7. Transitional conclusion: introduction to the Judean ministry (19:1–2)

OVERVIEW

Matthew omits mention of the crowds (cf. Mk 8:34) and omits Mark 8:38 because he has provided a parallel thought elsewhere (10:33). In 16:27, Matthew adds some words from Psalm 62:12. This pericope does two things: (1) After the passion prediction in vv.21–23, it demands the disciples’ willingness to deny themselves absolutely, a kind of death to self; (2) yet it assures us that the consummated kingdom will at last come. For the pericope’s structure, see

24Then Jesus said to his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. 26What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? 27For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. 28I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

COMMENTARY

24 Though addressed to Jesus’ “disciples” (see

), the thought is expressed in widest terms—“if anyone.” As in 10:33, Jesus speaks of “disowning” or “renouncing.” The Jews renounced the Messiah (Ac 3:14); his followers renounce themselves (cf. Ro 14:7–9; 15:2–3). They “take up their cross” (cf. 10:38). Any Jew in Palestine would know that the man condemned to crucifixion was often forced to carry part of his cross (see

)—a burden and a sign of death. Though Jesus does not explicitly mention the mode of his death until a few days before it takes place (20:19), the impact of this saying must have multiplied after Golgotha. Death to self is not so much a prerequisite of discipleship to Jesus as a continuing characteristic of it (see

; cf. Jn 12:23–26). (On the differences between discipleship to Jesus and discipleship to first-century rabbis, see Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, 144–45.)

25–26 The logic is relentless: gar (“for”) begins vv.25, 26, 27. For the sense of v.25, see

. The orientation is eschatological. Saving one’s psychē (NIV, “life,” GK 6034; see

) now will result in losing it at the end, and losing it now will result in finding it at the end. Verse 26 (cf. 2 Bar. 51:15) furthers the argument by asking twin rhetorical questions, showing the folly of possessing all created abundance and wealth at the expense of one’s psychē. The NIV here changes its rendering “life” (v.25) to “soul” (v.26). This is not necessarily wrong. The abrupt change from the physical to the spiritual is amply attested elsewhere (cf. 8:22; Jn 4:10; 6:27); but the change in English is perhaps too sharp (cf. Lk 9:25: “his very self”). The focus is still eschatological, and the loss is the eternal loss of one’s soul = life = self (on the afterlife, see

). Terminology aside, the bargain is a bad one.

27 Not only Jesus’ example (v.24; cf. 10:24–25) but the judgment he will exercise is an incentive to take up one’s cross and follow him. The Son of Man (see

;

) will come “in his Father’s glory”—the same glory God his Father enjoys (cf. 26:64; Jn 17:1–5), another implicit claim to the status of deity—along with his angels, who both enhance his glory and serve as his agents for the eschatological ingathering (13:41; 24:31; 25:31–32; Lk 9:26). They are his angels. He stands so far above them that he owns them and uses them. At that time he will reward each person kata tēn praxin autou (“according to what he has done”). The language is that of Psalm 62:12, where Yahweh rewards his people, and the Yahweh-Jesus exchange is not uncommon. The use of praxis (“conduct,” “deeds,” GK 4552) is Matthew’s rendering of the Hebrew collective singular by a corresponding singular in Greek (Gundry, Use of the Old Testament, 138). For the concept of rewards, see

28 Many of the possible interpretations and difficult issues bound up with this verse have been treated at 10:23 and need not be repeated. Martin Kunzi (Das Naherwartungslogion Markus 9.1 par: Geschichte seiner Auslegung [Tübingen: Mohr, 1977]) has an excellent history of interpretation.

The parallel in Mark 9:1 has a somewhat different “before” clause: “before they see the kingdom of God come with power.” But this and Matthew’s “before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” may mean much the same thing, when it is remembered that “kingdom” is a dynamic concept (see

) and that “the coming of the Son of Man” also has a wide range of possible meanings (see

). The principal explanations of this verse may be briefly listed.

1. Dodd (Parables of the Kingdom, 53–54) interprets Mark’s form of the saying as meaning “there are some who stand here who will never taste death until they have seen that the kingdom of God has come with power.” In other words, the kingdom had come when Jesus was speaking (perfect participle elēlythyian), and the disciples “see”—i.e., perceive that this is so. But, as many have shown, this is an unnatural way of taking the verb “to see,” and it introduces an insurmountable problem in Matthew, where the participle is erchomenon (“the kingdom of God coming”).

2. Many have held that this verse refers to the transfiguration, the very next pericope in both Matthew and Mark. The problem is twofold. First, “some who are standing here will not taste death before they see” is an extraordinary way to refer to Peter, James, and John, who witness the transfiguration a mere six days later (17:1). Second, as magnificent as the transfiguration was, it is not entirely clear how the Son of Man comes in his kingdom (Matthew) or the kingdom comes in power (Mark) through this event.

3. Others take this to refer to the resurrection or to Pentecost. This view has been strenuously defended, but again it faces the difficulty that even these events are not far enough off to warrant the phrasing “some standing here who will not taste death.”

4. Still others (Gaechter, Plummer) think the saying refers to the fall of Jerusalem (a view this commentary defends for 10:23). The chief problem is that the context does not encourage this interpretation here, as it does in 10:23. There is no mention of the cities of Israel, of persecution in synagogue settings, etc. Indeed, the preceding verse (v.27) appears to refer to the Parousia.

5. Others interpret this verse as referring to the Parousia but draw divergent conclusions. Some think the saying shows that Jesus expected history to end within a few years but was clearly wrong; others that “some who are standing here” refers not to those then standing there but to the final generation, prophetically foreseen. If Matthew believed that the former was what Jesus meant, we would expect a gospel full of the Thessalonian heresy, loaded with expectation of the second coming, because few of the first generation would still be alive. Instead, the disciples’ mission is to continue to the end of the age (28:20). The second alternative means that the words were calculated to be misunderstood by “those who [were] standing here.”

6. Bruce Chilton has offered a novel interpretation (God in Strength, 251–74; “An Evangelical and Critical Approach to the Sayings of Jesus,” Them 3 [1977–78]: 78–85). He argues that “those not tasting death” is a technical reference to “immortals” such as Elijah and Enoch (cf. Gen. Rab. 9:6; 4 Ezra 6:26), that what Jesus actually said was that the immortals, like Elijah and Moses in the transfiguration scene that immediately follows, do indeed witness the reality of the kingdom, understood as God’s revelation on behalf of his people. If this is correct, then the problem of trying to find a suitable period to explain Jesus’ prediction in v.28 and in Mark 9:1 is resolved: there is no prediction left. But Chilton’s argument depends on adopting a doubtful reading in Mark 9:1 (cf. Kent Brower, “Mark 9:1: Seeing the Kingdom in Power,” JSNT 6 [1980]: 30–31) and on reasoning that maintains that both Mark and Matthew so completely misinterpreted Jesus that they make him say something quite different from what he really said. The word “here,” despite Chilton’s contention that it contrasts those not tasting death with Jesus’ hearers, is most naturally understood to refer to them.

Moreover, most of Chilton’s sources for nailing down “those not tasting death” (“taste death” itself simply means “die”; cf. Heb 2:9) as a special phrase for “immortals” are either certainly or probably late. Whereas some elements of Jewish tradition did treat Moses, along with Elijah, as a “deathless figure,” the OT firmly insists that “Moses the servant of the LORD died” (Dt 34:5). Furthermore, what “those who are standing here” will see is, in Mark, the kingdom “coming with power” or “having come with power”—i.e., they see evidence of the kingdom’s powerful operation. This is interpreted by Matthew to be the equivalent of “the Son of Man coming in [or perhaps ‘with’; cf. BDF, para. 198 (2)] his reign”—i.e., they see evidence of the Son of Man’s reigning authority. But Chilton’s interpretation allows for none of this. In his view, the “deathless figures” merely perceive the reality of God’s reign, and thus Chilton confuses the kingdom with evidence for the coming of the kingdom.

Jesus refers to those who “will not taste death,” but Chilton treats them as if they are generically “those not tasting death.” He does this by rightly pointing out that the words do not necessarily mean that those “standing” there will necessarily taste death after they have seen the kingdom coming in power. The words ou mē ... heōs an (“not ... until”) reflect a Semitic construction, used in Genesis 28:15, in which God says to Jacob, “I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you,” which does not mean God will leave him afterwards. From this, Chilton deduces that “will not taste death until [NIV, ‘before’]” refers to “immortals,” or “deathless figures,” because the “until” does not necessarily mark the end of something. But this, though correct, misses two crucial points.

First, whether “those standing” must one day die or not, with this expression the part of the sentence before the “until” clause always expresses something new or the ending or changing of something. The main clause always demands sequence and change. For example, in the Genesis passage just quoted, “until” may not mean that God will then leave Jacob; but the main clause does mean that God will keep every word of his promises and remain with Jacob, at least “until” all the promises have been fulfilled. Likewise in Mark 9:1 and Matthew 16:28, the “until” clause (NIV, “before”) does not necessarily mean those “standing” must die; but the verse as a whole does mean they will at some future time witness the powerful operation of the reign of God (Mark), the coming of the Son of Man with his reign (Matthew), and that at least until then they will not die. Thus, even Chilton’s reconstruction does not eliminate the difficulty of determining what time period within salvation is in view. He has sidestepped the problem but not resolved it.

Second, the ou mē ... heōs an (“not ... until”) construction can mean that at the “until” the action or state of the first clause will cease (as in 23:39). There are numerous NT occurrences of this construction (5:18, 26; 10:23; 16:28; 23:39; 24:34; Mk 9:1; 14:25; Lk 9:27; 12:59; 13:35; 21:32), and in addition there are important variations with the same meaning, none more so than Luke 2:26, where it had been revealed to Simeon that he would not see death “until” (prin an or prin ē an or heōs an) he saw the Lord’s Christ, after which, apparently, he died. Many of these references give evidence of the termination of the action of the first clause when the time of the “until” clause has passed. Along with comments on the natural force of “here,” these data suggest that the best way to take “some who are standing here will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming with his reign” therefore depends solely on the meaning of “the Son of Man coming with his reign.” If this is a reference to the Parousia, then the “some who are standing here” will not die even then; but in that case, Jesus’ chronology would be very wrong. If it is a reference to the demonstrable evidences of powerful kingship, then “some who are standing here” will die at some point after seeing those evidences. Moreover, it must be said that Chilton’s redaction-critical methods, though done with rigor, are so procrustean in distinguishing between the “traditional” and the “redactional” that they can produce only suspect results.

7. It seems best to take v.28 as having a more general reference—namely, not referring simply to the resurrection, to Pentecost, or the like, but to the manifestation of Christ’s kingly reign exhibited after the resurrection in a host of ways, not the least of them being the rapid multiplication of disciples and the mission to the Gentiles. Some of those standing there would live to see Jesus’ gospel proclaimed throughout the Roman Empire and a rich “harvest” (cf. 9:37–38) of converts reaped for Jesus Messiah. This best suits the flexibility of the “kingdom” concept in the Synoptic Gospels (see

;

;

) and the present context. Thus, v.28 does not refer to the same thing as 10:23. But the distinction is made, not on the basis that consistency is “the hobgoblin of little minds,” but on the basis of context.

