c. Fasting, 6:16–18
c. Fasting, 6:16–18
16“And whenever you fast, do not be like the hypocrites, putting on a gloomy look, for they disfigure their faces so that they may appear to men as fasting; truly I tell you, they have their reward. 17But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, 18so that you do not appear to men as fasting, but to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will recompense you.”
This is another Matthean section without parallels. It fits in with the kind of teaching given earlier in the chapter where the demand is for complete sincerity in praying and giving. So is it with fasting. This is no concern of anyone except the fasting person and God. Anyone who fasts should take care to keep it that way; he should make no display of his fasting. Jesus and his disciples apparently fasted rarely, if at all (9:14–15, though cf. 4:2).
16. The one fast prescribed in the law was the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:29–31; “afflict yourselves” is generally understood to include fasting). But other fasts came to be observed (Zech. 8:19; cf. Neh. 9:1; Ps. 35:13, etc.; private fasting was also practiced, Neh. 1:4; Dan. 9:3; for New Testament times cf. Luke 18:12). Whenever54 indicates that people will fast, but leaves the times open. No particular significance is attached to fasting here, as though the fast were for a specific object; it is simply a normal religious, disciplinary activity, one of three pious practices held in special esteem among the Jews (with almsgiving and prayer). But Jesus says that whenever it takes place certain precautions should be observed, for fasting readily gives an opening for those who like to make a show of their piety (for hypocrites see on v. 2). Fasters could put on a gloomy look55 to go with their physical discomfort, or they might disfigure56 their faces. It is not quite certain what form the disfigurement took, but evidently some act of disfigurement was recognized as a common accompaniment of fasting so that these people not only fasted but appeared to fast;57 they made it plain to those who saw them that they were engaged in a serious and onerous religious duty. They were more interested in appearing to fast than in the actual fasting itself. Such people, Jesus says, have their reward (i.e., they have received in full all the reward they are going to get; see on verses 1–2). They aimed at making an impression rather than at religious excellence. They succeeded in their aim and should not expect any further recompense than the applause they had attained.
17. But you58 puts the follower of Jesus in contrast; that way is not for the disciple. Jesus implies that those who follow him will fast from time to time, but he says nothing about frequency, occasion, or method. He is concerned only with the motive behind the fasting and indeed primarily with the requirement that fasting be done secretly, as a matter between the religious person and God. So the faster is told anoint your head; this points to a normal social custom of the day, but evidently those who fasted sometimes omitted the practice. So with washing the face.59 It is pleasant to be clean, and evidently it was felt by some who fasted that they should forego this pleasure. And, of course, an untended face is very obvious.
18. The purpose of this (so that) is that those fasting should not make a display of their disciplinary activity, The hypocrites fasted in order to make an impression on others (“a sacred means is being corrupted by an unholy purpose,” Gutzwiller); Jesus prescribes the exact opposite: his followers are not to appear to fast. Fasting is a matter between them and the Father. The thought of being “in secret” is repeated from verses 4 and 6, though with a slightly different vocabulary.60 With fasting, as with almsgiving and prayer, it is important that the activity be done in secret. As with those activities the Father will recompense the person who fasts rightly (in the end justice will be done), but the emphasis is not on the recompense; it is on keeping one’s religious activities religious and not making them a means of self-glorification.61
d. Possessions, 6:19–24
19“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on the earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal; 20but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in nor steal. 21For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
22“The light of the body is the eye. If therefore your eye is healthy, your whole body will be illuminated; 23but if your eye is evil, your whole body will be darkened. If therefore the light that is in you be darkness, how great is the darkness!
24“No one can be a slave to two owners; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to the one and despise the other. You cannot be a slave to God and to mammon.”
Jesus demands that his followers be wholehearted; it is important that they should not set their minds on anything earthly; he forbids what Stott calls “the materialism which tethers our hearts to the earth” (Stott, p. 155). Real treasure is in heaven; it does not consist in material things of any sort. The eye and the slave are brought into service to emphasize from different angles the importance of single-minded adherence to God.62
19. Jesus draws attention to what people prize above all else. Some put their emphasis on treasures63 here and now to the exclusion of eternal values; Jesus points out that that means putting all one’s emphasis on what may well be lost. He instructs his followers not to lay up their treasures on this earth because treasures located here are liable to loss. He is not, of course, saying that they must not go about their daily work with due care, or that they must not run their businesses profitably. It is worldly-mindedness to which he is objecting, the concentration on prosperity in this world to the neglect of all else. Jesus is saying that his followers must have a right sense of values and not see earthly success, however that be understood, as the aim of all their labor (a temptation to which the rich are especially vulnerable, but which also may afflict the poor; it is the attitude to possessions that is important, not their amount). Glover reminds us that “avarice is the vice of respectability.” Whether they are rich or poor, people see no harm in concentrating on getting more. Everyone has some “treasure,” the main object in life. Jesus is asking whether that is to be the transient or the eternal,64 and he warns that earthly riches may disappear. Jesus specifies moth and rust65 as the destroying agents, where moth refers to what destroys cloth of any sort, especially fine clothing (which was valued as a form of wealth). Rust is more of a problem. It may mean the corrosion that attacks metallic objects or the “eating” that vermin of any kind may carry out; “worm” (RSV mg.) carries on the thought of destroying cloth). Another suggestion is the mice or other vermin that eat grain. The point is that material possessions appear substantial and lasting, but they are subject to decay in a variety of ways, and that means loss to the owner. It is foolish to regard them as lasting. The verb destroy is that rendered “disfigure” in verse 16; it means “render invisible,” here by ruining the articles in question. And there is a further problem with earthly valuables, namely that they may be stolen. This is not accidental (as with the moth), but a deliberate action, for these thieves break in and steal.66 There are hazards connected with earthly possessions; they may be lost in more ways than one.
20. By contrast,67 there are riches that cannot be lost in such ways. Jesus speaks first of the place where they may be laid up, namely in heaven, and then points out that the various factors he has spoken of as doing away with earthly riches do not apply there. In heaven neither moth nor rust is at work, and there are no thieves to break in or steal. The treasures in heaven are described in language that exactly negates what is predicated of earthly treasures.
21. Jesus points out that the place we choose for our treasures tells something about ourselves. He does not describe treasure in any way, but clearly it means here that which one prizes most, that which one values above all else. The place where we choose to store up what we value most shows what our values are deep down. The heart may be used in any one of a variety of ways; BAGD uses it here “of the emotions, wishes, desires,” but it is surely more. Jesus is not speaking of passing emotions but of that on which the life centers.68 In the two previous verses “you” is plural, but in this one it is singular: the application is personal.
22. We find the little section on the eye difficult; we no longer speak of the “single”69 or the “evil”70 eye; therefore the meaning is not at all obvious to us. But the eye is a useful illustration of spiritual possibilities. When the eye is functioning normally, the light it perceives means illumination of benefit to the whole body. All sorts of bodily functions may then be performed satisfactorily. There is a spiritual parallel. Jesus speaks of the eye as the light71 of the body. The meaning appears to be that the eye is the organ that means light to the body; whether we are sighted or blind depends entirely on the eye. The eye is the source of light to the whole body. Apart from the eye the body would receive no light; thus the eye functions much as a lamp does. It is therefore important that the eye be healthy,72 singly concentrating on its proper function. In that case the proper functioning of one small member means illumination for the whole body.
23. The contrary supposition is that the eye is evil, which presumably means that it is diseased or impaired in some way.73 An eye that is not functioning properly does not bring to the body the benefit of light and, lacking a healthy eye, the whole body is envisaged as in darkness. Nothing can compensate for the lack of light at the one point of entrance. If therefore74 brings out the consequence of all this. Granted that the entrance of light is so important, then, there is disaster if the light within anyone is in fact darkness. Such a person may well think he has light, but to walk in darkness is to lack vision, to demonstrate that one has no light. Filson comments, “If man divides his interest and tries to focus on both God and possessions, he has no clear vision, and will live without clear orientation or direction. Life not focused on God’s claim and command is lost in spiritual darkness.”
The climax of this saying is concerned with the spiritual rather than the physical meaning of vision; the light that is in you is surely not the light that strikes the eye. We might call it the brightness of goodness within. Perhaps we should think of something like “the eye of the soul”; just as a healthy physical eye means illumination for the bodily functions, so a healthy eye of the soul means enlightened living. Jesus is talking about the enlightenment that comes to the person who lives close to God.75 When that light is darkness there is disaster! Jesus is supposing that where there should be light in a person there is in fact darkness, a perversion at the very heart and center of the person’s life, a complete lack of vision. When that happens, “the darkness—how great!”
24. The service of God must be wholehearted. This is the thrust of the teaching about light and darkness (it is to be one or the other, not both), and this is further brought out with the forthright statement that it is impossible to give one’s first allegiance to both God and money. No one76 can belong completely to two owners. It is true that the ancient world knew of slaves with a shared ownership (e.g., Acts 16:16),77 but in this case the slave belonged completely to neither. Jesus is making the point that in the full sense of the term to be a slave meant to belong wholly. This is a relationship that cannot exist in duplicate: to belong wholly to one owner means that all other owners are ruled out. Where there is an attempt at shared ownership, Jesus goes on, there is failure. The slave in such a position will regard the two “owners” differently. Jesus speaks of no half measures; the slave will be linked to the two by hatred or love, by devotion78 or contempt, and in each case the one attitude rules out the other. There can be no half measures.
