whether implied or expressed. Among them are: c. Precious sayings, such as: Abide in me &love each other &also bear witness (John 15:4, 12, 27); Love your enemies (Matt. 5:44); Deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow me (Luke 9:23). d. Specific predictions and promises or assurances: He who comes to me will in no way get hungry, and he who believes in me will in no way get thirsty (John 6:35); In the world you have tribulation; but be of good courage. I have conquered the world. Notice the implied directives for Christian conduct. e. Add to this: the lessons on the cross, hypocrisy, proclaiming the gospel; on prayer, humility, trust, the forgiving spirit, the law. f. And is not even the narrative of Christ's sojourn on earth the account of his healing, traveling, suffering, death, resurrection, etc. full of implied commands? Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you, what an order! First of all for the eleven and for all ordained teachers; but certainly in a sense also for the entire church, the whole membership. Every true member is a witness-bearer. In view of the fact that after Christ's ascension there was some hesitancy on the part of Christian leaders to proclaim the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10:14, 28; 11:1–3, 19; Gal. 2:11–13), there are those who believe that either the Great Commission is itself a myth, or else the church quickly forgot about it. They contend that in the book of Acts, the epistles, and the book of Revelation no trace of its influence can be detected. How can we be so sure of this? Do not the following passages testify to the possible influence of, among other factors, the Great Commission? See Acts 2:38, 39; 3:25; 4:12; 10:45; 11:1, 18; 13:46–49; 14:27; 15:7–11, 12, 13 19; 17:30; 19:10; 21:19, 20a; 22:15, 21; 26:15–20; 28:28; Rom. 1:5, 14 16; 11:32; Gal. 2:9; 3:28; Eph. 3:8, 9; Col. 3:11; I Tim. 1:15; Rev. 7:9, 10; 22:17. The Great Comfort 20b. and [Greek] -2 _ftnref13 [Greek] I am with you day in day out until the close of the age.Cf. John 14:23; Acts 18:10. There is no vagueness about this assurance. It has been called a promise; it is a fact. Note the emphatic introduction: Remember, or Take note, Pay close attention, Look. The pronoun I, included in the verb, is also written as a separate word and is very emphatic, as if to say, No one less than I myself am with you. With you not just forever but all the days, or day in day out. Think of these days following each other one by one, each with its own trials, troubles, and difficulties, but each day also accompanied by the assurance, My grace is sufficient for you. I will never leave you or forsake you. This continues on and on until the close or consummation of the age. And even then there is nothing to fear; see Matt. 25:31–40. At the beginning, in the middle, and at the end of Matthew's Gospel, Jesus Christ assures the church of his constant and comforting presence: 1:23 See p. 133 Behold, the virgin shall conceive and give birth to a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel, which, translated, is God with us. 18:20 See p. 702 For where two or three are gathered in my name there am I in the midst of them. 28:20 And remember, I am with you day in day out until the close of the age. Reflection on Chapter 28 Because of Christ's glorious resurrection we know that our R. ight to heaven has been secured (Rom. 8:1). E. arthly house is to be exchanged for the heavenly (II Cor. 5:1). S. ins are forgiven (Rom. 4:25). U. nion with the church above has begun (Eph. 3:14). R. equests are being heard and answered (Eph. 3:20). R. edeemer has triumphed; hence, so shall we triumph (John 16:33). E. nergies are being constantly replenished (Phil. 4:12, 13). C. hrist is living evermore to intercede for us (Heb. 7:25). T. rials are understood and attended to (Heb. 4:15). I. mmortality (glorious) is guaranteed (John 14:19). O. blations are being accepted (Phil. 4:18, 19). N. ames are written in heaven (Luke 10:20). -2 _ftn1 899 It makes little difference whether one conceives of the Greek plural for sabbathas referring to the dayor to an entire week(the time from one day of rest to another). If the first is meant, then the idea is that this was the first day counting from the sabbath-day; hence, the first day after the sabbath-day. If the second is meant, the result is still the same; the day indicated is then not the last of the week but the first. In either case Sunday is meant. -2 _ftn2 900 For a possible harmony see N.T.C. on the Gospel according to John, Vol. II, p. 448, middle of page. -2 _ftn3 901 Greek [Greek]; see footnote 133 on p. 131. -2 _ftn4 N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary -2 _ftn5 902 (To say that in negative commands the present imperative means that an action, already going on, must be stopped, is hardly sufficient. It is true that in many cases of this nature a prohibition to stop doing what one is already doing is indeed implied. So undoubtedly also hereLuke 24:5). But that certainly is not the full meaning. Don t you be afraid not only means Stop doing what you are already doing, but also, Do the very opposite. This is a day of cheer, a day to rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory. -2 _ftn6 903 In verse 14 [Greek] most naturally refers back to the report which the soldiers are ordered to spread (verse 13). Therefore the rendering And if this (report) should reach the governor's ears, seems natural and best, rather than come to a hearing before the governor, favored by Lenski, op. cit.,p. 1145. -2 _ftn7 904 H. J. Schonfield, op. cit.,pp. 163–165. -2 _ftn8 905 Or: the consummation of the age. Or: the end of the world. -2 _ftn9 906 The verb is [Greek], third per. pl. aor. indic. of [Greek]. In the Gospel according to Matthew this verb occurs again and again (2:2, 8, 11; 4:9, 10; 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 18:26; 20:20; 28:9, 17). It indicates dropping to one's knees in worship or in worshipful adoration. See especially on 2:11; 8:2; and 14:33. -2 _ftn10 907 Lenskiop. cit.,p. 1155 very definitely rejects into, as if it were an absolutely settled matter that this must be rejected. The matter, however, is not nearly as simple as all that. It is a well-known fact that in Koine Greek [Greek] often means [Greek], but that does not prove that it alwaysmust have that meaning. Whether or not it does depends on such matters as whether in any particular passage it is based on Semitic usage, the kind of verbs and nouns with which it is used, etc. -2 _ftn11 908 For this argument see H. Bietenhard, art. [Greek] and related words, Th.D.N.T., Vol. V, p. 275; L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 625. Does not this make Acts 19:3easier to explain? -2 _ftn12 909 G. W. Knight, III, The Faithful Sayings in the Pastoral Epistles, doctoral dissertation presented to the Free University at Amsterdam, Kampen, 1968, p. 148. Justin Martyr (about a.d. 114 165) states, As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins.& Then they are brought by us to where there is water &First Apology, chap. 61. Another very early writing called The Didache or Teaching of The Twelve Apostlesis generally held to be in part a statement of the rules of Christian conduct that was to be taught to those who were looking forward to being baptized. -2 _ftn13 910 Or: note well. For the meaning and translation of [Greek] see footnote 133, on p. 131.