This pericope contains an important chiasm:

v.24: challenge to take up the cross and follow Christ in the immediate future

v.25: incentive reward and punishment at the Parousia
- v.26: central weighing of values
v.27: incentive reward and punishment at the Parousia

v.28: promise of witnessing the kingdom power of Jesus in the immediate future

The setting is quite different from that in 10:23. But if the evidence of the kingdom is seen in the church, this does not mean that the church and the kingdom are to be identified. Rather, at this point in salvation history, it is the power of the kingdom working through Jesus’ disciples that calls the church into being (see

). Moreover, as Brower (“Mark 9:1,” 32ff.) points out, the larger context also offers important insights. Though the transfiguration is not the fulfillment of v.28, it is related to it in an important way. Sections that stress suffering and the cross (vv.21–28; 17:9–13) envelop the transfiguration and bracket this clearest manifestation of divine glory by suffering. The way to glory is the way of the cross, and the reign of the Son of Man, which “some standing here” will see before they “taste death,” will be inaugurated by the cross.

OVERVIEW

This passage raises difficult literary, historical, and theological questions. The literary questions arise largely from the several important “minor agreements” of Matthew and Luke (9:28–36) against Mark (9:2–8), raising doubts about the adequacy of the two-source hypothesis (see Introduction, ). These have been scrutinized by F. Neirynck (“Minor Agreements of Matthew-Luke in the Transfiguration Story,” in Orientierung an Jesus [ed. Hoffmann et al.], 253–66) and judged to be of greater relevance to the tendencies of Matthew and Luke than to source-critical relationships.

The historical questions arise because there have been numerous attempts to explain the origin of this story in some setting other than what the evangelists present. Schweitzer (Quest of the Historical Jesus, 380ff.) holds that when Jesus’ dreams were shattered following the mission of the Twelve (he thought that mission would usher in the kingdom), he experienced an ecstatic, perhaps glossalalic, vision later reinterpreted by his disciples. This historical reconstruction depends on Schweitzer’s broader theories, now long discredited (see

). More influential is Bultmann’s view (History of the Synoptic Tradition, 259) that this story is a misplaced resurrection narrative. But this has been decisively rebutted by Robert H. Stein (“Is the Transfiguration [Mark 9:2–8] a Misplaced Resurrection Account?” JBL 95 [1976]: 79–96), who shows that in language and form the theory of Bultmann and many others will not work.

Bruce D. Chilton (“The Transfiguration: Dominical Assurance and Apostolic Vision,” NTS 27 [1980]: 115–24) has followed up his interpretation of v.28 (see

there) by positing that the genesis of the transfiguration narrative is his reconstruction of Jesus’ saying behind v.28—namely, Jesus swears by “deathless witnesses” that the “kingdom,” the revelation of “God in strength,” continues in forceful operation. These “deathless witnesses” were understood by the disciples to be Moses and Elijah, a step not dominical but consistent with it. Then Peter, James, and John, who saw themselves as Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu with reference to the new Moses (i.e., Jesus), emphasized the continuity of Jesus’ disclosure with the prophetic revelation of old in this “visio-literary fashion.” Chilton’s first and essential step we have seriously questioned, and the rest is little more than mere assertion without further supporting evidence. Even if his understanding of v.28 were correct, it would be difficult to see on what evidential grounds he holds that 17:1–8 is meant by the evangelist to be nonhistorical.

The theological questions arise because the story has so many nuances—allusions to Moses, his experience of glory and his role in redemptive history, Elijah and his role as eschatological forerunner, Jesus’ baptism (the Voice from heaven saying much the same thing, cf. 3:17), the Parousia, perhaps the Shekinah glory, and others. The narrative is clearly a major turning point in Jesus’ self-disclosure, and some attempt must be made to weave these themes together without merely allegorizing the passage. The best recent exposition is that of Liefeld (“Theological Motifs”). Also, G. H. Boobyer (St. Mark and the Transfiguration Story [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1942], 1–47) provides a useful survey of theological options.

1After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. 3Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.

4Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.”

5While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”

6When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified. 7But Jesus came and touched them. “Get up,” he said. “Don’t be afraid.” 8When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus.

COMMENTARY

1 Precise time indicators like “after six days” are rare in the Synoptics apart from in the passion narrative. Luke’s “about eight days after Jesus said this” (9:28) is based on a Greek way of speaking and means “about a week later.” Numerous suggestions have been made as to why “six days” should be mentioned. Bonnard sees an allusion to the six days separating the Day of Atonement from the Feast of Tabernacles. In this view, the first explicit mention of Jesus’ passion (16:21–23) occurs on the former day, and the transfiguration, with its “shelters” (v.4) or “tabernacles,” on the latter. But it seems highly unlikely that Jesus and his disciples would travel from Caesarea Philippi to this mountain during the feast. Nor is there any direct evidence of its taking place that time of year. Others see a reference to Exodus 24:16 (“For six days the cloud covered the mountain, and on the seventh day the LORD called to Moses from within the cloud”). Such views are probably too subtle, especially for Luke! The “six days” may simply indicate the time it took to travel from one place (16:13) to another (17:1) and thus establish the fact, noted by all three synoptists, that the transfiguration took place within a few days of the prediction that Jesus must go to Jerusalem and be killed. The two passages must therefore be read together.

Mount Tabor, the traditional “high mountain,” lies south of Galilee; but it is not at all “high” (about 1,900 feet), and going to it would have been a roundabout way of traveling from Caesarea Philippi to Capernaum (vv.22, 24; Mk 9:30, 33). Moreover, according to Josephus (J.W. 2.573 [20.6]; 4.54–55 [1.8]), it had a walled fortress at its summit. Mount Hermon, rising above Caesarea Philippi, is the most popular alternative (9,232 feet); but it is so high and cold at its summit—if indeed they went to the top—it seems a strange place to pass the night (Luke specifies they descended the next day). Immediately after their descent Jesus and the inner three faced crowds that included “teachers of the law” (Mk 9:14). This is almost inconceivable at Mount Hermon in Gentile territory. Liefeld (“Theological Motifs,” 167 n. 27) has plausibly suggested Mount Miron (3,926 feet), the highest mountain within Israel and on the way from Caesarea Philippi to Capernaum. The “mountain” calls to mind Moses and Elijah, both of whom received revelation on a mountain (Ex 19; 24; 1Ki 19; for thorough comparison of this christophany with the theophanies experienced by Moses and Elijah respectively, see G. Juncker, “Jesus and the Angel of the Lord: An Old Testament Paradigm in New Testament Christology” [PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2001], 351–75), though here part of the purpose was to ensure privacy (“by themselves,” v.1; “all alone,” Mk 9:2).

Those Jesus “took with him” (the verb, contrary to some expositions, has no obvious connection with master-disciple relations; cf. its use in 2:13; 4:5, 12:45) were Peter, James, and John, the inner circle of the Twelve (see

; ; cf. Mk 5:37, and the continued friendship of Peter and John, Ac 8:14; Gal 2:9 [with a different James]).

2 Moses’ face shone because it reflected something of God’s glory (Ex 34:29–30). But as for Jesus, he himself was transfigured. The verb metamorphoō (“transfigure,” “transform,” “change in form,” GK 3565) suggests a change of inmost nature that may be outwardly visible (as here; cf. Ex 34:29; 2 Bar. 51:3, 5) or quite invisible (Ro 12:2; 2Co 3:18). That Jesus was transfigured “before them” implies that it was largely for their sakes. Whatever confirmation the experience may have given Jesus, for the disciples it was revelatory. As they would come to realize, they were being privileged to glimpse something of his preincarnate glory (Jn 1:14; 17:5; Php 2:6–7) and anticipate his coming exaltation (2Pe 1:16–18; Rev 1:16). Their confession of Jesus as Messiah and his insistence that he would be a suffering Messiah (16:13–21; 17:9) were confirmed. Therefore, they had reason to hope that they would yet see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom (16:28). The contrast between what Jesus had just predicted would be his fate (16:21) and this glorious sight would one day prompt Jesus’ disciples to marvel at the self-humiliation that brought him to the cross and to glimpse a little of the height to which he had been raised by his vindicating resurrection and ascension.

3 The word idou should not be pressed to mean “Just then” (NIV). It is used twice more in v.5, where it stresses the marvel of the experience (see

). Unlike Mark, Matthew puts Moses before Elijah, giving him slightly greater status, and only Matthew mentions the brightness of the cloud (v.5), reminiscent of the Shekinah glory (cf. Davies, Setting, 50–56). Both Moses and Elijah had eschatological roles: Moses was the model for the eschatological Prophet (Dt 18:18), and Elijah for the forerunner (Mal 4:5–6; Mt 3:1–3; 11:7–10; 17:9–13). Both had strange ends. Both were men of God in times of transition, the first to introduce the covenant and the second to work for renewed adherence to it. Both experienced a vision of God’s glory, one at Sinai (Ex 31:18) and the other at Horeb (1Ki 19:8). Now, however, the glory is Jesus’ glory, for it is he who is transfigured and who radiates the glory of deity. Both suffered rejection of various kinds (for Moses, cf. Stephen’s summary, Ac 7:35, 37; for Elijah, cf. 1Ki 19:1–9; Mt 17:12). Together they may well summarize the Law and the Prophets. This is all the more plausible when we recall that these two figures very rarely appear together in Judaism or in the NT (possibly Rev 11:3; cf. Zec 4:14; TDNT, 4:863–64). All these associations gain importance as the narrative moves on and Jesus is perceived to be superior to Moses and Elijah and, indeed, to supersede them (vv.5, 8).

The verb ōphthē (“appeared,” GK 3972), sometimes used in connection with Jesus’ resurrection, does not in itself suggest a resurrection setting, since Moses and Elijah are the ones who “appear,” not Jesus.

4 Peter “answered” Jesus (NIV, “said”). The peculiar verb form (apokritheis, GK 646) may mean that his suggestion was called forth by the circumstances, but more likely it has no force of “response” (see

). Just as Moses and Elijah, in their respective theophanies, spoke with God, so Peter and his companions speak with Jesus; in other words, this is not a “new Moses” Christology leading his people on a new exodus but an unveiling of who Jesus truly is, a theophany in the strongest sense (cf. Juncker, “Jesus and the Angel of the Lord,” 364). Peter, speaking for the three (“it is good for us to be here”), sensing something of the greatness of what he, James, and John are seeing, suggests building three skēnas (“tabernacles,” GK 5008; NIV, “shelters”). While the word looks back to the tabernacle in the wilderness, forerunner of the temple, the idea of building “tabernacles” also reflects the Feast of Tabernacles, when Jews built shelters for themselves and lived in them for seven days (cf. Lev 23:42–43). The feast had eschatological overtones. So Peter may have been saying that in gratitude for witnessing Jesus’ transfiguration and recognizing the imminent dawn of the messianic age, he would build three “tabernacles”—one for Jesus, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.

The rebuke that follows does not offer criticism of Peter’s eschatology, nor even of its timing, but is administered solely because what Peter blurted out compromised Jesus’ uniqueness. Jesus was transfigured; they must bear witness concerning him (v.5). Mark says Peter spoke out of fear, Luke that he made his suggestion as Moses and Elijah were about to leave. Mark and Luke point out the foolishness of Peter’s remark. Matthew simplifies and so highlights the christological error of Peter.