The climax of this saying is that it is impossible to be simultaneously a slave of both God and mammon. Cannot is a strong term; it signifies a sheer impossibility. Slave is another strong term;79 it points to complete devotion. It is possible to devote oneself wholly to the service of God and it is possible to devote oneself wholly to the service of money,80 but it is not possible to devote oneself wholly to the service of both. The stark alternatives make it clear that the service of God is no part-time affair but something that calls for one’s fullest devotion. Since money tends to draw people away from God, Jesus warns about it.81 It is no sin to have money, but it is sin to serve (“be a slave to”) money.
e. Anxiety and Trust, 6:25–34
25“For this reason I say to you: ‘Do not be anxious about your life, what you eat [or what you drink], nor for your body, what you put on. Is not the life more than food and the body than clothing? 26Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them; are you not worth more than they are? 27And which of you by being anxious can add one cubit to his height? 28And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the flowers of the field, how they grow; they do not work, nor do they spin; 29but I tell you, that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these. 30Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will he not much more clothe you, you people of little faith? 31Therefore do not be anxious, saying, “What shall we eat?” or “What shall we drink?” or “With what shall we clothe ourselves?” 32For the Gentiles seek all these things: for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33But seek first his kingdom and righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious about itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.’ ”
Jesus underlines the pointlessness of anxiety and the sound reasons for trusting the heavenly Father. There is more to life than food and clothing, so one’s attention should not be concentrated on them but should be focused elsewhere. As we read his words we must remember that he lived in a society where shortage of food was much more common than in modern Western states (despite the problems in their slum areas). Even so he sees the Father as active throughout his creation, caring even for birds and flowers; there is accordingly no reason for those who call him “Father” to be anxious. God will surely meet all their real needs. Worry is pointless; trust is well based.82
25. For this reason connects this paragraph to the preceding; because it is impossible to be a slave to both God and mammon, we should not act as though possessions were the be-all and the end-all of life. The new thought is that people “can be unfaithful to God through care as well as through covetousness” (Bruce). We are to rely on God, not on our money-making abilities. “Do not be anxious83 about your life,” Jesus says, and specifies food and clothing (and possibly drink84) as things about which people might worry. The life85 seems to mean this earthly life, for it is life that may be sustained by nourishment. This is strengthened by the reference to the body; it is this physical life here and now of which Jesus is talking. And when he comes to the body he proceeds to its need for clothing. Food and drink and clothing are the basic necessities, and these things may well have been a cause of anxiety for many of his hearers, who would have come from the poorer classes. The question introduced by Is not looks for a positive answer.86 Put this way, even the poorest must agree that, important as are food and clothing, they are not the most important things of all. There is more87 to life than food;88 there is more to the body than its clothing. This attitude removes people from preoccupation with their own worldly success; it discourages the wealthy and the comfortable from concentrating on their own success and the poor and uncomfortable from concentrating on their own misery. We belong together, whatever our worldly goods, and this encourages the idea of sharing.
26. The birds with their absence of care can teach people something about reliance on God. There is some disagreement about the meaning of Jesus’ verb,89 but clearly he was inviting his hearers to give attention to God’s creatures.90 Birds do not engage in agricultural processes like sowing crops or reaping them, but that does not mean that they starve. Nor, of course, does it mean that they are idle (is anything busier than a sparrow?); they search for their food. Jesus is not counseling his followers to be indolent. The processes of sowing and reaping are elementary for the careful farmer, as is the storing of the crop in barns. But although91 birds have no part in any such process, they are fed. Jesus does not say that “their” heavenly Father feeds them, but your heavenly Father; the very Father in whom the anxious have ceased to trust provides92 even for improvident birds. You is emphatic; the disciples stand in strong contrast with the birds, as having much greater worth. The question looks for a positive answer: of course they are worth more93 than the birds. And since they so obviously excel the well-cared-for birds, why should they not trust the Father?
27. The folly of worry is tackled from another angle, as Jesus draws attention to the limitations of human achievement, even when anxiety is given full rein. We have the same verb for being anxious as in verse 25; there is still the thought of the worrying that comes so easily to the human race. But all the worrying in the world produces little in the way of achievement. There is uncertainty as to whether Jesus goes on to speak of time or of height. The word I have translated height can mean either “age” (as in John 9:21) or “height” (Luke 19:3). The cubit was originally the forearm, and from this it came to be a measure of length, the distance from the fingertip to the elbow. It is used rarely if at all as a measure of time (LSJ does not cite it as measuring time; they think it may be metaphorical in this passage); perhaps there is something of an analogy in the words of the Psalmist: “thou hast made my days a few handbreadths” (Ps. 39:5). We could translate: which of you “by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature” (KJV) or “by being anxious can add one cubit to your span of life” (NRSV). These days we reason that few people are anxious to increase their height by the length of their forearm,94 whereas many would like to increase their length of life. Most modern translations accordingly go along with NRSV. But we must beware of making Jesus reason along lines congenial to us, and it is not at all impossible that he was ridiculing worrying by putting a spectacular limit to its powers of increasing height.95 Sometimes he used humorous exaggeration to make his point, as when he spoke of the difficulty a camel would have in getting through the eye of a needle (19:24). It is impossible to be absolutely sure which piece of imagery Jesus is using, but it is clear that he is putting a firm limit to what worrying can do. Worry is futile. Why engage in it?
28. Jesus turns attention to clothing; he asks why people worry about what they wear. While the question is perhaps not as urgent as that of food, it is serious enough; in all ages people have seen clothing as one of the basic necessities of life. This time Jesus tells people to learn96 from the flowers.97 He is probably thinking of wild flowers (flowers “of the field”) rather than those which have had the benefit of human cultivation. Such flowers do not toil,98 and specifically they do not spin. Beautiful as they are, they do not work; they produce no cloth of any sort to account for their “clothing.”
29. But I tell you is a solemn introduction to the words that follow and indicates that they are important. Matthew speaks of Solomon five times, which is more than in any other New Testament book; here the point is that that king was proverbial for magnificence.99 But not even that magnificence can compare to the way the flowers are clothed. One points to the basic unit; Solomon’s clothes could not compare to that of even one of the flowers.
30. If casts no doubt on the proposition that follows: “if (as has been said)” is the force of it (“the truth of a general principle,” Burton, MT, 243). The “clothing” of the flowers is not something they achieve of themselves; God provides them with clothing. This time the plants are not called “flowers” but grass, a term that mostly refers to ordinary green grass (which fits the addition of the field used once more at this point; it indicates that it is wild growth, not cultivated, of which Jesus is speaking). Whereas before he had spoken of the beauty of the wild flowers, now he speaks of no more than “grass”; for all their beauty, flowers do not rank high in the scale of living creatures. This is further brought out by the transitoriness of plant life; the “grass” is alive today and is thrown into the furnace100 tomorrow. Some translations have “oven” (e.g., KJV), but if it be taken in this way the meaning will be that the plants serve as fuel for the fire around the oven, not for the oven itself (why else would plants be put into an oven?). Jesus is emphasizing the transitoriness and the small value of the plants. They soon pass away and then are of no more use than fuel for a fire. Since God does so much for the transitory plants, will he not much more look after the clothing of his servants? A final rebuke of those anxious about clothing is found in the word that greets them as of little faith.101 Wherever this term occurs in the New Testament, it is always applied to the disciples. More might have been expected of them.
31. Therefore leads on to the logical consequence. Since God takes such care of the lower orders of creation, certain consequences follow for his people. Jesus is not saying that his followers may be as careless as the birds and the flowers, doing no work and simply looking to our Father to provide everything. It is a condition of our life here and now that we work for our daily bread. But there is all the difference in the world between doing this in anxiety and fear and doing it in trust in a loving Father. Jesus then utters a firm imperative, do not be anxious.102 He goes on to pose three questions that might be asked, one concerning food, a second with respect to drink, and a third with regard to clothing. In each case there is a deliberative subjunctive, giving expression to the kind of thing a worried person might ask, filled with concern about how his basic needs are to be supplied.
32. The first for locates the anxiety Jesus is deprecating where it belongs. The questions he has suggested are questions that the Gentiles, those outside the people of God, might well ask. Such people cannot claim to be members of the heavenly family, and it is not surprising, accordingly, that they should be anxious and ask questions like these. As they see it, they must seek103 the supply of these necessities by their own efforts and out of their own resources. Anxiety is natural for them. But worry should not characterize God’s children. The second for goes on to introduce the reason the disciples should not ask such questions. They have a heavenly Father, and that Father knows all104 their needs. Since God knows them all, there is not the slightest reason for anxiety. Perhaps we should notice that it is need of which Jesus speaks. His followers may expect their needs to be met, but not necessarily their desires.
33. Disciples are to seek105 as their first priority, not the things they would like to have or even the things they are sure they need, but God’s kingdom and righteousness. First does not here mean “first in time” but “of first importance”; the kingdom is not one among many competing aims for the disciples, but that which comes first of all (cf. Bengel, “He who seeks that first, will soon seek that only”). For kingdom see on 3:2. Matthew mostly speaks of “the kingdom of heaven,” though he sometimes has “the kingdom of God” (which some MSS read here; Davies and Allison accept this reading) or “his kingdom” or “the kingdom.” It is generally agreed that here we should read “his kingdom and righteousness.” Jesus is clearly saying that the disciple’s first and best effort is to be directed toward God’s kingdom, not any personal needs. The kingdom has both present and future significance, and we should seek to exclude neither from the present passage. Kingdom points to rule, and the expression is to be understood in terms of doing the will of God now as well as looking for the coming of his final kingdom. The important thing for the disciple is to be constantly seeking to do the things that God wills, that is, to be submissive to the King. In this context seeking God’s righteousness (not our righteousness)106 will mean seeking that righteousness which God only can give (there is no thought that the believer by his own efforts can attain a righteousness that may fitly be called “God’s”). This will include the “right standing” before God that comes about as the result of Christ’s saving work and also the right conduct that befits the servant of God. But we should be on our guard against understanding the text in purely ethical terms: Jesus does not say “your righteousness,” or “to be as righteous as you can,” or anything of the sort. It is God’s righteousness that disciples must seek. Then, Jesus says, all these things will be given you, where these things are the things the Gentiles worry about. They will come to the trusting disciple, so there is no need for anxiety. The word rendered given is more literally “added”: the things in question will be added to what the disciple already has.