Mark (9:5) has “Rabbi,” Luke (9:33) “Master,” and Matthew “Lord.” Mark is probably original; Luke translates “Rabbi” by “Master” for his non-Jewish readers; and Matthew probably uses “Lord” in its general sense (see

), connoting no more respect than “rabbi.” But why Matthew’s different form of address? Perhaps it is to stress what Peter is doing. Earlier Peter had confessed Jesus as Christ and yet rebuked him because Peter did not understand the full meaning of “Christ.” Here he again treats Jesus with respect (“Lord”) but suggests something that compromises his identity. Matthew’s readers know very well that “Christ” means more than messianic political conqueror and that “Lord” would in time include unqualified supremacy. But Peter does not yet know these things.

5 The “cloud” is associated, in both the OT and intertestamental Judaism, with eschatology (Ps 97:2; Isa 4:5; Eze 30:3, Da 7:13; Zep 1:15; cf. 2 Bar. 53:1–12; 4 Ezra 13:3; 2 Macc 2:8; b. Sanh. 98a) and with the exodus (Ex 13:21–22; 16:10; 19:16; 24:15–18; 40:34–38). Of the synoptists, only Matthew says that the cloud was “bright,” a detail that recalls the Shekinah glory. The latter eschatological associations (Lk 21:27; 1Th 4:17) show Jesus in his role as the one who succeeds Moses, the eschatological prophet; the former associations (Ps 97:2 et al.) assure us that Jesus is the messianic King whose kingdom is dawning. But as Liefeld (“Theological Motifs,” 170) points out, common to both sets of passages and to others as well is the more fundamental idea of the presence of God.

It is uncertain whether epeskiasen means “enveloped” (NIV) or “overshadowed” (cf. Ex 40:35). What the Voice from the cloud says is largely a repetition of 3:17, an apparent mingling of Psalm 2:7 and Isaiah 42:1, stressing that Jesus is both Son and Suffering Servant. This is the high point of the narrative (cf. S. Pedersen, “Die Proklamation Jesu als des eschatologischen Offenbarungsträgers,” NovT 17 [1975]: 241–64). (Mark omits the allusion to Isa 42:1; but both Matthew and Luke, not to mention 2Pe 1:17, attest the connection in different ways; cf. Gundry, Use of the Old Testament, 36–37.) But if Matthew 3:17 identifies Jesus, this verse in its context goes further and places him above Moses and Elijah.

The additional words “Listen to him”—an allusion to Deuteronomy 18:15—confirm Jesus is the Prophet like Moses (Dt 18:15–18; cf. Ac 3:22–23; 7:37). This does not mean Jesus is another prophet of Moses’ stature but the eschatological Prophet patterned on Moses as a type; for, as Liefeld has suggested (“Theological Motifs,” 173), Moses’ primary role here is typological, whereas Elijah’s, not explained until vv.9–13, is eschatological. As Moses’ antitype, Jesus so far outstrips him that when Moses is put next to him, men must “listen” to Jesus, as Moses himself said. The climax of biblical revelation is Jesus, the Son and Servant whom God loves and with whom God is well pleased. Even Moses and Elijah (the Law and the Prophets) assume supporting roles where he is concerned. This confirms our interpretation of 5:17–48; 11:11–15.

6–8 The effect of the transfiguration on the disciples reminds us of Daniel (Da 10:7–9; cf. Dt 5:25–26; Heb 12:19). The visible glory of deity brings terror, but Jesus calms his disciples’ fears (cf. 14:26–27; Da 8:18; 10:18). Mark relates fear to Peter’s foolish words; Matthew, to the disciples’ response to the Voice from the cloud. Both are psychologically convincing; both make different points in the narrative. In Mark, fear helps explain Peter’s folly. In Matthew, it magnifies the greatness of the transfiguration. Matthew alone tells us that at the divine splendor the disciples “fell facedown to the ground” (v.6), a prelude to their seeing no one “except Jesus” (v.8). These words are pregnant with meaning. Compared with God’s revelation through him, all other revelations pale. Supporting, pointing, prophetic roles such revelation may enjoy, but that Jesus is God’s Son (and here Matthew’s readers must have remembered chs. 1–2) is primary. Therefore all must “listen to him!” (v.5).

The transfiguration was largely for the disciples (Jesus brought the inner three to it; he was transfigured before “them”; the Voice spoke to “them”; cf. Allison A. Trites, “The Transfiguration of Jesus: The Gospel in Microcosm,” EvQ 51 [1979]: 77–78). This does not mean they understood it fully, but it was a crucial step in the symbol-charged self-disclosure of Jesus that would be much better understood (2Pe 1:16–19) following the resurrection. For the present, it indelibly confirmed the disciples’ conviction that Jesus was the Messiah.

NOTES

4 BDF, para. 372 (2c), suggests that “If you wish,” found only in Matthew, is Hellenistic for “please” (cf. French s’il vous plaît).

5 There have been many attempts to relate the words of the Voice from heaven to the story of the near sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis 22, as that story is developed in late Judaism into vicarious atonement motifs. But P. R. Davies and B. D. Chilton (“The Aqedah: A Revised Tradition History,” CBQ 40 [1978]: 514–46) have clearly shown that such Jewish traditions did not develop until after AD 70.

OVERVIEW

Luke has no parallel, but see Mark 9:9–13. Matthew omits Mark 9:10, and his handling of Mark 9:12–13 in vv.11–13 is so independent, though complementary, that some scholars (e.g., Schlatter, Lohmeyer) think Matthew here draws on an independent source.

9As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, “Don’t tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.”

10The disciples asked him, “Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?”

11Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. 12But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.” 13Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.

COMMENTARY

9 In Matthew, this is Jesus’ fifth and last command for the disciples to be silent (see

). This time, Jesus permits his disciples to tell everything after the Son of Man (see

, p. 247) “has been raised from the dead.” Jesus could scarcely have attached this permission to earlier warnings to keep silent (16:20), since he had not yet spoken clearly about his sufferings and death. Nevertheless, the same salvation-historical change—first silence, then proclamation—occurs as early as 10:27.

The command must have been in some ways disappointing and its lifting a delight. Why did Jesus impose it? Probably for two principal and complementary reasons:

1. The story would only stir up superficial political messianism, already a menace. If Jesus’ closest disciples found it hard to understand a suffering and dying Messiah, how would the crowds fare until after the resurrection?

2. The strongest evidence for Jesus’ messiahship would be his resurrection, by which he “was declared with power to be the Son of God” (Ro 1:4). Premature self-disclosure in a direct fashion, without the supreme “sign of Jonah,” the resurrection (see

), would not only foster false expectations but also quickly disillusion those who held them. Thus, with his prospective converts in mind, Jesus knew it was better for their sakes to wait until after the resurrection before allowing Peter, James, and John to tell what they had seen.

This does not mean that Jesus’ full glory could be known only through the resurrection. On the contrary, it means that though his true glory antedated the resurrection and was revealed to three intimates before the passion, it could be made known to others only after the resurrection.

10 Why did the disciples ask this question, connecting it (in Matthew) with oun (normally a logical connective, “therefore,” “then”)? There are two false solutions:

1. If Jesus was the Messiah, how were the disciples to answer the objection of the scribes that Elijah must precede Messiah’s coming (Mal 4:5–6; cf. m. ʿEd. 8:7; m. B. Meṣ. 3:5; Str-B, 4:764–98; see

)? In this view, the oun follows the fact of Jesus’ messiahship and the disciples’ acceptance of Jesus’ reiteration of his death and resurrection: because the disciples understand who Jesus is, they ask why then do the scribes insist Elijah precedes Messiah, since apparently Elijah has not yet appeared. This interpretation is intrinsically unlikely, as Mark’s account shows. The disciples are there pictured “discussing what ‘rising from the dead’ meant” (Mk 9:10), thereby showing they did not truly understand what Jesus was talking about; and as a result of this discussion, they ask the question in Mark 9:11 and Matthew 17:10. Commentators on Mark assume this is a second relevant question but do not show how it ties in with the disciples’ discussion. Trench (Studies in the Gospels, 222) goes so far as to say that the disciples do not venture to raise the first subject and so move on to this one; Lagrange says Matthew omits Mark 9:10 because that text leads nowhere. Yet a tight connection can be established.

2. A few scholars have suggested that the disciples’ question was prompted by an assumption that Elijah’s appearance during the transfiguration was itself the fulfillment of Malachi 4:5, and then the question becomes, Why did Messiah (Jesus) appear before Elijah did, when the scribes say the order should be reversed (cf. Robertson, Word Pictures, 1:141)? But this interpretation suffers from the weakness of the former view (namely, that the disciples properly understand Jesus’ teaching of v.9 and par.), while resting on the dubious assumption that the disciples would interpret this brief vision of Elijah as the fulfillment of a prophecy that promised that Elijah would “turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers” (Mal 4:6).

The real connection is deeper. Elijah was expected to restore all things—to bring about a state of justice and true worship. If that were so, how could it be that Messiah would be killed in such a restored environment—killed, Jesus had told them only a week before, by elders, chief priests, and teachers of the law (16:21)? This interpretation makes sense both of Matthew’s oun (“therefore”) and of Mark 9:10. If Jesus as Messiah (whose messiahship the disciples do not now doubt) must suffer, then how could it be said that Elijah must first come to restore all things? Their confusion is not merely chronological, though that may be involved; it is their inability to find a framework in which they can believe that the Messiah could die.

11–12 Jesus’ answer confirms this interpretation. He approves the teaching of the scribes but insists that another fact must be taken into account. The NIV’s “To be sure, .... But” structure accurately reflects this duality (Gk. men, ... de). On the one hand, Elijah comes “first” (prōton, in some MSS) and “will restore all things” (the combination of present and future tenses is less consistent than Mk 9:12 but reflects the OT prophecy: see Zerwick, Biblical Greek, para. 281). John’s mission was a success (3:5–6; 14:5); on the other hand, though, “restore all things” must not be taken absolutely. The Baptist stood in succession of the OT prophets who were persecuted and even killed. The unrecognized fact is that although the scribes’ interpretation is right—Elijah must precede the Messiah—their grasp of recent history is wrong, for Elijah has already come (v.12; cf. 11:14; Lk 1:17); but the people in general and the scribes and leaders in particular did not recognize him and did to him “everything they wished”—a vague expression hinting at John’s rejection by most Jewish leaders (cf. 21:24–27) and his death, for which the Jewish leaders were not directly responsible. Gundry points out how this expression is sometimes linked with tyranny (Da 8:4; 11:6, 36; cf. Sir 8:15; 2 Macc 7:16).

Jesus’ point is general: the Baptist (Elijah) did fulfill his mission, but he was killed doing it. In the same way, the Son of Man is going to suffer [cf. BDF, para. 315] “at their hands” (v.12b). If the Baptist’s restoration of “all things” did not prevent his own death, why should Messiah be any better received?

13 Matthew’s conclusion, not found in Mark, has provoked much speculation. G. Barth (“Matthew’s Understanding of the Law,” 106) takes it as further evidence for his idea that in Matthew “understanding” is essential to discipleship. Others think it to be a turning point in Matthew’s narrative—the disciples now arrive at true understanding (e.g., Klostermann). Still others hold that this introduces a split between what the disciples understand and the teachers of the law don’t (e.g., McNeile; Schweizer; Meier, Vision of Matthew, 123). Though this has some validity, there are two other factors: (1) Matthew again rounds off a pericope by returning to the question first raised (see

); and (2) what the disciples understand is that John the Baptist is Elijah. It is not at all clear, however, that they have understood much more about the death and resurrection of the Son of Man, and it becomes very obvious during the passion narrative that they have not understood (cf. esp. 26:50–56). In short, this pericope marks another small step in the understanding of Jesus’ disciples.

NOTES

9 Because Matthew has τὸ ὅραμα (to horama, GK 3969; lit., “the vision”; NIV, “what you have seen”) for Mark’s ἅ εἶδον (ha eidon, “what they had seen”), many suggest that Matthew is seeking to explain the transfiguration in acceptable terms to his readers. But ὅραμα, horama, does not necessarily mean “vision” as a result of a dream or a trance; it can simply refer to what is seen (BDAG, 718). Therefore, too much should not be made of the difference between the two expressions.

OVERVIEW

All three synoptists (cf. Mk 9:14–29; Lk 9:37–43) put this miracle right after the descent from the Mount of Transfiguration. Matthew’s account is much shorter than Mark’s, which has led some to think Matthew used independent information here. It introduces Matthew 17:20 (the thrust of which occurs again at 21:21) and thus makes faith pivotal in the narrative. The contrast between the glory of the transfiguration and Jesus’ disciples’ tawdry unbelief (see v.17) is part of the mounting tension that magnifies Jesus’ uniqueness as he moves closer to his passion and resurrection.

14When they came to the crowd, a man approached Jesus and knelt before him. 15“Lord, have mercy on my son,” he said. “He has seizures and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water. 16I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him.”

17“O unbelieving and perverse generation,” Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me.” 18Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed from that moment.

19Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?”

20He replied, “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”

COMMENTARY

14–16 Matthew’s account, with its sudden introduction of the crowd (v.14), clearly presupposes some fuller narrative (cf. Mark). The word for “knelt” (gonypeteō, used in the NT only here and at 27:29; Mk 1:40; 10:17) has no overtones of worship but suggests humility and entreaty. For “Lord” (v.15; Mark has “Teacher”), see

;

. Selēniazetai (“he has seizures”) occurs only twice in the NT (see

), and is not connected with epilepsy (see France [TNTC]). Mark 9:18–20 describes the boy’s symptoms more vividly. “Epilepsy” in this instance is associated with demon-possession (see

). The “disciples” who are unable to heal him are presumably the nine left behind when Jesus took Peter, James, and John with him when he was transfigured.

The disciples’ failures are a recurring theme throughout this section (14:16–21, 26–31; 15:16, 23, 33; 16:5, 22; 17:4, 10–11). This failure in their healing ministry at first seems strange, since Jesus had clearly given them power to heal and exorcise demons (10:1, 8). Yet it is part of the pattern of the disciples’ advance and failure. In other situations they had shown lack of faith (14:26–27, 31)—a reminder that their power to do kingdom miracles was not their own but, unlike magic, was entirely derivative and related to their own walk of faith.

17–18 Jesus’ response is reminiscent of Deuteronomy 32:5, 20. Apistos (GK 603) can mean either “untrustworthy” or “unbelieving.” The latter is dominant here (cf. v.20); yet it does not mean “this generation” has no faith whatsoever but that unbelief is characteristic of “this generation.” The perfect passive participle diestrammenē (“perverse”) probably has adjectival force rather than denoting a state consequent on some previous action (see

). Juxtaposing “perverse” and “unbelieving” implies that the failure to believe stems from moral failure to recognize the truth, not from want of evidence, but from willful neglect or distortion of the evidence. Diastrephō (“pervert,” GK 1406) is used seven times in the NT (cf. Lk 9:41; 23:2; Ac 13:8, 10; 20:30; Php 2:15). In the last of these, Paul applies to the entire world the same words Jesus uses here.

But what does “generation” (genea, GK 1155) cover? To be sure, it extends Jesus’ excoriation beyond the disciples (cf. 11:16; 12:39–42; 16:4; 23:36; 24:34). But it goes past the evidence to hold with Walker (Heilsgeschichte, 35ff.) that the word here means “race,” and therefore that the Jews are henceforth excluded from salvation, or to say with Frankemölle (Jahwebund und Kirche Christi, 21ff.) that Israel alone is being addressed. That the disciples’ unbelief is central to Jesus’ exasperation is made clear by Matthew’s omitting Mark 9:23–24. If his description extends beyond them to the entire contemporary generation, it must principally extend also to all guilty of the same unbelief, regardless of their race.

The rhetorical questions—“How long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you?”—express not only personal disappointment but also Jesus’ consciousness of his heavenly origin and destiny. His disciples’ perverse unbelief is actually painful to him. He must endure (NIV, “put up with”) it, though this theme is stronger in Mark than in Matthew (cf. Mk 8:12 and Mt 16:4; Mk 3:5 and Mt 12:13). As for the miracle, Matthew describes it succinctly, leaving no doubt of Jesus’ power to heal and exorcise demons (v.18). The boy is healed “from that moment” (lit., “from that hour”; cf. 9:22; 15:28).

19–20 [21] The disciples, presumably the nine who had tried and failed (v.16), ask Jesus, in private (cf. Mk 9:28), why “we” (emphatic) could not drive out the demon (v.19). The reason, Jesus says, is their oligopistia (“little faith,” v.20; see Notes). Despite the etymology of the word, it probably does not refer so much to the littleness of their faith as to its poverty (so Bonnard). Little faith, like a little mustard seed, can be effectual; poor faith, like that of the disciples’ here, is ineffectual. The noun occurs only here in Matthew, but the cognate adjective occurs at 6:30; 8:26; 14:31; 16:8, and always refers to disciples. Removal of mountains was proverbial for overcoming great difficulties (cf. Isa 40:4; 49:11; 54:10; Mt 21:21–22; Mk 11:23; Lk 17:6; 1Co 13:2). Nothing would be impossible for them—a promise that, like its analogue in Philippians 4:13, is limited by context, not by unbelief. Here it refers to the accomplishment of the works of the kingdom, for which they had been given authority.

Jesus’ answer in Matthew is not the same as the one in Mark 9:29 (“This kind can come out only by prayer”), but if the comment on oligopistia (“poverty of faith”) is correct, then at least the two answers are complementary, each shedding light on the other. At a superficial level, the disciples did have faith. They expected to be able to exorcise the demon. They had long been successful in this work, and now they are surprised by their failure. But their faith is poor and shoddy. They are treating the authority given them (10:1, 8) like a gift of magic, a bestowed power that works ex opere operato. In Mark, Jesus tells them that this case requires prayer—not a form or an approved rite, but an entire life bathed in prayer and its concomitant faith. In Matthew, Jesus tells his disciples that what they need is not giant faith (tiny faith will do) but true faith—faith that, out of a deep, personal trust, expects God to work.

NOTES

14 The genitive absolute here, in v.26, and in Acts 17:14 is defective—a participle without a substantive (cf. Zerwick, Biblical Greek, para. 50; Moule, Idiom Book, 203). This evokes the introduction of a pronoun in many later MSS, or a change in the participle to the nominative singular in a few of them.

17 In exclamations expressing very strong emotion, ὦ (ō, “O”) is not restricted to the vocative but may color an entire sentence, which is often, as here, a question (cf. BDF, para. 146 [2]).

18 For the confusion between the prepositions ἀπό (apo, “from,” “away from”) and ἐκ (ek, “from,” “out from”) in Hellenistic Greek, see

20 ᾽Ολιγοπιστίαν (oligopistian, “little faith,” or, better, “poor faith”) is read by B H f¹ f¹³ 33 700 892 et al., and ἀπιστίαν (apistian, “faithless,” as in v.17) by the rest. But the first reading has strong witnesses; it is a NT hapax legomenon (single occurrence); its cognate is distinctively, if not exclusively, Matthean (6:30; 8:26; 14:31; 16:8); and the change to the second reading may well have been prompted by v.17, where the text is firm.

21 “But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting” is omitted by a powerful combination of witnesses. It is obviously an assimilation to the synoptic parallel in Mark 9:29. There is no obvious reason why, if original, it should have been omitted, and textual harmonization is quite demonstrably a secondary process.

OVERVIEW

This is the second major passion prediction (see

), though there are earlier allusions to Jesus’ death (9:15; 10:38; 12:40) and one intervening specific reference (v.12b). Jesus not only foresees the inevitability of his death but, precisely because he knows this to be the Father’s will (26:39), recognizes it as an essential part of the divine plan. But this death issues in the resurrection.

22When they came together in Galilee, he said to them, “The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. 23They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life.” And the disciples were filled with grief.

COMMENTARY

22 Thompson (Matthew’s Advice, 13ff.) finds here the beginning of a new literary unit, ending at 18:35, based partly on the references to Galilee here and at 19:1. But the departure from Galilee (19:1) not only ends this brief stay but also this entire period of Jesus’ northern ministry (4:23–25). From 19:1 on, Jesus moves toward Jerusalem and Judea. “When they came together” (the best reading) does not necessarily suggest new activities but the general time when Jesus and the inner circle of disciples joined the other nine in Galilee (see

). No sooner are they all together after the transfiguration than Jesus again takes up the theme he introduced to them earlier (16:21–23). The verb paradidosthai (“to be betrayed,” GK 4140) is doubly ambiguous. First, it can have either a weak meaning (“to hand over”) or a strong meaning (“to betray”), depending on context; second, the passive (“to be handed over”) is perhaps a studied ambiguity, leaving it unclear whether God or Judas Iscariot is the one who hands Jesus over or betrays him respectively.

23 Mark and Luke say the disciples do not understand. Matthew, adept at fine characterization, establishes the same point by noting the disciples’ grief. They are beginning to absorb the announcement of Jesus’ death, but of his resurrection they have no comprehension.

OVERVIEW

This incident is peculiar to Matthew (cf. Mk 9:33 for geographical detail). Its significance in Matthew depends heavily on its interpretation at several critical points.

24After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?”

25“Yes, he does,” he replied.

When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. “What do you think, Simon?” he asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own sons or from others?”

26“From others,” Peter answered.

“Then the sons are exempt,” Jesus said to him. 27“But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.”

COMMENTARY

24 Although the point is disputed (see

), the didrachma (lit., “two drachmas”) was probably not a civil tax in support of Rome (see

) but a Jewish “tax” levied on every male Jew between the ages of twenty and fifty in support of the temple and its services. The didrachma, worth one-half a statēr or shekel, was seldom minted at this time; and probably two people joined to pay a tetradrachma (“a four-drachma coin,” 17:27) or shekel. Originally half a shekel was levied on each Jew at every census (Ex 30:11–16), the money going to support the tabernacle; after the exile one-third of a shekel was gathered annually. In Jesus’ day the amount was two drachmas (half a shekel) annually. This is well attested in both Josephus (Ant. 3.193–96 [8.2]; 18.312 [9.1]) and Mishnah (Šeqal.). The imposition of this “tax” lacked the sanction of Roman law, but it was understood that the Jews would pay it.