34. Another therefore carries on the argument in logical sequence. Since the preceding is true, it follows that there is no point in worrying about tomorrow (cf. Prov. 27:1). A number of commentators point out that something like the words of this verse is found in commonsense proverbs in antiquity. This may indeed be so, but what distinguishes this passage from similar ones is that Jesus is not teaching fatalism but trust in God. It is trust that is important. The aorist imperative does not imply anything about the present state and perhaps signifies that disciples should not start being anxious.107 There is no need to be anxious even about tomorrow, let alone the days ahead. Tomorrow will be anxious about itself does not mean that, while we must not worry today, tomorrow we may do so. It is a forceful way of saying that worry must always be deferred. Tomorrow’s worry is only in the sense “tomorrow never comes”; if worry is confined to tomorrow we are free, for it is always today. And Jesus finishes this part of his subject with the reminder that each day has sufficient trouble108 to keep us occupied; there is no point in anticipating tomorrow’s quota of trouble today. “Today’s trouble is enough for today” (NRSV).109 This, of course, is a counsel that defeats worry. We are rarely anxious for today; it is the future that bothers us. If we restrict our concern to today, we defeat anxiety. The plain statement that there is trouble each day, however, is important. A shallow thinker might gather from the previous words about trust that the believer will have a smooth path through life. That is not what Jesus is saying. All people have trouble, believers among them. But he is making it clear that there is all the difference in the world between facing the problems we will certainly meet with firm faith in our heavenly Father and facing them with anxiety.110
Matthew 7
7. Judging, 7:1–6
1“Do not judge, in order that you be not judged; 2for with what judgment you judge you will be judged, and with whatever measure you measure it will be measured to you. 3And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye and do not notice the plank in your own eye? 4Or how will you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while, look, there is the plank in your own eye? 5Hypocrite! First take the speck out of your own eye and then you will see clearly to take the plank out of your brother’s eye.
6“Do not give what is holy to the dogs, and do not throw your pearls in front of pigs, lest they trample them with their feet and turn and tear you to pieces.”
Jesus turns from a negative attitude in one’s own affairs (worry) to a negative attitude in one’s attitude to others (censoriousness). He points to a bad habit all too characteristic of the human race, and instructs his followers not to be hasty in making negative judgments on their fellows. It is a dangerous procedure because it invites a similar judgment in return. And it is a difficult procedure because our own faults make it hard for us to see precisely what is amiss in our fellows.1 Jesus is not, of course, forbidding all judgments (cf. “judge righteous judgment,” John 7:24, and the judgments required in this very chapter); he is warning against the hasty condemnations that are so easy to make, and so characteristic of the human race.2
1. Do not judge refers to the passing of harsh, adverse verdicts on the conduct of our fellows; it does not forbid the use of our best critical thinking (which may be done in a spirit of tolerance and helpfulness and which Jesus elsewhere commands as a help to others, 18:15; for that matter how can we avoid casting pearls before pigs [v. 6] without a process of discrimination?). “Don’t judge” does not mean “don’t think” (Stott remarks that the command “is not a requirement to be blind, but rather a plea to be generous,” p. 177). The verb is used not only generally of passing a verdict, but specifically of passing an adverse verdict, condemning, and it is this that Jesus is forbidding. The present imperative gives the sense “Don’t make a practice of judging.”3 The habit is easy to form. But it is to be avoided, and Jesus points to the disastrous consequences that follow. It is possible to take that4 you be not judged to point to the judgment others will pass on us; to be sharply critical of others is to invite others to be sharply critical of us. But what other people do is not to be our criterion, and in the end it does not matter greatly. What matters is the judgment of God; Jesus’ words surely refer to the divine tribunal. To be quick to call others to account is to invite God to call us to account.5 That judgment in some form is required of his followers is clear from the demand that they cast not what is holy to dogs (v. 6); what is forbidden is censoriousness, the readiness to find fault.6
2. For7 introduces the reason. The word judgment, here only in Matthew, may be used with any one of a variety of meanings.8 In this passage it denotes the standards people use in passing judgments on their fellows. There is the same double meaning as in verse 1. Those who so readily pass judgment on their peers will find that their peers pass similar judgment on them, and they face the further reality that they will be called to account by God for their harsh attitude to other people (cf. Chrysostom, “thou art making the judgment-seat dreadful to thyself, and the account strict,” p. 158).9 The lesson is reinforced by being repeated in other terms. The measure10 means much the same as judgment earlier in the verse; it points to the standard people use in passing their judgments on others. God does not act arbitrarily, but there is an appropriateness about his judgment. NRSV brings out the force of this saying very neatly: “the measure you give will be the measure you get.” Cf. also Mark 4:24.
3. The facile passing of adverse judgments is attacked from another angle. This time Jesus asks why his hearers do this sort of thing; what is their reason? He speaks of a speck in your brother’s eye, where some translators become more specific with “speck of sawdust” (NEB, NIV), or think of a “splinter” (JB). Jesus’ word11 is not specific, but can mean any small object; if it fits into the eye it is very small indeed. He pictures a person who fixes his gaze on something quite unimportant in someone else and who does not notice12 what is much more significant in himself. The plank13 was a considerable piece of timber and was used for a main beam in either the floor or the roof of a building. The meaning is not that in every case the person passing judgment is a worse sinner than the one he criticizes. It is rather that what he finds wrong in his brother is a very small matter compared with the sin God sees in him. The hyperbole effectively demolishes the position of the critic in a blaze of ridicule. Your own14 is emphatic; it puts some emphasis on the contrast. Jesus is using a humorous method of bringing out the contrast between our excellence in picking up the faults of others and our myopia in discerning our own.
4. Or leads into another possibility, or rather impossibility, for it is scarcely possible for anyone, plank in eye, to pose the question that follows to someone whose eye is incommoded by only a speck.15 “How will you say,” Jesus begins, introducing a question that contains an inbuilt improbability.16 Luke has “How can you say…?” in his equivalent. It is, of course, physically possible for the person to say these words, but the plank and the speck make it utterly impossible for the words to carry conviction. The polite request to be allowed to help17 is shown to be ridiculous by the plank that totally excludes any possibility of effective assistance, while look introduces something relevant to the situation that has not yet been taken into consideration. When it is, it becomes apparent that such an offer of help is completely ridiculous. While the passage rebukes hypocrisy, we should not overlook the implication that one brother will certainly try to help another.
5. For hypocrite see on 6:2 (AB has “casuist,” but this is not the meaning of the word).18 The word is singularly appropriate here where someone with a large fault is pictured as offering to help another whose disability is the most minor that could be imagined. Jesus is drawing attention to a curious feature of the human race in which a profound ignorance of oneself is so often combined with an arrogant presumption of knowledge about others, especially about their faults. First gets the priorities right; that which matters most is to deal with the plank. The would-be helper’s first priority must be to remove the obstacle to clear-sightedness from his own eye. That done, he is equipped to bring aid to his brother. We should not overlook the point that the speck is to be removed (Jesus does not say that because it is only a speck it does not matter); it is not unimportant that even this small defect be rectified.19 But this cannot be done until the plank is taken out of the way; only then is the would-be helper qualified. See clearly20 points to the importance of unimpaired vision for the person whose concern is to remove specks. This humorous treatment of a serious subject is not unlike those referring to the camel going through the eye of a needle (19:24), or being swallowed (23:24). Jesus made effective use of humor in his teaching.
6. This little section is peculiar to Matthew. It is perhaps put here as the opposite extreme to what has occupied us in the preceding verses: there Jesus dealt with the error of being too harsh in judging those who ought not to be judged, here with that of being too lax in giving what is holy to dogs. It may well be the adaptation of a proverbial saying that stresses the value of holy things and warns against profaning them. Do not give is a firm command; this is not a tentative suggestion.21 What is holy is not defined with any exactness. It may refer to meat from a sacrificial offering (that is the “holy thing” in which dogs might be thought to be interested). The fundamental idea in “holy” is that of being set apart for the service of God, and the saying brings out the truth that that is a solemn process. What is so set apart must be used only for the holy purpose that led to its being set apart. Dogs were regarded as unclean animals; therefore they must not be made the recipients of holy things.22 The “holy things” may be the reproofs of verses 1–4; care should be taken in the way they are used. But we should keep in mind that for the followers of Jesus there is nothing more holy than the gospel. This message is to be offered to all (cf. 28:18–20), but there is a limit to the time that is to be given to its obstinate rejecters.23 Disciples are not to be judgmental, but that does not mean that they are to lack discernment. They must recognize the realities of life. Cf. Davies and Allison: “The gospel of the kingdom—in 13:45-6 the kingdom is a pearl—was to be preached to all; but its heralds were also instructed to shake the dust off their feet when they were not received into a house or town (10:14).” We must bear in mind that some hear the gospel24 only to rebel. Disciples are not called on to keep offering it to those who continue to reject it with vicious contempt.25 Jesus taught all sorts of people generously, but before Herod he refused to say a word (Luke 23:9). Paul preached to the Jews in Corinth for a time, but in face of persistent rejection and hostility he turned away (Acts 18:5–7; cf. 1 Cor. 2:14–15; Tit. 3:10–11).26
With this is linked the command not to throw pearls27 to pigs.28 Again there is the thought of incongruity, of the impossibility of the objects being understood for what they were and of having them treated accordingly. Things of value and beauty will not only not be appreciated by pigs, but will be abused. What is precious is not to be given to people who have no appreciation of it. In a Christian context the pearls are apt to be pearls of wisdom, apt pieces of teaching. So far from appreciating pearls, pigs may well29 trample them under foot.30 It is possible that the pigs also turn on those who give them the pearls and tear them to pieces, for a large and unrestrained pig can do considerable damage. But it is perhaps more likely that we should understand the construction as chiastic: the pigs do the trampling and the dogs the tearing to pieces (for the combination of dogs and pigs see also 2 Pet. 2:22).