25–26 Peter’s defense of Jesus (v.25) is misguided. Once they are alone in the house (perhaps Peter’s; cf. 4:13; 8:14), Jesus takes the initiative—whether he overheard Peter’s response or knew it supernaturally is unclear—and asks Peter a provocative question. The vast literature on this pericope stems largely from Jesus’ question being cast in civil terms: “kings of the earth,” “duty,” “taxes.” The majority view today (e.g., Kilpatrick, Origins, 41–42; Walker, Heilsgeschichte, 101–3; Bonnard; Hill) holds that the original question was recast in the period after AD 70 (when Matthew is alleged to have been writing) to address questions faced by Christians about taxes paid to Rome. The effect of the pericope, then, is like that of 22:15–22, though Jesus’ reported answer here is anachronistic. Jesus is made to say that the Son of God, and therefore Christians, need not pay taxes to Rome because of their allegiance to God but should do so in order not to cause offense. This will not do, for in Jesus’ reply the “king” who collects the tax is Jesus’ “Father.” Therefore, this cannot refer to Rome.

Others (Thompson, Matthew’s Advice, 50–68) suggest that this is the tax paid the post-Jamnia patriarchate and that the question Matthew is facing is whether Christians at his time of writing should bow to Jewish religious authority. This means not only that Jesus’ question and Peter’s answer are anachronistic but that the redaction here is inept. Would Jews at the end of the first century think of the Jamnia rabbis as kings or of Jesus Messiah as their son? The suggestion that the tax is the one imposed by Vespasian in support of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus after the fall of Jerusalem (Josephus, J.W. 7.218 [6.6]—so H. W. Montefiore, “Jesus and the Temple Tax,” NTS [1964–1965], 60–71 [cf. Hill], and others) is incredible. No Christian willingly advocated direct subsidy of pagan idolatry in order not to offend Rome, and on this reading Jesus’ question becomes even more obscure.

Because of such difficulties, Richard J. Cassidy (“Matthew 17:24–27—A Word on Civil Taxes,” CBQ 41 [1979]: 571–80) argues that the entire pericope deals, not with the temple tax, but with civil taxes. The terminology of v.25 supports him, but again it is less than clear how sonship to an imperial “king” fits Jesus.

It is better to allow the most likely interpretations of both v.24 and v.25 to stand—temple tax and civil tax respectively—but to recognize that, whereas v.24 establishes the topic of the entire pericope, v.25 is parabolic. This is suggested by the generalized “kings of the earth”—scarcely an adequate way to refer to Caesar. The point is that, just as royal sons are exempt from the taxes imposed by their fathers, so also Jesus is exempt from the “tax” imposed by his Father. In other words, Jesus acknowledges the temple tax to be an obligation to God; but since he is uniquely God’s Son, therefore he is exempt (v.26). The focus of the pericope is thus supremely christological and, unlike 22:15–22, says nothing about responsibilities to Caesar.

27 Exempt though he is, Jesus will pay the tax so as not to offend (for the verb, see

). Thus he sets an example, later followed by Paul (1Co 8:13; 9:12, 22). The plural “we” and the four-drachma coin to pay for Jesus and Peter at first sight makes the above interpretation seem difficult. In what sense are we to suppose that Peter’s reason for paying the tax is akin to Jesus’? Part of the explanation may lie in the freedom Jesus extends to his disciples: e.g., he alone is Lord of the Sabbath, and this has implications for his disciples (see

). More important, Jesus here implicitly frees his followers from the temple tax on the grounds that they, too, will belong to the category of “sons,” though derivatively. Meanwhile, “disciples should avoid unnecessarily offending others (15:12–13 has shown that they cannot avoid all offense)” (Blomberg [NAC]).

Both the christological implication and the relevance to Peter and the disciples are made clear in the course of the narrative. Jesus has just been declared God’s unique Son (v.5); yet his glory is veiled as he moves toward betrayal and death, thus establishing a pattern of humility for his followers (18:1–5). At the same time, Jesus’ death and resurrection have again been introduced (vv.22–23), a foretaste of the lengthy passion and resurrection narratives about to begin and the means by which the Son of Man, in giving his life “as a ransom for many” (20:28), completes the redemptive act inaugurating the gathering of his “church” (16:18; 28:18–20). At that point, the redemptive-historical significance of the temple will end. Its claims for the two-drachma tax may continue until its destruction forty years later; the sons of God (cf. 5:9) are exempt. But that time is not yet. Like so many of Jesus’ actions at this turning point, the full significance of what Jesus was saying could not be grasped, even by Peter, until after the resurrection.

The miracle itself has no close canonical parallel. This is the only place in the NT where a fish is caught with a hook (nets were normally used), though coins have occasionally been found in the mouths of fish caught in the Sea of Galilee. Some scholars point out that the event (“miracle”?) itself is not described, but only the command: “We do not know what resulted. Given Peter’s track record of misunderstanding, it would be rash to hazard a guess” (Blomberg [NAC]; cf. France [TNTC]). But unless one speculates that Jesus is somehow speaking ironically or humorously (for which there is here very little evidence), the obvious implication is that Jesus did issue this command, regardless of how Peter did or did not carry it out. Extravagant symbolism for “fish” and “lake” (e.g., Neil J. McEleney, “Mt 17:24–27—Who Paid the Temple Tax?” CBQ 38 [1976]: 189–92) is fanciful. This spectacular way of paying the tax is something only Jesus could do; it therefore suggests that though Jesus as the unique Son is free from the law’s demands, he not only submits to them but makes provision, as only he can, for the demands on his disciples (cf. Gal 4:4–5)—and this right after a passion prediction (17:22–23)! Perhaps, too, we are reminded of Jesus’ humility. He who so controls nature and its powers that he stills storms and multiplies food now reminds Peter of that power by this miracle, while nevertheless remaining so humble that he would not needlessly cause offense (cf. 11:28–30; 12:20). The lesson in humility is for Peter and the other disciples. We have no evidence that the tax collectors witnessed it. (The nonhealing miracles in Matthew are almost always for the sake of the disciples; see Gerhardsson, Mighty Acts.) But humility is about to be explained to the disciples in some detail (18:1–35).

NOTES

26 As in v.14, the genitive absolute is defective and has led to many variants (cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 46).

27 Although some (e.g., Zerwick, Biblical Greek, para. 93) suggest ἀντί (anti “instead of,” “in substitution for”) here has the force of ὑπέρ (hyper, “on behalf of”), it is perhaps better to think of Exodus 30:11–16 as the background, remembering that this tax was perceived as a ransom payment instead of the person (cf. Turner, Insights, 173).

OVERVIEW

This fourth discourse, like the previous three, is bracketed by remarks suggesting that it was delivered on the one occasion specified (see

;

). The chapter parallels Mark 9:33–50 to some extent but omits Mark 9:38–41 (cf. Mt 10:42). The differences between Mark and Matthew are so great that some scholars assume separate sources (e.g., Lohmeyer) or wisely advocate cautious agnosticism (e.g., Thompson, Matthew’s Advice, 147–51).

Many writers compare Matthew 18 with 1QS, the Manual of Discipline at Qumran, and interpret it as regulation for the life of the Christian community. But two major reservations forbid too easy a comparison.

1. There is very little in Matthew 18 that has the flavor of regulation and much that deals with principles. The contrasts with 1QS are far more noticeable than the similarities. Even vv.15–17, the closest approximation to regulation, are far less concerned with mechanical details than with the importance and means of reconciliation. And the whole chapter shows up the carnality of the opening question (v.1) and establishes a radical set of values for greatness in the kingdom.

2. The Qumran covenanters had little doubt about their identity or place in God’s eschatological scheme. But here we are dealing with disciples at a critical turning point in salvation history, men of seriously defective understanding who remain such until after the cross.

1At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

2He called a little child and had him stand among them.

COMMENTARY

1–2 Mark (9:33–37) says that the disciples were disputing along the way, and when challenged, they fell silent. Luke (9:46–48) says Jesus discerned their thoughts. It is not difficult or unnatural to suppose that Jesus detected their rivalry (Luke), challenged them, and thereby silenced them (Mark), and that they then blurted out their question (Matthew). Alternatively, Matthew uses this brief question to summarize what was truly on their minds.

“At that time” (lit., “hour”) may only mean “in that general phase of the ministry” (cf. 10:19; 26:45), but it alerts the reader to the transition from what precedes. “At that time,” when Jesus has again spoken of his suffering and death, the disciples’ grief (17:23) proves short-lived, and they busy themselves with arguing about who is greatest in the kingdom. Jesus has already said that there will be distinctions in the kingdom (5:19; cf. 1QS 3:19–25; 6:9–13), and recently three of them have been specially favored (17:1–3), while Peter has been repeatedly singled out (14:28–29; 15:15; 16:16–18, 22–23; 17:4, 24–27)—though sometimes for rebuke! Perhaps these things set off the dispute, which continues in the ambition of James, John, and their mother to the period right before the cross (20:20–23) and which embraces the jealousy of the other ten (20:24). Substantial misunderstanding of Jesus by his disciples is presupposed throughout Jesus’ entire earthly ministry.

The “disciples” are probably the Twelve but may include others (cf. Thompson, Matthew’s Advice, 83–84; see

). The child (v.2) may have been Peter’s, if the house is his (17:25; Mk 9:33).

3And he said: “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”

COMMENTARY

3–4 With the solemn introductory formula “I tell you the truth” (v.3; see

), Jesus warns his disciples that they must “change and become like little children,” for unless they do, they will “never enter the kingdom of heaven.” Clearly, the consummated kingdom is in view. The child is held up as an ideal, not of innocence, purity, or faith, but of humility and unconcern for social status. Jesus advocates humility of mind (v.4), not childishness of thought (cf. 10:16). With such humility comes childlike trust (cf. TDNT, 8:16–17). The disciples must change (lit., “turn,” probably not to be taken as a Semitic auxiliary to “become,” i.e., “become again a little child”; cf. J. Dupont, “Matthieu 18:3,” in Neotestamentica et Semitica [ed. Ellis and Wilcox], 50–60) from their present conduct and attitudes and adopt this new norm or be excluded from the kingdom. Conversely, the person who truly humbles himself (see Notes, v.4) like this child is “the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” The expression completes a link with v.1, and the present tense may suggest that the disciple’s greatness, doubtless made obvious in the consummated kingdom in the future, has already begun here as far as kingdom norms are concerned.

The thought is not far removed from 5:3 and vitiates any thought that the kingdom can be gained by personal merit or violent force (see

). It is to “little children” that the Lord of heaven and earth reveals his truth (11:25).

NOTES

4 The verb ταπεινώσει (tapeinōsei, lit., “will humble”) is one of the few instances in which the distinction between a future indicative and an aorist subjunctive plus ἄν (an, untranslatable particle used to suggest some kind of contingency) is virtually obliterated (cf. BDF, para. 380 [2]).

OVERVIEW

Although some read v.5 with vv.3–4, it is better to link it with vv.6–9, because (1) v.4 already rounds off vv.1–4 with a summary, and (2) vv.5–6 taken together constitute a neat promise-warning proverb (cf. Thompson, Matthew’s Advice, 101–7). This pericope is held tightly together by its repeated use of skandalon (“stumbling block,” GK 4998) and the verb derived from it (see

); Paul calls such an obstacle a proskomma (“obstacle,” “cause of stumbling,” GK 4682; cf. Ro 14:13; 1Co 8:9). Rabbinic literature contains denunciations of the evil of causing others to sin (cf. Bonnard), but never with reference to “little ones.”

5“And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. 6But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

7“Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! 8If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.”