8. Prayer, 7:7–11
7“Ask and it will be given to you, seek and you will find, knock and it will be opened to you. 8For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 9Or which man is there among you whom his son will ask for bread, and he will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a snake? 11If therefore you, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!”
Jesus has set a high standard before his followers in the preceding section; how are they to reach it? Prayer is an important part of the answer, and Jesus goes on to teach significant lessons about praying. Even sinful people know how to do good to their children; how much more, then, may they expect the heavenly Father to do good to his children!31 This is not Jesus’ complete teaching on prayer; for that we must remember the importance of forgiving as we pray for forgiveness, of asking in faith, asking in accordance with the will of God (cf. 6:12; 21:21–22; 26:39), and more. Here he is simply making emphatically the central point, that prayer to a loving Father is effective. The point is not that human persistence wins out in the end, but that the heavenly Father who loves his children will certainly answer their prayer.
7. Ask is quite general, but the context makes it clear that Jesus is referring to prayer. The general expression shows that no particular kind of prayer is in mind; Jesus is concerned with praying as such and telling his hearers that prayer is efficacious: it will be given. Seek is an interesting word in this connection. It can scarcely mean that the praying person does not know where to find what he is looking for; if that were so he would not be praying. The fact that he is asking the Father shows that he knows that what he seeks is within the gift of God. Perhaps the meaning is that the praying person does not know exactly what he should be praying for, but he knows that the Father will not lead him astray. There is also the thought of prayer with a greater intensity than would be implied when the person is doing no more than asking.32 And as he seeks the good gift from God, he is to know that he will find. For a second time we notice that the answer to prayer is certain. So is it with the third way of looking at praying: knock. It is not said at what the praying person should knock, but the imagery is that of a closed door that he cannot open (NIV brings this out by inserting “the door” before “will be opened”).33 All who serve God know what it is to be faced with “doors” that are fast closed, and it means a lot that prayer will result in the opening of such doors. The three expressions underline the effectiveness of prayer. Look at it which way you will, it gets things done. All three imperatives are present, underlining the importance of continuous action.34
8. For35 introduces a reason. In the heavenly court everyone who asks receives, and so with seeking and knocking. God’s grace and God’s love justify disciples in regarding prayer as a valuable weapon in their fighting the good fight. This verse takes up the injunction of the previous verse almost word for word (there is a change from “it will be given” to receives, but otherwise the same verbs are used). The repetition emphasizes the certainty that prayer will achieve the effect that is sought. Carson cites some significant words from Broadus: “One may be a truly industrious man, and yet poor in temporal things; but one cannot be a truly praying man, and yet poor in spiritual things.” Prayer is infinitely enriching.
9. Or36 makes more or less the same point in another way. Instead of saying simply what God will do in answer to prayer, Jesus asks a question from a situation in human life. He envisages a son asking his father for bread and inquires whether the father will in such a case give his child a stone. Jesus is reasoning from the less to the greater: if even an earthly37 father will give good gifts to his children and not bad ones, how much more will the heavenly Father do so! The question looks for a negative answer:38 no one would do such a wicked thing. Stone is opposed to bread in the temptation narrative as well as here. Perhaps the thought is that the small loaves in common use resembled stones in appearance.
10. Or carries on the questioning, simply substituting a fish and a snake for the bread and the stone of the previous verse. France holds that “a snake might be taken for a fish, particularly the eel-like catfish of Galilee,” while Mounce sees in the snake “some eel-like fish without scales that, according to Lev. 11:12, was not to be eaten.” We cannot be sure which is correct, but clearly there was something that resembled fish but was not and that mocked hunger rather than satisfied it. Again the question looks for a negative answer. The repetition hammers home the point that even in this sinful race there is no tendency to give those we love and who depend on us some unsatisfying or harmful thing when we are asked for something to satisfy a real need.39
11. The conditional of the first class assumes the correctness of the supposition, and therefore gives a reason for posing it. We should not overlook the way being40 evil is slipped into the argument. Jesus brings forward no evidence, but assumes this as so basic that it can be taken for granted, even when he is referring to a good action. As throughout the New Testament, the solidarity of the race in sin is taken as a basic fact: “An illustrious testimony to the doctrine of original sin” (Bengel).41 There is some emphasis on you. This does two things: it differentiates the hearers from Jesus and it conveys the meaning: you, members of a race that is sinful, you know about giving good gifts. For good see on 5:45; it here denotes something like “beneficial.” Having made the point about earthly parents and their children, Jesus uses a how much more construction to bring out the certainty that the heavenly Father (see on 5:45) will give good things to those who pray. He lays down no conditions, such as prayer in faith or in accordance with the will of God. Such things are made clear elsewhere and can be assumed. He concentrates on the wonderful truth that the Father gives to those who ask him.
9. The Golden Rule, 7:12
12“Therefore all things whatever that you wish that men should do to you, you also do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.”
12. The golden rule is found in some form or other in a variety of religions, mostly in the negative: “Do not do to others what you would not like them to do to you.”42 Jesus, however, enunciates the rule in a positive form, and he appears to have been the first to do so;43 his followers are to be active in doing good to others.44 It is a most important rule for disciples. Therefore probably refers to the whole of the preceding sermon, not simply to the immediately foregoing.45 In the light of the whole way of life that Jesus is inculcating this is the rule that his people must obey. At the same time it is very apt in this place; the example of the Father in his goodness in answering prayer is a magnificent incentive to his people to do good to others. All things whatever is comprehensive: nothing is excluded from the scope of this rule. The word rendered wish46 is “the popular word” in Hellenistic Greek for “to wish, want” (BDF 101). Do is a general term, but here it obviously has the meaning “do to one’s advantage.” That is what the disciple should be doing to others. You is emphatic; others may not follow this rule, but there is no escaping it for disciples.47 Jesus rounds this off by saying that to act like this is the law and the prophets. This is the customary expression for the whole Old Testament. To say that this rule is the law and the prophets means that the rule sums up Old Testament teaching as a whole. Elsewhere Jesus says that the law and the prophets “hang” on the two commandments to love God and one’s neighbor (22:40), which is another way of saying the same thing. Both ways of putting it totally exclude selfishness and stress a proper attitude of love and care for others. The person who consistently lives according to the golden rule is keeping all the regulations in Scripture directing one’s conduct toward other people.
10. True and False Discipleship, 7:13–27
13“Enter through the narrow gate; for broad is the gate and spacious the road that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in through it. 14How narrow is the gate and constricted is the road that leads to life, and there are few who find it!
15“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you dressed up as sheep, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16From their fruits you will know them. Do people gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every sound tree bears good fruit, but the worthless tree bears bad fruit. 18A sound tree cannot bear bad fruit, neither can a worthless tree bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into a fire. 20So then, from their fruits you will know them.
21“Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22In that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in your name perform many mighty works?’ 23And then I will say to them plainly, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you who work lawlessness.’
24“Everyone therefore who hears these words of mine and does them will be likened to a wise man, who built his house on rock. 25And the rain came down, and the rivers rose, and the winds blew, and beat against that house, but it did not fall because it had been founded on rock. 26And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be likened to a foolish man, who built his house on sand. 27And the rain came down, and the rivers rose, and the winds blew, and struck that house, and it fell with a great crash.”
The concluding section of the sermon is taken up with impressing on the hearers the difference between real and merely nominal discipleship.48 In four short paragraphs (vv. 13–14, 15–20, 21–23, and 24–27) Jesus calls for wholehearted commitment to himself and denounces spurious discipleship. He speaks about two ways that lie before people, about the importance of living fruitful lives, and about deeds that back up one’s words. He concludes with the little parable of the two men who built their houses, one on rock and one on sand, and the fate of such buildings when the time of testing came.49
13. Jesus makes it clear that there are two ways in life, and two ways only, that are set before all people; it is thus important that the right choice be made. The section on the two ways is not included in the other Gospels, but it can be found in the ancient Scripture (Deut. 30:19; Ps. 1:6; Jer. 21:8) and in Jewish writings (e.g., 2 Esdr. 7:6–13).50 It made quite an appeal to the early church, and there are references in early Christian literature (e.g., Did. 1:1; Ep. Barn. 18:1). Jesus begins with a firm command, enter, though at this point he does not say what gate51 is in mind. He says only that it is narrow;52 not until the climax of this saying do we find that it is the way into life. A narrow gate must be sought out: it is not as easily perceived as is a broad one. For is a causal conjunction; the implication is that something of an effort must be made to enter the narrow gate, for there is another that is much more easily perceived. By contrast, there is a gate that is broad53 and a road that is spacious (NRSV has “the way is easy,” but this is misleading; Jesus is not speaking about ease of passage but commodiousness, a road on which many may be found). Jesus is picturing a scene where the broad road leading to a splendid gate is obvious and easy to be seen, whereas the path that brings the traveler to the unpretentious gate is inconspicuous and is perceived only by those who look for it carefully. But the commodious road leads to destruction,54 a fact that its popularity does nothing to alter. But that popularity means that many go through this gate.