COMMENTARY

5–6 This promise-warning couplet (like 12:32 in structure) advances the thought by turning attention from the self-humiliation of the true disciple (vv.3–4) to the way others receive such “little ones.” The opening clauses of v.5 and v.6 are roughly parallel. The one who welcomes “a little child like this in my name” is not welcoming literal children but “children” defined in the previous verses—those who humble themselves to become like children, i.e., Jesus’ true disciples. They are not welcomed because they are great, wise, or mighty but because they come in Jesus’ name (v.5)—i.e., they belong to him. “In my name” (v.5), the parallel clause “who believe in me” (v.6), and the necessity of becoming childlike even to enter the kingdom (v.3) all confirm the view that those referred to in vv.5–6 are simply Jesus’ disciples—Christians (to use a later term), not literal children or some smaller group of especially humble disciples (see Warfield, Selected Shorter Writings, 1:234–52; Trotter, “Understanding and Stumbling”). These “little ones” (cf. 25:40, 45) can stumble, even the greatest of them (14:28–31; 26:30–35); but whoever causes them to stumble (NIV, “to sin”) stands in grave peril.

It is no objection to this identification of “little ones” with believers that Jesus is here addressing his disciples and not the world that is most in need of the warning, for (1) the “whoever” takes in everybody; (2) despite the fact that Jesus is speaking to disciples (v.1), he utters a woe on the world in v.7; (3) this suggests that the passage aims at encouraging the disciples who are going to have to face the world’s opprobrium (as also 10:40–42); and (4) the warnings against the world, though not at this moment directed to the world, will in due course become part of the disciples’ arsenal in their preaching.

The person who welcomes one of these “little ones,” these disciples of Jesus, simply because they are his, welcomes Jesus himself (cf. 10:42). Presupposed is the world’s animosity. Mere hospitality is not in view but hospitality given because of the “little ones’” link with Jesus. It is probably presupposed that hospitality motivated in this way would be shown only if the benefactor were already well disposed toward Jesus, or at least moving in that direction. The antithetic alternative, causing the “little ones” to stumble, does not mean that the “little ones” are led into apostasy. Rather, they are not welcomed but are rejected, ignored. This causes them to stumble in their discipleship. It may lead to serious sin; but, as in 10:40–42 and 25:31–46, the really grave aspect of the rejection is that it signifies rejection of Jesus.

Implicitly, the offense is gravely magnified when, with particular perversity, some wicked people self-consciously try to entice Christ’s “little ones” into sin—but the evil is broader than that. Because it signals a rejection of Jesus as well as damaging his people, drowning at sea before the evil was committed is much preferable to eschatological judgment, the eternal fire of hell (vv.8–9) that awaits the perpetrators. Drowning was a not uncommon punishment in Greek and Roman society. Though rare in Jewish circles, it was done at least once in Galilee (Josephus, Ant. 14.450 [15.10]). Most millstones were hand tools for domestic use (see

); here it is the heavy stone pulled around by a donkey. The picture is more graphic than in Mark, the horror of the judgment sharpened.

7 The Greek text proclaims a “woe” (here, clearly, a proclamation of judgment, not of “sympathetic sorrow” [McNeile, 261], since Matthew heightens the judgment language; see

) on the “world,” understood not merely as the neutral “setting for the struggle between belief and unbelief” (Thompson, Matthew’s Advice, 109–10), but the source of all stumbling. Jesus pronounces this woe apo tōn skandalōn, which, contrary to the NIV, should not be rendered “because of the things that cause people to sin,” as if the discussion had progressed from Jesus’ “little ones” to “people” in general, but “because of stumbling blocks,” i.e., of the things that cause the stumbling already referred to in v.6. Such things must come, but this does not mitigate the responsibility of those through whom they come (cf. Isa 10:5–12; Ac 4:27–28; see

). The necessity does not spring from divine compulsion but, like all things, falls within the sphere of his sovereignty so that he may use those very things to accomplish his plan and perfect his people (cf. 24:10–13; 1Co 11:19). Thus, on the one hand, the disciples are not to think such opposition strange, for Jesus himself has declared it must occur; on the other hand, they are assured that justice will be done in the end (cf. 26:24).

8–9 Jesus now abandons denunciation of the world’s causing his disciples to stumble and tells his disciples they may prove to be not only victims but aggressors. The adversative de is given its full force: “But, beyond all this, if your hand” (v.8). This does not mean that the church, pictured as a body in anticipation of Paul’s language (e.g., 1Co 12:12–27), is here exhorted to excommunicate offending members. The word “body” is not used, and the language is akin to that in 5:29–30. Certain attitudes nurtured by Jesus’ disciples toward other believers could also be sinful; thus, instead of being enticed to sin by outsiders, they would cause their own stumbling. Perhaps the particular believer-to-believer attitude that most needs rooting out is pride, so vv.8–9 prepare for v.10.

The argument is clear. Jesus’ followers must become like children in humility if they are to enter the kingdom (vv.3–4). Those who receive such “little ones” because they belong to him in effect receive Jesus; those who reject them, causing them to stumble, are threatened with condemnation (vv.5–6). Things causing Jesus’ people to stumble are inevitable, yet damning (v.7). But the disciples themselves must beware. Failure to deal radically with similar sin in their own lives betrays their allegiance to the world and threatens them with the eternal fire of hell (see

). Jesus’ disciples must deal as radically with pride as they were earlier commanded to deal with lust (5:29–30).

NOTES

7 The γάρ (gar, “for”) retains its normal causal force but applies to the next clause, here introduced by πλήν (plēn, “but”). The content of the γάρ, gar, itself is parenthetical so far as the force of γάρ, gar, is concerned. The same construction is found elsewhere (cf. 22:14; 24:6; cf. Zerwick, Biblical Greek, paras. 474–75).

OVERVIEW

Verse 10 clearly follows vv.5–9; but because it also forms a neat inclusio with v.14, vv.10–14 must be read together in the light of the preceding pericope. This link raises important questions concerning the relation between this parable and the parable of the lost sheep in Luke 15:3–7, where it is addressed, not to disciples, but to Pharisees and teachers of the law, in defense of Jesus’ attitude to sinners. Almost all scholars hold that one parable stands behind both gospels, and then they debate over which form and setting are most primitive (for discussion, see Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 38ff.; Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 600–601; Hill), some arguing in favor of the form in Gospel of Thomas 107 (e.g., W. L. Petersen, “The Parable of the Lost Sheep in the Gospel of Thomas and the Synoptics,” NovT 23 [1981]: 128–47; but cf. Blomberg, “Tendencies of the Tradition,” 29–63, 96–100). All these views presuppose that at least one of the two settings defined by Matthew and Luke is a late creation by the church or by one of the evangelists to apply the parable to some new problem.

But if the original parable was “simple enough and rich enough to be applied to more than one situation” (Hill), why could not Jesus himself apply it to more than one situation? What methodological reasons are advanced for distinguishing between multiple usages by Jesus and multiple usages by the church? It is remarkable how different Matthew’s and Luke’s forms of the parable are when closely compared in the Greek text. Almost every relevant term is not the same as in the parallel, and the few that are the same are well within the bounds of repetition expected in an itinerant ministry (see

). The evidence suggests that these are two similar parables, both taught by Jesus, but with very different aims (see

for the bearing of the problems of “Luke’s central section” on this discussion). Matthew is not concerned with “faithful pastorship in the community” (Hill) but, following the preceding pericope, with the importance in Messiah’s community of harming no member, of sharing the Father’s concern that none of “these little ones” be lost. See discussion in France (NICNT) and in Thompson (Matthew’s Advice, 168–74).

10“See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.

12“What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? 13And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. 14In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost.”

COMMENTARY

10 [11] Verse 10 continues the note of humility struck at the discourse’s beginning (vv.3–4) and the concern for “these little ones” (vv.5–9). There is no conflict between “you” and “these little ones.” At this stage of their pilgrimage, even the disciples must change and become like little children (v.3). Jesus is discussing what will be normative when his passion and resurrection fully inaugurate the messianic community. Its members will be poor in spirit (5:3) and humble (18:3–4), and none will be admitted to it without these graces. If his disciples become like that, they will belong to the “little children”; if they look down on them, they will share in the woes (vv.8–9). The warning was not irrelevant. At least one disciple left Jesus.

Jesus says that the “little ones”—believers in him—must be treated with respect because “their angels in heaven” always see the face of the heavenly Father. Many believe this supports the idea of a guardian for each “little one.” It is thought that these angels are “in heaven” means they are of highest rank and that their seeing the Father’s face means they always have access to his presence. This is based largely on Jewish sources (cf. Str-B, 1:781ff.; 3:48ff., 437ff.; TDNT, 1:82, 86; see esp. Tob 12:14–15). Yet the idea will not bear close scrutiny.

It is true that angels are sent to minister to those who will inherit salvation (Heb 1:14). But nowhere in Scripture or Jewish tradition of the NT period is there any suggestion that there is one angel for one person. Daniel and Zechariah imply one angel for each nation. Appeal to Acts 12:15 does not help. Why should Peter’s supposed guardian angel sound like Peter? And if ministering angels are sent to help believers, what are the angels in Matthew 18:10 doing around the divine throne instead of guarding those people to whom they are assigned? References in the Dead Sea Scrolls to angels who share in the community’s worship (1QSa 2:9–10) or minister to the Lord (1QH 5:20–22) are even less relevant, for this context does not deal with corporate worship.

The most likely explanation is the one Warfield (Selected Shorter Writings, 1:253–66) defends. The “angels” of the “little ones” are their spirits after death, and they always see the heavenly Father’s face. Do not despise these little ones, Jesus says, for their destiny is the unshielded glory of the Father’s presence. The present tense (they “always see”) raises no difficulty because Jesus is dealing with a class, not individuals. The same interpretation admirably suits Acts 12:15. What the assembled group thinks is standing outside is Peter’s “spirit” (angel), which accounts for Rhoda’s recognition of his voice.

But can the word “angel” be pressed into this interpretation? Certainly Jesus teaches that God’s people in the resurrection “will be like the angels in heaven” as to marriage (22:30) and immortality (Lk 20:36). Similar language is also used in 2 Baruch 51:5, 12 (cf. also 1 En. 51:4): the righteous will become angels in heaven, will be transformed into the splendor of angels, and will even surpass the excellency of angels. The evidence, though not overwhelming, is substantial enough to suppose that “their angels” simply refers to their continued existence in the heavenly Father’s presence.

12–13 Here is another reason not to despise these “little ones”: the shepherd—the Father (v.14)—is concerned for each sheep in his flock and seeks the one who strays (v.12). His concern for the one wandering sheep is so great that he rejoices more over its restoration than over the ninety-nine that do not stray (v.13). With a God like that, how dare anyone cause even one of these sheep to go astray?

14 Jesus drives the lesson home: the heavenly Father is unwilling for any of “these little ones” (see

) to be lost. If that is his will, it is shocking that anyone else would seek to lead one of “these little ones” astray. (Thompson, Matthew’s Advice, 187–88, follows the line of thought admirably.) This love for the individual sheep is not at the expense of the entire flock but so that the flock as a whole may not lose a single one of its members. On God’s preservation of his own, see

;

NOTES

11 This verse is omitted by the earliest witnesses of the Alexandrian, pre-Caesarean, Egyptian, and Antiochene text types. Inclusion in various forms appears to be an assimilation to Luke 19:10.

12 Some commentators argue that the verb πλανηθῇ (planēthē, “wanders away”) signifies for Matthew apostasy from the Christian community (cf. 24:4–5, 11, 24). Two of these references (24:4–5) are taken from Mark 13:5–6, but Matthew ignores two other good references (Mk 12:24, 27). Πλανηθῇ, planēthē, has for Matthew no technical force, and in Matthew 22:29 cannot possibly refer to such apostasy. It is general and suits the pastoral setting of the parable. Doubtless Jesus’ teaching looks forward to the established church, but there is no evidence here to support theories about Matthew’s anachronisms.

15“If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

18“I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

19“Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”

COMMENTARY

15 Jesus has just spoken to his disciples to warn them not to cause one of these “little ones” to stumble. Now the thought shifts. What the shift is depends on the variant reading chosen. If the words “against you” are included, Jesus is looking at offenses within the messianic community from the opposite perspective from the viewpoint of the brother against whom the sin is committed. If “against you” is omitted (see Notes), Jesus is telling the community as a whole how to handle the situation when a brother sins, and in the immediate context, the sin is that of despising another brother.

Either way, the proper thing is to confront the brother privately and “show him his fault.” The verb elenchō (GK 1793) probably suggests “convict” the brother, not by passing judgment, but by convicting him of his sin. The aim is not to score points over him but to win him over (same verb as in 1Co 9:19–22; 1Pe 3:1) because all discipline, even this private kind, must begin with redemptive purposes (Lk 17:3–4; 2Th 3:14–15; Jas 5:19–20; cf. Sir 19:13–17). Jesus assumes that the individual (second person singular) who personally confronts his brother will do so with true humility (vv.3–4; cf. Gal 6:1). If it is hard to accept a rebuke, even a private one, it is harder still to administer one in loving humility. Behind this verse stands Leviticus 19:17: “Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt.”

16 If private confrontation does not work, the next step (backed by Dt 19:15) is to take two or three witnesses (though the text form of the quotation is much disputed: cf. Gundry, Use of the Old Testament, 139; Blomberg, “Matthew” in CNTUOT). Doubtless this Deuteronomic law was designed for what we would call “secular” cases. But the distinction is artificial and should not be pressed, for the Israelite nation understood itself to be not a nation like others but a theocratic nation, God’s chosen people. In conformity with his customary interpretation of the Scriptures, Jesus perceives the link joining his messianic community with ancient Israel.

It is not at first clear whether the function of the witnesses is to support the one who confronts his erring brother by bringing additional testimony about the sin committed (which would require at least three people to have observed the offense) or to provide witnesses to the confrontation if the case were to go before the whole church. The latter is a bit more likely, because Deuteronomy 19:15 deals with judicial condemnation (a step taken only by the entire assembly), not with attempts to convince a brother of his fault. By the united testimony of two or three witnesses, every matter “may be established” (stathē, lit., “may be made to stand”—though the rise of deponents in Hellenistic Greek, including the use of stathē, implies that “may stand” is a superior rendering; cf. Zerwick, Biblical Greek, para. 231; Turner, Syntax, 57).

17 The same three-step procedure is known elsewhere (1QS 5:25–6:1; cf. CD 9:2–3; Davies, Setting, 221ff.). Refusal to submit to the considered judgment of Messiah’s people means that they are to treat the offender as “a pagan or a tax collector.” It is poor exegesis to turn to 8:1–11; 9:9–13; 15:21–28 and say that such people should be treated compassionately. The argument and the NT parallels (Ro 16:17; 2Th 3:14) show that Jesus has excommunication in mind. That his words should be preserved in this form, with the mention of “pagan or a tax collector,” suggests that the people for whom Matthew is writing are predominantly Jewish Christians. The NIV’s “treat him as you would” catches the idea, but in the Greek expression “let him be to you as,” the “you” is singular. This suggests that each member of the church is to abide by the corporate judgment and reminds the reader of the individual responsibility each believer has toward the others, already presupposed by the singular “your brother” in v.15.

18 For comments on the grammar and theology of this verse, see

. “The fact that God has given his people the role of declaring his will on earth does not mean that he is bound to add his divine sanction to anything they may think up” (France [NICNT]).

19–20 These two verses should not in this setting be taken as a promise regarding any prayer on which two or three believers agree (v.20). Scripture is rich in prayer promises (21:22; Jn 14:13–14; 15:7–8, 16), but if this passage deals with prayer at all, it is restricted by the context and by the phrase peri pantos pragmatos (NIV, “about anything”), which should here be rendered “about any judicial matter”: the word pragma often has that sense (GK 4547; cf. 1Co 6:1; BDAG, 859), a sense nicely fitting the argument in Matthew 18.

By contrast, J. Duncan M. Derrett (“‘Where two or three are convened in my name ...’: A Sad Misunderstanding,” ExpTim 91 [1979–80]: 83–86) has argued that vv.19–20 do not deal with prayer at all. The two who agree are the offender and the one against whom the offense has been committed. They come to agreement on earth about any judicial matter they have been pursuing. The verb aiteisthai can refer to “pursuing a claim,” as well as asking in prayer. The promise, then, is that if two individuals in the church come to agreement concerning any claim they are pursuing (presumably on the basis of the church’s judgment, v.18), “it will be allowed, ratified (literally it shall succeed, come off) on the part of my heavenly Father” (Derrett, “Where two or three,” 84). This is because God’s will and purpose stand behind the binding and loosing of v.18 and also because (“for,” v.20) the presence of Jesus is assured with the two or three who are (lit.) “brought together”—judges solemnly convened before the church and by the church to render a decision (see Notes, v.20). It is a truism of the biblical revelation that God’s presence stands with the judges of his people (Ps 82:1).

Here as elsewhere, Jesus takes God’s place. Jesus will be with the judges. As he has identified himself with God before (see

;

;

), so he does again, and thus anticipates the broader promise of 28:20: he will be with his people “to the very end of the age” (cf. Kupp, Matthew’s Emmanuel, 86–87, 185–88). Jesus thereby implicitly points forward to a time when, as “God with us” (1:23), he will be spiritually present with the “two or three” and with all his followers; and he presupposes that this time will be of considerable duration (see

NOTES

15 Εἰς σέ (eis se, “against you”) is omitted by B f¹ cop^{sa, bo} mss Origen Basil^3/6 Cyril. If the omission was original, the words were added very early, perhaps to make the general case (suggested by the omission) apply more tightly to the sins of the immediate context. But one might equally argue that omission was an early change designed to generalize the passage. Moreover, because η (ē), ῃ (ē), and ει (ei) were all pronounced the same way in NT times, it is easy to see how ἁμαρτήσῃ [εἰς σέ] (hamartēsē [eis se], “sins against you”) could foster errors in writing down dictation. UBS⁴ and NA²⁷ include the words with square brackets, indicating considerable doubt.

The aorist indicative ἐκέρδησας (ekerdēsas, “you have won over”) after a future condition is to some extent futuristic itself (cf. BDF, para. 333 [2]).

19 The word οὗ (hou, “which”) is one of only three instances in Matthew in which the relative is attracted to the case of its antecedent (cf. 24:50; 25:24; cf. Zerwick, Biblical Greek, para. 16).

20 Derrett (“Where two or three”) suggests that the “two or three” [judges] reflect known Jewish legal practice. Each of the disputing parties would nominate his own “judge,” a layman known to be impartial, and these two would try to settle the problem. If this effort failed, they would approach a third, unconnected with the disputants, who worked with the others either along the lines of arbitration or adjudication. The parallel is very neat and nicely accounts for Jesus’ “two or three.” My chief hesitation comes from the fact that Jesus has just told the complainant to “tell it to the church” (v.17), not to judges appointed by the disputants. Here the Dead Sea Scrolls (referred to above) may offer a closer parallel. Moreover, Derrett assumes that the “two” in v.19 and the “two or three” in v.20 are not the same individuals but disputants and judges respectively. But these points are not decisive. We have as parallels not only 1 Corinthians 5, where the entire church meets on an issue, but also 1 Corinthians 6:4, where the church becomes involved through appointed judges. Matthew 18:19–20 remains difficult; at this point we must be content with a balance of probabilities.

21Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?”

22Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.”

COMMENTARY

21–22 “Then” is probably to be taken strictly (see

). The issue is not the adjudication of the church, still less the absolute granting of forgiveness by the church (only God and Jesus can forgive sins in so absolute a fashion), but personal forgiveness (cf. 6:14–15). In rabbinic discussion, the consensus was that a brother might be forgiven a repeated sin three times; on the fourth, there is no forgiveness. Peter, thinking himself bighearted, volunteers “seven times” in answer to his own question—a larger figure often used, among other things, as a “round number” (cf. Lev 26:21; Dt 28:25; Ps 79:12; Pr 24:16; Lk 17:4).

Jesus’ response (v.22) alludes to Genesis 4:24 (see Notes): Lamech’s revenge is transformed into a principle of forgiveness. In this context, Jesus is not saying that seventy-seven times is the upper limit, nor that the forgiveness is so unqualified it vitiates the discipline and procedural steps just taught (vv.15–20). Rather he teaches that forgiveness of fellow members in his community of “little ones” (brothers) cannot possibly be limited by frequency or quantity; for, as the ensuing parable shows (vv.23–35), all of them have been forgiven far more than they will ever forgive (cf. Chris Brauns, Unpacking Forgiveness: Biblical Answers for Complex Questions and Deep Wounds [Wheaton: Crossway, 2008]; D. A. Carson, Love in Hard Places [Wheaton: Crossway, 2002]).

NOTES

21 The Greek is literally “How many times will my brother sin against me and I will forgive him?”—an excellent example of parataxis under Semitic influence, especially in interrogative sentences (cf. BDF, para. 471 [2]; Zerwick, Biblical Greek, para. 453, who compares Isa 50:2).

22 The Greek could just barely be taken to mean 70 x 7 (490) instead of 70 + 7 (77), but it follows the LXX of Genesis 4:24 exactly, which is a rendering of the Hebrew 77. For discussion and bibliography, see Gundry, Use of the Old Testament, 140.

23“Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. 25Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.

26“The servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’ 27The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.

28“But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded.

29“His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.’

30“But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.

32“Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ 34In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

35“This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart.”

COMMENTARY

23 “Therefore,” since Jesus requires his followers to forgive, the kingdom of heaven has become like (not “is like”; see

) a king who ...: the reference is to the kingdom already being inaugurated. The reign of God establishes certain kinds of personal relationships, portrayed by this parable, whose point is spelled out in v.35. It quite misses the point to identify kingdom and church and argue that just as the king, though merciful, must be severe in judging the unforgiving, so the church must follow a similar pattern (so Hill). “Kingdom” and “church” are distinct categories (see

), and the immediate context has returned to the question of repeated, personal forgiveness (vv.21–22) and the reasons for it. Those in the kingdom serve a great king who has invariably forgiven far more than they can ever forgive one another. Therefore, failure to forgive excludes one from the kingdom, whose pattern is to forgive.

The “servants” (douloi, lit., “slaves,” GK 1528) may include high-ranking civil servants in a huge colonial empire, for the amount of indebtedness is astronomical (v.24). Yet Jesus may simply be using hyperbole to make clear how much the heirs of the kingdom have really been forgiven.