14. How55 narrow brings us back to the right gate and exclaims at its small dimensions. In contrast to the wide gate this one is narrow; in contrast to the spacious road this road is constricted.56 But though narrow and superficially less attractive than the broad highway, this road leads to life. Life often refers to life in the physical sense, this earthly, natural life. But in this context it clearly refers to the fuller and more satisfying life, the life that Christ alone brings about, eternal life. We must not press few too hard, for elsewhere Jesus can speak of “many” that are saved (8:11; 20:28). In none of these places is he giving an exact estimate of the numbers of saved and lost; in all he is emphasizing God’s will to save and the importance of responding to his call. No matter how many are to be seen going along the broad road, it is important to choose the narrow one. That the road that leads to life is narrow explains why so many fail to find it. The thought is that the narrow road is far from an obvious way to go; it must be “found” (cf. vv. 7–8). No one drifts into the narrow way by chance.
Jesus does not explain whether the gate is entered at the beginning or end of the path. Some have held that the way is entered first; the believer proceeds along it until he comes to the gate at the end, through which he passes into the eschatological salvation (e.g., Tasker).57 Others hold that the gate comes first; on this view we enter the gate right at the beginning (i.e., we commit ourselves to following Christ), after which we pursue the path before us (so Carson, Hendriksen). Another view is that the path and the way are practically the same (so W. Michaelis,58 and Ridderbos, “The gate is in fact the road, and the road is the gate”). Bruner objects that this view “fails to do justice to the ‘way’ in the saying and to the (participial) continuing force of the other verbs in the sentences. Matthew’s Jesus is appealing both for an evangelical decision (the gate) and for an ethical endurance (the way). Taken together, then, the narrow gate and the tough way are simply the difficult choice for Jesus and the constantly challenging decisions for discipleship to him” (pp. 282–83). It appears that in asking our questions we are trying to make Jesus more precise than he chose to be. We may profitably reflect that both the initial commitment to Christ and the subsequent journey of faith are important, and that we may see them both indicated here. But we can scarcely say more. Perhaps we should notice that the word for road is that used for the Christians in Acts, namely “the Way” (Acts 9:2, etc.).
15. Having made it clear that those on the narrow way are few in comparison to others who prefer the commodious path, Jesus moves on to speak of teachers who will help or hinder and to warn59 about people who can be relied on to advocate the wrong way in some shape or form. A prophet was one who could speak directly from God, who could say, “Thus saith the Lord.” In a day when it was widely accepted that prophets could speak authoritatively in this way, whether by way of foretelling the future or denouncing evil or commending the good, there must have been a strong temptation for some people to claim direct inspiration, whether they had it or not. False prophets60 were thus people who claimed falsely to speak in the name of God. We have no way of knowing whether Jesus had any precise group in mind (and if so, which); nor can we know whether Matthew had any particular people in mind in recording the words. But the term is wide enough to cover any who61 falsely claim to set forth the way of God, and the unhappy truth is that the people of God have never lacked false teachers whose emphasis is such as to lead them away from God. Jesus speaks of them as approaching the disciples (the false prophets do not have to be sought out) and presenting themselves as harmless. They appear “in clothing of sheep,” which means that they appear as harmless as the most harmless of animals.62 But the reality is different; they are ravenous wolves, animals with insatiable appetites. Inwardly differentiates their essential nature from their outward appearance. Jesus is speaking of religious teachers who put on a harmless front to deceive their followers but whose real interest is their own profit. Sheep they may appear to be, but their inward character indicates that they will always be wolves who try to further their own interests at the expense of those of the flock.
16. How can the followers of Jesus recognize such people? From63 their fruits; their fruits will in the end betray them. The word “fruit” (like its Greek equivalent) refers in the first instance to the edible product of certain trees, but it is also used figuratively of a variety of produce. Here the thought is that it is not the outward appearance that is important (wolves may be dressed up to look like sheep), but the things the false prophets do, the produce of their manner of thought and life. If the disciples take note of what these false prophets do and refuse to be charmed by their false words, they will recognize them for what they are. We should probably understand their teaching also as part of their fruits, for their teaching proceeds from what they are and it is by our words that we will be condemned or justified on Judgment Day (12:37).64 Jesus illustrates from plant life. He asks whether people get grapes from thornbushes, useful fruit from plants that are notable only for their thorns. So with figs and thistles. To people who lived closer to the soil than the denizens of huge modern cities the illustrations would come with powerful force.
17. From lowly bushes we move to trees, but the basic reasoning remains the same (likewise introduces a further but similar point). The argument now concerns the quality of the fruit rather than the kind, and it extends to the tree that bears it. Jesus contrasts the sound65 tree with the worthless66 one. The sound tree produces good67 fruit, but not so the worthless one. The worthless tree bears only bad68 fruit; the nature of the tree makes any other result impossible.
18. Jesus makes the point a little more strongly by indicating the impossibility of trees bearing fruit that is contrary to their nature. If the tree is perfectly healthy, it simply cannot bear the kind of fruit that is natural to the worthless tree. So with the worthless tree; it lacks the ability to bear good fruit (cf. Job 14:4). The point is fairly obvious, but it is important, and Jesus brings it out explicitly.
19. Jesus moves from the fruit of the rotten tree to its fate. In words reminiscent of those of John the Baptist (3:10) he reminds his hearers that people who run orchards do not put up with rotten trees. Such trees take up space, and besides cumbering the ground they may spread their corruption to perfectly sound trees. There is no reason for their continuing to exist and no reason why a competent orchardist should let them continue to grow. Every makes it universal; no bad tree is allowed to continue producing its bad fruit. Interestingly, Jesus does not speak of what the tree does, but of what it does not do: in the last resort it is not the tree that actively bears bad fruit that is condemned, but one that fails to produce good fruit.69 Such a tree is cut down, and not only cut down but burned as well. Thrown may have some notion of violence about it; at the least it marks a decisive rejection. In the case of the orchardist the fire is literal; the burning of a worthless tree removes the possibility that it will infect other trees. But fire is often used of the fire of hell, and this meaning may be not far away. Jesus is making it clear that discipleship means a great deal more than religious activity.
20. This section of the argument is complete; so then brings us to the logical conclusion.70 The rest of the verse simply repeats the opening part of verse 16. The fruit is the test of the tree; if there is no good fruit there is no good reason for the tree to exist. And the fruit is the test of one who claims to be a prophet. If there is no good fruit there is no good reason for the person to be treated as a prophet.
21. From the broad and narrow ways and from the bearing of good or bad fruit Jesus moves on to the consummation. Just as there are only two ways, so in the end there are only two destinations. This means also that he moves from the way his people can recognize false prophets to his condemnation of such people. When the kingdom of heaven (see on 3:2) comes in all its fulness, it will not be people’s profession that counts, but their profession as shown in the way they live. Not71 every one does not mean that none who use the expression will enter the kingdom: Jesus is not saying that it is a bad thing to say to him “Lord, Lord,” but that it is insufficient. He has just made emphatically the point that a person’s deeds show what the person is, and he is now saying that words are not the significant thing. It is easy for anyone to profess loyalty, but to practice it is quite another thing. Says stands in contrast to does; words are not enough. The word Lord72 was used in a variety of ways. Originally it meant the owner of anything (cf. 20:8), but it could be used of important people generally. It thus became a conventional form of address in polite society, very much like our “Sir” (cf. 21:30). The Romans used it of their emperor (Acts 25:26), and the term was in common use of the gods people worshipped (1 Cor. 8:5). When the Old Testament was translated into Greek, Lord was employed consistently as the translation for the divine name Yahweh. It was the word the Christians found used of God in their Bible, and accordingly it was very significant when they came to call Jesus by this title. It is a title of majesty. In this Gospel it is used to refer to Jesus only once (21:3), apart from its use as a form of address (which shows that Matthew is not indiscriminately reading back into Jesus’ lifetime the title that was so common in the church of his day).
Here, of course, Lord could be simply the polite form of address, but since it refers to what will happen on Judgment Day it more likely has overtones of divinity. On Judgment Day Jesus will be seen for what he really is, and the greeting here implies that the people in question will be claiming to belong to him. But their claim will be of no avail, Jesus says, unless their lives back it up. It is doing the will of the Father that matters,73 not the words we profess. This is not salvation by works: the contrast is not between merit and grace, but between profession and way of life. If people really trust Christ for salvation, their lives will no longer be self-centered; that they belong to the good tree will be made manifest by the fruit they bear. The history of the church is replete with examples of ecclesiastics who made free use of expressions like “Lord, Lord,” but whose arrogant and self-centered lives made a mockery of their words. Jesus is not saying that those saved will have earned their salvation, but that the reality of their faith will be made clear by their fruitful lives. We should notice his use of my Father, the first use of this expression in this Gospel; Jesus often refers to the Father in such a way as to imply a close personal relationship (10:32–33; 12:50; 16:17; 18:10, 19). His relationship to the Father is not the same as that of others.
22. For the many who will rise up cf. 24:11. That74 day is not described further, but clearly what is meant is Judgment Day, the day at the end of this world’s life when all will give account of themselves to God. That the people will make their plea to Jesus shows that he will be their Judge at the critical time (cf. 2 Cor. 5:10). The doubled Lord is apparently a way of emphasizing lordship; the speakers insist that they regard Jesus as their Lord. They go on to speak of things done in the name of Jesus that they regard as significant. The question “did we not prophesy?” looks for an affirmative answer: there is not a doubt that they did this. The name (see on 6:9) stands for the whole person, and actions done in the name (which here clearly means something like “with the authority of the name”) are listed accordingly as evidence of submission to the lordship of Jesus.75 Since there is no preposition, the meaning may be “with” the name rather than “in” the name, in which case the claim is that they had the name as the weapon they could wield. These people had been active in the service of God; Morgan says, “they had done everything but the Lord’s will,” and this is the critical thing. To be active in religious affairs is no substitute for obeying God.
They claimed to have done a number of things. First they asked, “did we not prophesy?” The word signifies speaking in the name of God, which may be meant in the sense that they revealed what is hidden or that they foretold the future (their claim would be that they could not do this in the name of Jesus unless Jesus approved). Second, they said that they had cast out demons.76 In secular Greek the word for “demon” could mean a deity. Or it might refer to an aspect of human personality, for example when Plato speaks of the “genius” of Socrates (Euthyphro 7.b). But in the New Testament demons were beings who occupied a position somewhere between people and God and were especially linked with Satan. In the Gospels their deeds are evil, and they sometimes bring striking physical limitations to people in whom they make their dwelling. Jesus expelled demons from sufferers on a number of occasions, and exorcisms are here regarded as meritorious works, done in the name and the spirit of Jesus. Mighty works77 are miracles (the term is often used of Jesus’ healing miracles), though there is no indication of precisely what form the miracles of the false teachers took. But to do any kind of miracle in Jesus’ name is surely something that might be pleaded on Judgment Day? Certainly these teachers thought so. That there were many shows that such miracles were done in abundance. The group of three outstanding achievements is pleaded as clear evidence that those who performed them were in good standing with Jesus (name is in an emphatic position in each clause).78 But those who so plead have overlooked the fact that there can be “lying wonders” (2 Thess. 2:9).
23. Then (see on 2:7; this is the unclassical use “to introduce that which follows in time,” BAGD, 2) leads us into Jesus’ rejoinder. He will say … plainly,79 which leads into his verdict of total rejection. “I never knew you” (cf. 25:12) does not, of course, mean that he was ignorant of their existence, but rather that he never acknowledged them; he never recognized them as what they claimed to be (Knox, “You were never friends of mine”). You is in contrast to the threefold “your” of the previous verse. The rest of his rebuke is given in the words of Psalm 6:8. “Go away from me” (cf. 25:41) means total rejection (“away from me,” JB; “out of my sight, you and your wicked ways,” REB, is more paraphrase than translation, but it brings out the force of the original). You who work renders a participle that conveys the meaning of habitual practice; they are not condemned for an occasional error but for consistent wrongdoing. Lawlessness is basically the rejection of the law of God. The word is often translated in terms of wrongdoing (“evildoers”), which is, of course, involved. But the term points to a refusal to submit to the law of God;80 all the wrongdoing follows inevitably from this refusal. The words of these people may be good words, but their lives are lawless. On this passage Diétrich comments, “Verses 21–23 are a dreadful warning: the most orthodox avowals of faith have no value in the eyes of God if they are not translated into concrete obedience to his will. One may with his lips loudly profess his faith in God, and even invoke Jesus as Lord, yet deny him by thoughts, words, and acts.”
24. The little parable about the one man building on rock and the other man whose foundation was sand emphasizes the importance of acting in accordance with Jesus’ teaching.81 It is one thing to hear what he said and even approve of it; it is quite another to obey. But it is only obedience that results in solid achievement. Everyone makes the application general: taken with the repetition of the word in verse 26 it rules out any exceptions. All either respond to Jesus’ words or do not; there is no other possibility. Therefore is inferential; what follows is an inference from what precedes. Jesus goes on to speak of the person who hears his82 words, and not only hears them but does them. “Doing” words is a somewhat curious expression, but clearly it means that the person in view is not content with admiring some outstanding teaching; he makes it his guide and models his life on it. The expression underlines Jesus’ earlier call for obedience. He is telling us now the result of obedience. The person who puts his teaching into practice is likened (i.e., “declared to be like”)83 to a wise84 man. His wisdom is shown in the fact that he85 built his house (see on 2:11) on rock, the most solid of foundations.
25. Any building must face some vicissitudes during its useful life; Jesus therefore proceeds to list a particularly testing time for this house. Rain86 clearly denotes heavy rain, torrential rain, not ordinary gentle rain that would not put a building to a severe test. It was such rain that the rivers rose, where rivers “are to be understood as the mountain torrents or winter torrents which arise in ravines after a heavy rain and carry everything before them” (BAGD, 1). Certainly Jesus is speaking of testing torrents. Strong winds accompanied the rain, winds that beat against the house. The combination of rains, rivers, and winds represent the severest testing the weather can bring to a house. But it survived them all, owing to the excellence of its foundation. First, negatively, it did not fall (the verb may be used of structures, “fall to pieces, collapse,” Acts 15:16);87 then, positively, comes the reason, it had been founded on rock (the last expression is repeated from v. 24). The foundation is clearly critical. With the right foundation a building may well withstand the severest testing.
26. Attention moves to the foolish and careless hearer of Jesus’ teaching. Most of the words are repeated from verse 24, but with the negative not inserted before do them, with foolish replacing “wise,” and sand substituted for “rock.” We should not understand a deliberate choice of sand, but a failure to take seriously the necessity for a solid foundation.88 The man described is one who hears Jesus and perhaps enjoys the process, but who does not put into practice what he has heard. That man is foolish (see on 5:22); he is a stupid person who acts in a stupid way. This is seen in that he builds on sand. This last word is used 5 times in the New Testament, mostly of things too numerous to be counted. Here, however, the thought is that a sandy subsoil makes a very poor foundation on which to build a house.
27. The same process of testing that confronted the wise builder tests out the foolish builder; the language is repeated exactly until we come to struck,89 which replaces “beat against.” This word can mean a very hard blow indeed, but it is also used in the sense “stumble.” Lenski sees this meaning here,90 but the context seems to favor a hard blow and that, coupled with the action of rain and rivers, was too much for the house with the poor foundation. That house fell (it would not be too much to say “collapsed”) with a great crash. The expression points to complete ruin. For a house built on sand there is in the end no other fate than complete destruction. So it is with anyone who hears Jesus’ teaching without heeding it. It is teaching with a strong undertone of warning as well as with much to comfort and inspire. We neglect the warning at our peril.
11. Conclusion, 7:28–29
28And it came to pass that when Jesus had ended these sayings, the multitudes were astonished at his teaching; 29for he was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.
Matthew rounds off the section with a few words about the effect of Jesus’ teaching. It is clear that many people were impressed not only by what Jesus said, but by the way he said it. His teaching was markedly different from anything to which they were accustomed.91
28. It is not easy to know what to do about the recurring expression, rendered in KJV with “and it came to pass.”92 Most modern translations simply ignore it with this justification, that it is not the way we would normally express things. But it is not the way a first-century Greek writer would normally express things either; therefore I have tried to retain the flavor of the Matthean expression by using the traditional English way of rendering it. Here it introduces a formula that Matthew uses at the end of each of Jesus’ major discourses (11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1), as a way of transition into his next section. The formula draws attention to the discourses as significant; Matthew insists on the importance of Jesus as a Teacher. He tells us now that Jesus had ended his discourse93 (the verb sometimes has the thought of “accomplish,” and there is possibly a hint that Jesus had said all that he intended to say). The effect of what Jesus had said was continuing astonishment94 among his hearers. The plural, multitudes, indicates that this was not the impression of a tiny minority but of large numbers of people. As we saw in 5:1, the sermon was addressed primarily to disciples, but there were others than disciples present. It is the reaction of these others that Matthew now relates. He does not give the impression that Jesus was simply another in a multitude of teachers, some slightly more acceptable than others. Jesus astonished people. There was no one like him. Teaching may mean the manner or the content of the instruction. There seems no reason here for restricting it to either. Jesus did not teach in the same way as other Jewish teachers, nor did he say the same kind of things.
29. Matthew explains.95 He was teaching96 (habitually) as someone who had authority (“with a note of authority,” REB; “like an authority,” Moffatt), and this clearly impressed the hearers, for it was not the way their scribes taught. It was the scribal habit to appeal to authority, for it was an age in which originality was not highly prized. It was widely accepted that there had been a golden age early in the history of the race and since then history had been all downhill. Those closer to the golden times might be expected to have the rights of it when any dispute arose. There was a widespread respect for age. Thus it was important to cite authorities if one wished to obtain a hearing. But Jesus ignored this scribal commonplace. Where others appealed to authorities, Jesus simply said, “I say unto you,” a fact noted in all the Gospels (Mark 3:28; Luke 12:37; John 6:47, etc.; there is a clear and strong note of authority). This should not be taken to mean that there were no new teachings among the rabbis. Of course there were, but they were not typical.97 New teachings were typical of Jesus, and especially the teaching that made clear his messianic place (vv. 22–23, e.g., would be unthinkable among the rabbis).