24–27 We glimpse some idea of the size of the indebtedness when we recall that David donated three thousand talents of gold and seven thousand talents of silver for the construction of the temple, and the princes provided five thousand talents of gold and ten thousand talents of silver (1Ch 29:4, 7). Some recent estimates suggest a dollar value of twelve million, but with inflation and fluctuating precious metal prices, this could be over a billion dollars in today’s currency. (For “talent,” see

Such indebtedness could not possibly be covered by selling the family into slavery (v.25). Top price for a slave fetched about one talent, and one-tenth that amount or less was more common. The practice of being sold for debt was sanctioned by the OT (Lev 25:39; 2Ki 4:1), but such slaves had to be freed in the Year of Jubilee (every fiftieth year). (For Jewish and Gentile slavery in Jesus’ day, cf. Str-B, 4:697–716; Jeremias, Jerusalem, 312ff., 345ff.)

In this parable, selling the slave and his family does not mean the debt is canceled but rather highlights the servant’s desperate plight. With neither resources nor hope, he begs for time and promises to pay everything back (v.26)—an impossibility. So the master takes pity on him and cancels the indebtedness (v.27). The word daneion (“loan,” a hapax legomenon) suggests that the king mercifully decides to look on the loss as a bad loan rather than embezzlement, but by v.32 he abandons that terminology and calls it a “debt.”

28–31 The servant’s attitude is appalling. The amount owed him is not insignificant. Though worth but a few dollars in terms of metal currency, a hundred denarii (v.28) represented a hundred days’ wages for a foot soldier or common laborer. Yet the amount is utterly trivial compared with what has already been forgiven him. The similarity of his fellow servant’s plea (v.29) to his own (v.26) does not move this unforgiving man. He has him thrown into a debtor’s prison (v.30). Even an inexpensive slave sold for five hundred denarii, and it was illegal to sell a man for a sum greater than his debt. But the other servants (v.31), deeply distressed by the inequity, tell the master everything (diesaphēsan is a strong verb meaning “explained in detail,” not merely “told” [NIV]; it occurs in the NT only here and at 13:36).

32–34 When the servant owes ten thousand talents, the king forgives him, but when the servant shows himself unforgiving toward a fellow servant, the king calls him wicked (v.32) and, forgoing selling him, turns him over to the “torturers” (basanistais, not merely “jailers,” NIV); the word reminds us of earlier warnings in this chapter (vv.6, 8–9). The servant is to be tortured till he pays back all he owes (v.34), which he can never do.

35 Jesus sees no incongruity in the actions of a heavenly Father who forgives so bountifully and punishes so ruthlessly, and neither should we. Indeed, it is precisely because he is a God of such compassion and mercy that he cannot possibly accept as his those devoid of compassion and mercy. This is not to say that the king’s compassion can be earned. Far from it, the servant is granted freedom only by virtue of the king’s forgiveness. As in 6:12, 14–15, those who are forgiven must forgive, lest they show themselves incapable of receiving forgiveness.

NOTES

28 ᾽Απόδος εἴ τι ὀφείλεις (apodos ei ti opheileis, lit., “pay back, if you owe anything”) is not an expression of pitiless logic (Meyer, Aims of Jesus) but the Hellenistic equivalent of ἀπόδος ὅ τι ἂν ὀφείλῃς (apodos ho ti an opheilēs; NIV, “pay back what you owe”; cf. BDF, para. 376).

30 In negations, the aorist is normally used, “because usually the action as a whole is negated” (BDF, para. 327). When the imperfect is used in negations, the author is choosing to present the action in process, as durative or iterative. In this light, οὐκ ἤθελεν (ouk ēthelen, “he refused”) may be the evangelist’s way of suggesting that the man repeatedly refused, that he maintained a sustained unwillingness (as in 22:3).

32 BDF (para. 328) points out that—especially in verbs to command, order, request, or send—if an action is complete in itself but the accomplishment of a second action toward which the first points is represented as unaccomplished or still outside the scope of the assertion, then the first verb commonly takes the imperfect, not the aorist. Hence the use of aorist παρεκάλεσάς με (parekalesas me, “you begged me to”), pointing toward the forgiveness (ἀφῆκά σοι [aphēka soi, “I canceled ... yours”]), in the context means that “the simple request sufficed” (similarly at 26:53).

1When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

COMMENTARY

1–2 For the formula used in this transition and the manner in which it points ahead, see

. Jesus “left” (metairō; for the verb, see

) Galilee and began to make his way toward Jerusalem, traveling by way of Perea, on the east side of the Jordan, thus avoiding Samaria—at least that is the customary explanation (19:1). But it is possible that peran tou Iordanou (lit., “across the Jordan”) modifies “Judea” on the west bank. This implies that the writer describes the movements from a stance on the east bank (so Slingerland, “Transjordanian Origin”; see

). The parallel in Mark 10:1 is difficult because of the textual uncertainty concerning kai (“and [across the Jordan]”). If the kai is original, Mark is thinking of two areas—Judea and Perea (“across the Jordan”). But Matthew’s expression “the other side of Jordan” could be taken as an awkward adverbial modifier of “went”: Jesus “went across the Jordan [by that route] into the region of Judea.”

The large crowds (v.2) and the many healings show that Jesus did in Judea what he had already done in Galilee. But the many summaries of Jesus’ ministry in this gospel (cf. 4:23; 9:35; 14:13–14; 15:30–31), along with showing how busy Jesus was, have another function. Because this gospel contains so many discourses, “the picture of Jesus might easily become that of a prophet, attended by certain signs and wonders but with one single main task: to speak.” These summaries help maintain balance and declare the full-orbed ministry of the Messiah (Gerhardsson, Mighty Acts, 36, emphasis his).

Behind these two verses lurks a very complex problem in synoptic harmony. Although Matthew and Mark are roughly parallel from Matthew 14 to the end, here Luke goes his own way. He pictures Jesus going through Samaria (Lk 9:51–56) and then begins a lengthy series of accounts, some having no synoptic parallel and others appearing to be parallel to earlier material in Mark and Matthew, material Matthew has omitted (e.g., cf. Lk 11:14–36 with Mt 12:22–45; Mk 3:20–30; and Lk 12:22–31 with Mt 6:25–34). Not until Luke 18:15 does Luke rejoin Matthew (19:13) and Mark (10:13), thereafter running roughly parallel with them. The long section, Luke 9:51–18:14 (though the precise ending is disputed), formerly called Luke’s “travel narrative” but now commonly referred to as his “central section,” is a problem for commentators on Luke, not Matthew; but it cannot be ignored by any synoptic commentator, because the way we perceive Luke’s “central section” bears directly on the question of how many of the pericopes in Luke 9:51–18:14 are taken as real parallels to similar ones in the other Synoptics.

Because in Luke’s “central section” Jesus is regularly portrayed as heading for Jerusalem (9:51–53; 13:22; 17:11), some have argued that there is a direct route to Jerusalem, with various side trips, but the chronology and topography become so tortuous as to render this unbelievable. Others see the three chief references to Jerusalem as parallels to (1) Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles (Jn 7:2–10), (2) Jesus’ journey south at the time of the raising of Lazarus (Jn 11:17–18), and (3) the journey terminating in the final Passover and the cross. Therefore, the entire “travel narrative” stands under the shadow of the cross. This is possible, but it raises more questions of gospel chronology and harmony than can be discussed here; in particular, it means that none of the apparent parallels to similar synoptic material can possibly spring from the same historical event. That, too, is just possible and is defended by many older commentators (e.g., Broadus). But it is unlikely that an evangelist like Luke—whose “orderly account” (1:3) clearly organizes much material in topical, not chronological or geographical, order—abandons this in 9:51–18:14.

Therefore, even if (as I am willing to assume) Luke’s central section is framed by certain historical journeys to Jerusalem, used theologically to point to the final journey, it is only to be expected that topical material is also incorporated, because many of Luke’s transitions between pericopes (when he uses them at all) are chronologically imprecise. What this means for a commentator on Matthew is that each apparent parallel between a pericope in Matthew and one in Luke’s “central section” must be assessed on its own merits. In some cases, they probably refer to the same event, in others not; and in some instances, the evidence may be such that a convincing decision is impossible.

Craig Blomberg (“Tradition-History in the Parables Peculiar to Luke’s Central Section” [PhD diss., University of Aberdeen, 1982]) has made some careful comparisons. In Blomberg’s chart, column a lists the total number of words in Luke’s account that appear in identical form in the synoptic parallel, b lists the number of words common to both texts but in different lexical or grammatical forms, and c the number of words in Luke that are clear synonyms for corresponding words in the other text. Column d provides the percentage of words in Luke falling into category a, and column e the percentage falling into a, b, or c.

Lukan parable

Synoptic parallel

Number of words in Luke

12:39–40

Mt 24:43–44

85.3

100.0

13:20–21

Mt 13:33

71.4

95.2

12:42–46

Mt 24:45–51

102

81.4

90.2

8:5–8

Mk 4:3–9

57.9

81.5

7:31–35

Mt 11:16–19

59.2

80.3

11:11–13

Mt 7:9–11

70.8

79.2

13:18–19

Mt 13:31–32

50.0

73.7

20:9a–16a

Mk 12:1–9

120

53.3

67.5

14:5

Mt 12:11

11.7

52.9

6:47–49

Mt 7:24–27

25.3

48.2

19:12–27

Mt 25:14–30

253

21.3

41.5

15:4–7

Mt 18:12–14

18.5

35.8

14:16–24

Mt 22:2–10

159

6.3

17.6

12:35–38

Mk 13:33–37

3.0

13.4

The chart reveals three groups of parables: (1) those with considerable verbal similarity, 53.3%–85.3% in column d, and 67.5%–100% in column e; (2) those with very little verbal similarity, 3.0%–6.3% in column d, and 13.4%–17.6% in column e; and, bunched between these two extremes, (3) those with a significant but not high verbal similarity, 18.5%–25.3% in column d, and 35.8%–52.9% in column e. As far as these statistics are concerned, one might be tempted to think that parables in group 1 probably have a common source, parables in group 2 are distinct, and parables in group 3 have to be handled one by one. This is largely the way they have worked out in this commentary.

Yet, other mitigating factors must be kept in mind. For instance, if a parable is brief and aphoristic, then high verbal similarity is less likely to indicate a common source. The parable may have been repeated many times. Again, contrary to Jeremias (Parables of Jesus, 33ff.), P. B. Payne (“Metaphor as a Model for Interpretation of the Parable of the Sower” [PhD diss., Cambridge University, 1975], 308–11) has shown in detail that in almost all instances, the audience claimed by the evangelist for any parable found in two or more Synoptic Gospels does not contradict the audience claimed by another synoptic evangelist for what appears to be the same parable. If the gospel writers are careful to preserve the correct audience in all but two cases, one suspects that if there is independent reason in those two cases to think the parallels may not be parallels but independent parables, that is reasonable evidence to believe the alleged parables were separate stories with similar plot lines and vocabularies from the beginning. One such case is the parable of the lost sheep (see

), which falls at the bottom of the intermediate group on the accompanying chart (cf. Blomberg, “Tradition-History,” ch. 2).

While the work of Blomberg and Payne is largely restricted to the parables in Luke’s central section (or, in Payne’s case, to synoptic parables), their methods and general observations are applicable to other materials in that section that are paralleled in Matthew (see

;

;

;

↑ Back to top