Matthew 8
D. Jesus’ Ministry of Healing, 8:1–9:34
In 4:23 Matthew gave a summary of Jesus’ ministry as one of teaching, preaching, and healing (in 9:35 he will give a similar summary). Then in the Sermon on the Mount he gave his readers an outstanding example of the way Jesus taught. Now he turns his attention to the healings that were such an important and striking part of his ministry. Jesus displayed power as well as authority as he went about his earthly task. It is noteworthy that Matthew concentrates his accounts of Jesus’ miracles into the early days of his mission. He records ten miraculous healings (and some general accounts of many healings) before Peter’s great confession at Caesarea Philippi, and one afterward. He has four nature miracles in the earlier period and one in the later time. It seems that Matthew wants to tell us that, once the disciples came to understand that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, the Lord focused his attention on the necessity and the meaning of his suffering and death. Matthew here records ten miracles arranged in three groups, with sections on calling and discipleship in between. The miracles are the following: cleansing a leper, healing the centurion’s servant, healing Peter’s mother-in-law, stilling the storm, casting out demons from the Gadarene demoniacs, healing the paralyzed man, raising the daughter of Jairus, healing the woman with an issue of blood, giving sight to two blind men, and giving speech to a dumb man. Some scholars are reminded of the ten miraculous happenings at the time of the Exodus and take this as evidence that Matthew saw Jesus as a second Moses. But we should not overlook the fact that Matthew refers to more than the ten wonderful happenings that he singles out (v. 16), and further that he nowhere draws attention to the number ten. We should also bear in mind that ten was a popular number and that there could be any number of reasons for recording ten miracles. In addition, nothing in the narrative points to Moses. Further, these works of mercy are not really parallel to the plagues in Moses’s day. It is better to think of Matthew as going on from Jesus’ matchless teaching to his matchless power, power over disease and even the forces of nature.1 Almost all the incidents in this section of the Gospel have parallels in Mark or Luke, but not necessarily in the same order. It is clear that Matthew’s arrangement here is topical, not chronological.
J. D. Kingsbury examines these chapters and divides them into four main sections dealing with Christology (8:1–17), discipleship (8:18–34), the separation of Jesus and his followers from Israel (9:1–17), and faith (9:18–34).2 This may be a useful way of dividing the two chapters, but I am more convinced by his conclusion that “Paradigmatically, these chapters set forth for the members of Matthew’s church the cost and commitment of discipleship and ways in which they are distinct from contemporary Israel (8:18–22, 23–27; 9:1–17). Paraenetically, they invite these Christians, as persons of faith, to approach the exalted Son of God, under whose lordship and in whose presence they live, and to offer to him their petitions for help in the sure knowledge that he desires to hear them and will employ his divine power to aid them in time of trial and need.”3
1. Three Healings, 8:1–17
Matthew starts this section with miracles of healings for three people who would all have been considered unlikely from the Jewish point of view: a leper (and thus unclean), a Gentile, and a woman. They bring out something of the compassion and the wide sympathy of Jesus, as well as his power.
a. Cleansing a Leper, 8:1–4
1When he came down from the mountain, great crowds were following him. 2And look, a leper came to him and bowed low to him, saying, “Lord, if you are willing, you are able to make me clean.” 3And he stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I am willing. Be made clean.” And immediately his leprosy was made clean. 4And Jesus says to him, “See that you tell no one, but go show yourself to the priest and make the offering that Moses commanded for a testimony to them.”
There is an account of this miracle in all three Synoptists (cf. Mark 1:40–45; Luke 5:12–16), with an interesting mixture of resemblances and differences. Thus there is nothing corresponding to verse 1 in Mark or Luke, Mark differs in his word for “came,” and Luke has none. But the leper’s words are identical in all three (except that Mark omits Lord). Clearly the story was widely used, and the Synoptists have all told it in their own way. Schweizer points out that when Matthew follows Mark he condenses miracle stories by about 55 percent, controversy stories by about 20 percent, and stories showing Jesus is the Christ by about 10 percent (p. 210). Therefore we should not read too much into his omissions. He may omit not because he disagrees but because he consistently shortens Mark’s narratives. Green remarks that in the first three healings there is a common feature: “they are all persons excluded from full participation in Israel’s worship.”
1. After Jesus had come down from the mountain (evidently the mountain he went up in 5:1), great crowds kept following him. Matthew does not say why, but we are probably meant to see this as the continuance of the state of affairs he described previously (cf. 4:25). In due course he will come to the opposition Jesus faced and his rejection by the Jewish leaders and others, but at this point he is describing happenings in the time of Jesus’ great popularity. Matthew uses his “many crowds” expression (see on 4:25) to bring out the fact that Jesus had a large following at this time. Following may be used of adherence to Jesus, following him as a disciple, but in such a context as this it means no more than that the multitudes were accompanying him (see on 4:20).
2. For look see on 1:20; it is Matthew’s favorite way of introducing a note of vividness into his narrative. It does not point to strict chronology and specifically does not mean that the leper came to him just as he came down from the mountain (Luke says that the incident happened “in one of the cities,” Luke 5:12). Matthew’s arrangement is topical: he is bringing together a number of healing stories and not necessarily saying that they all happened after the Sermon or in the order in which he relates them. It is not known for certain what a leper meant.4 Nowadays “leprosy” denotes a specific ailment, Hansen’s disease, but in ancient times, when diagnostic facilities were considerably more limited than those we take for granted, “leprosy” meant not only Hansen’s disease but a number of other diseases as well (cf. GNB, “a dreaded skin-disease”). Some of them were curable, and thus a procedure was laid down so that when a cure took place the cured person would be inspected by a priest who certified the cure, after which the healed person was restored to the full life of the community. But leprosy as we know it was not curable, and the dreadful physical afflictions in the advanced state of the disease were such as to give the ancients horror at it all. Since no one knew how it could be cured and since its effects were so horrible, the only treatment was quarantine. Lepers were not allowed to live in towns or villages, but had to remain outside centers of habitation (Lev. 13:46). They were required to keep their distance from people, and if they happened to approach anyone they were required to call out “Unclean” (Lev. 13:45). Leprosy was not only a terrible disease, but it was defiling; anyone who had it was ceremonially unclean, cut off from the religious and social life of the community.
On this occasion a leper approached Jesus, which must have been a fairly unusual procedure. This man came respectfully and bowed low5 to him. It is uncertain what meaning we are to put into this action. Our problem is that it may be used of the worship of a deity or of a respectful approach to a man (KJV has “worshipped” and NRSV, “knelt”). If the man was recognizing Jesus as divine, then an act of worship is meant, whereas if his knowledge was more limited he is showing the respect due to a healer from whom he hoped to receive a cure. There is the same ambiguity about “Lord” (see on 7:21). He may mean this as a polite form of address to a man (“Sir”), or he may be using it as the right term for one who was more than a man; this ambiguity is often present, for Jesus is frequently addressed by this word in this Gospel by people who believe in him (e.g., v. 6; 15:22; 17:15; only once, however, is he explicitly called “the Lord,” 21:3). Matthew does not tell us how the man had come to hear of Jesus, but plainly he knew enough to be impressed with his abilities to heal. He clearly had no doubts about Jesus’ healing powers, but he was not so sure whether the Lord would want to heal a person like him. Who would be interested in helping a poor leper? He does not even make a request, but contents himself with the statement, “if you are willing,6 you are able to make me clean.” The request is implied both in the man’s condition and in his confidence in Jesus’ power to heal. He does not speak of being cured but of being cleansed, and this is normally the case. Leprosy was a terrible disease, but it was also a defiling disease. Those who had it were “unclean.” Being freed from leprosy was different from being freed from, say, paralysis. It was spoken of in terms of cleansing, not simply of cure.7
3. Jesus could simply have spoken the healing words, but we should not miss the compassion implied in that he stretched out his hand and touched him.8 Nobody would touch a leper, for such a touch brought uncleanness (and guilt! Lev. 5:3); people would also fear the possibility of contracting the disease. It must have been years since the man had experienced such contact with anyone who did not have the disease. Jesus’ answer is but two words in the Greek (identical in all three Synoptists), but those two words say all that is necessary. The first clears up the matter of Jesus’ will; it assures the leper of his willingness. The second removes the leprosy; it is a word of power, a command that the man be cleansed. The cure was instantaneous (immediately); the man was made clean.
4. Jesus moves on to the procedure that would be necessary to restore the healed man to a place in society. See9 is a verb used of ordinary sense perception with the eye, but it may also refer to taking care that something be done, “See to it that you —.” Tell no one is a firm prohibition of making the miracle known. This motif is found elsewhere (9:30; 12:16; 16:20; 17:9) and is, of course, well known in Mark. It is unlikely that this is a device the Evangelists have adopted to account for the fact that a greater number did not respond to Jesus during his ministry.10 It is much more probable that Jesus did not wish people to misunderstand what he was about and to regard him simply as a wonder-worker or the kind of person who would be expected to lead a revolt against the Romans in due course. He thus urged people to keep quiet about the wonderful things he had done for them. Instead of such talk (but11 is the strong adversative) the man must go; he should not gossip. The sense of urgency is brought out in some translations, “Don’t stop to talk to anyone” (LB); “Listen! Don’t tell anyone” (GNB). Mark tells us that in fact the healed man did not obey this injunction, but spread abroad the fact of his cure, with the result that Jesus could no longer show himself openly and his ministry was accordingly hindered. He is to show himself to the priest (Lev. 14:1–2); the article denotes the particular priest, the one who has the responsibility of certifying a cure.
The man is also to make the offering that Moses commanded (see Lev. 14:10, 21–22). The word for offering is used of gifts of various kinds, but here there can be no doubt that it is a sacrifice that is meant. This could be offered only in Jerusalem, so that the man had a journey before him. This may also be part of the reason Jesus urged him not to talk about what had happened but to go to the priest; there would be a strong temptation to put off the journey and perhaps never get around to it. Matthew is generally supposed to be the most Jewish of the Gospels, but it is interesting that he mentions Moses less than any of the other Evangelists (7 times; Mark has the name 8 times, Luke 10, and John 12). The sacrifice is to be offered for a testimony to them, but it is not clear to whom them refers. It might be the priests, or “the authorities,” or people in general. There is also some doubt about the significance of the testimony. It will certainly be a public demonstration of the reality of the cure (“to certify the cure,” REB). It will also demonstrate the power of Jesus to heal and thus be a witness to Jesus’ messiahship. Albright and Mann (and others) find here a proof “of Jesus’ allegiance to the Law” (AB). On any showing it means that the man would be known to be healed and would be able to resume his place in society without question.
b. The Centurion’s Servant, 8:5–13
5And when he came into Capernaum, a centurion approached him, beseeching him 6and saying, “Sir, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, suffering great pain.” 7And he says to him, “Shall I come and heal him?” 8And the centurion answered, saying: “Sir, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9For I, too, am a man under authority, having soldiers under me, and I say to this man, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” 10And when Jesus heard this, he was astonished, and he said to those who were following, “Truly I tell you, with no one have I found such faith even in Israel. 11But I tell you that many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12but the sons of the kingdom will be thrown out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be the wailing and the grinding of teeth.” 13And Jesus said to the centurion, “Go; as you have believed, so be it to you.” And his servant was healed at that hour.
The story of the healing of the slave of the centurion is given at greater length in Luke 7:1–10 (there are also some linguistic parallels in Mark and John,12 but they come from different stories). An important difference is that right at the beginning Matthew has the centurion meeting Jesus in person and urging Jesus not to come to his house, whereas in Luke he first sends the Jewish elders to make the request and later he sends friends to urge the Master not to come into his house. Some harmonize the two narratives by saying that the man first sent the elders and later went himself; others regard the two narratives as irreconcilable. But as I wrote in my commentary on Luke,
it is better to see Matthew as abbreviating the story and leaving out details inessential to his purpose. What a man does through agents he may be said to do himself. So Matthew simply gives the gist of the centurion’s communication to Jesus, whereas Luke in greater detail gives the actual sequence of events. Perhaps we can discern something of the differing purposes of the two Evangelists in their treatment of the messengers. Matthew was concerned primarily with the centurion’s faith and nationality; to him the messengers were irrelevant, even a distraction. But Luke was interested in the man’s character and specifically in his humility; to him the messengers were a vital part of the story.13
5. Matthew moves the story to Capernaum (see on 4:13), the place that Jesus made the center of his ministry. There Jesus had contact with a centurion (the word occurs 4 times in Matthew, 3 times in Luke, 13 times in Acts, and nowhere else in the New Testament; a synonym is found 3 times in Mark). As the name indicates, the centurion was originally the officer in charge of a hundred soldiers, but in course of time the number varied. From Josephus we learn that there were officers above the centurion, namely the chiliarch and the hegemon (like the colonel and the general?), and the decurion below him (like the NCO?).14 If we think of him as rather like our captain we will not be far out (Moffatt translates “army-captain”). F. D. Gealy says, “the centurions were the actual working officers, the backbone of the army. The discipline and efficiency of the legion as a fighting unit depended on them” (IDB, I, p. 548). This centurion would have been in the army of Herod Antipas; he may not have been a Roman, but he was certainly a Gentile (vv. 8, 10). Every centurion referred to in the New Testament appears to be a worthy man. This man came to Jesus beseeching him, which indicates a courteous approach. It may indicate more; Calvin remarks, “before Christ healed his servant, he himself had been healed by the Lord” (p. 247).
6. The centurion uses the polite address “Sir” (which in some contexts signifies “Lord”). The word I have translated servant means “boy,” and it may be used for a young male, a son, a servant, and in other ways. Luke speaks of a slave, and that is probably the way we should understand it here. Lying15 is more literally “thrown,” but the word is used of throwing on a sickbed (cf. Rev. 2:22). In this case the lad was paralyzed.16 Matthew uses two expressive terms to bring out the depths of the pain the boy was suffering.17 Like the leper, the centurion makes no request: he simply states the facts.
7. Matthew says nothing about the Jewish elders and their commendation of the centurion (which Luke sets straight after the words about how ill the boy was). He moves straight from the soldier’s request to Jesus’ agreement to heal the sufferer (which is implied whether the words are a question or a statement). Most translations take Jesus’ words as a statement, “I will come and heal him,” and this may be correct. Either way it is clear that Jesus was willing to enter the home of a Gentile (which is striking because the dwelling places of Gentiles were unclean, Ohol. 18:7, and thus to enter one would result in contracting uncleanness; cf. John 18:28; Acts 10:28). But if the words are taken as a statement, it is difficult to understand why Jesus uses the emphatic I (cf. JB, “I will come myself”). It is also difficult to understand why the centurion should have protested as he did in his reply. As McNeile puts it, if Jesus’ words “are a direct statement assenting to the request that He would come, the humble answer, with its profound faith, is called forth by no apparent cause.” Jesus probably puts the question as an act of courtesy. The centurion would know that Jews regarded Gentile dwellings as ceremonially unclean, and accordingly to ask a Jewish religious teacher to come into his home would put the teacher in a difficult position. If the teacher agreed, he would be open to harsh criticism from stricter Jews; if he did not, he could be accused of not caring about a sick person. Does the centurion want to place Jesus in this position? Jesus asks what he really has in mind.18 Or is he thinking of something else? It is perhaps worth noticing that the only time Jesus is recorded as actually going to a sick person is the case of the daughter of Jairus. On all other occasions the sick are brought to him. He is never recorded as having entered a Gentile dwelling.
8. The centurion answered,19 again using the polite form of address, then goes on humbly to disclaim worthiness to have Jesus enter his home. The word is used of sufficiency of various kinds, but here it is something like competency that is in mind; worthy gives us the sense of it. The centurion disclaims worthiness to have Jesus come under my roof;20 he was not great enough to have Jesus as his guest. Besides, what Jesus is suggesting he considers unnecessary; anyone in authority can issue orders knowing that what he says will be done even though he himself is not present at the scene of operations. But is the strong adversative;21 it introduces something very different from Jesus’ suggestion. All that is needed is for Jesus to say the word, where the expression is something like “speak with a word”—the word is the instrument “with” which the servant will be healed. The centurion uses a different word for healing than Jesus used,22 but there is probably no great difference in meaning. Until now there has been no example of Jesus healing at a distance, so the centurion’s faith was unusually strong.
9. The centurion shows that he is familiar with the concept of authority. His emphatic I places him over against Jesus: “Even I can secure action at a distance.” He does not emphasize his exalted status but speaks of himself as under (rather than “in”) authority (REB, “under orders”). All authority in the army was vested in the emperor, so that the centurion was subject to imperial authority. But when a centurion gave orders he was obeyed because he spoke with the authority of the emperor. This man’s reply shows that he had an unusual understanding that Jesus spoke with the authority of God.23 He would accordingly be obeyed. Though he speaks humbly, the officer shows that he is well aware of what authority means. He goes on to illustrate. He himself has soldiers who are subordinate to him, and he knows that when he gives a command it will be obeyed. He instances three commands that he gives: “Go,” “Come,” and “Do,”24 and in each case he says that the command is obeyed. There is probably no great significance in his moving from soldiers to his slave; in both cases the point is that the person receiving the order is a subordinate and the centurion knows that he will do what he is told.
10. Matthew records Jesus’ astonishment, a very human trait.25 Faith like this was not to be expected of a Gentile. Jesus did not reply to the centurion immediately, but spoke to the people who were following him (for following see on v. 1). Truly (see on 5:18) indicates that the saying that follows is important and should be heeded carefully. With no one comes first and is given some emphasis. Such26 may be used of quantity or quality; perhaps there is something of both in this passage. Faith is one of the great Christian concepts, but it is found only 8 times in Matthew. It points to trust in Jesus and, in a context like this, in his ability and readiness to give help in unexpected ways. Israel is here the nation. In all Israel Jesus had seen no faith like that of the centurion (the distance of in Israel from with no one in the Greek justifies the insertion of even; cf. RSV, “not even in Israel”). It is not without its interest that in the whole story nothing is said about whether the sufferer had faith or not; it is the faith of the centurion that is brought out.27
11. But28 contrasts Israel with the many who will come from a variety of places. We should not overlook Matthew’s interest in the place of the Gentiles. I tell you is another solemn introduction; what follows is important and is not to be overlooked. Many is not specific but makes it clear that Jesus is speaking of a large number of people. For east see on 2:1; there it signifies a specific point of the compass, but here in conjunction with west it points to the whole world (Luke adds “and from north and south,” which perhaps makes it a little clearer). The saved, in the end, will come29 from all over the earth, which clearly means that many Gentiles will be included. It may be significant that the words here used of Gentiles are similar to Old Testament passages referring to Jews (e.g., Ps. 107:3; Isa. 43:5–6; 49:12). Not only will they be included in the number of the saved, but they will enter into bliss, here typified by “reclining”30 with the patriarchs in God’s kingdom. One way first-century Jews had of referring to the coming bliss was to speak of the messianic banquet, an occasion of festivity in the world to come. To recline with the patriarchs was to feast in leisurely manner in the very best company. The patriarchs would undoubtedly be the recipients of God’s blessing in the coming world; therefore, to be associated with them was to share the blessing. This is what Jesus speaks of here, as his mention of leisure with the patriarchs and the reference to the kingdom of heaven (see on 3:2) clearly show.
12. But that is not the whole story. Another adversative but brings us to the sons of the kingdom (cf. 13:38). In this unusual expression son denotes “one who shares in this thing or who is worthy of it, or who stands in some other close relation to it” (BAGD, 1.c.δ). Jesus is speaking of Jews who, because of the nation’s relationship to God, would be expected to feature in the kingdom but whose lack of faith means that they forfeit their place. They will be thrown out, where the verb may have the notion of some force; at any rate the sons will not be able to resist the expulsion. Jesus does not say from whence they will be thrown out, but clearly the kingdom is in mind. Their destination is not left in doubt. They will go into the outer darkness (an expression found only in Matthew), where outer points to the darkness farthest out, farthest removed from the joy and light of the kingdom,31 and darkness contrasts with the light of the kingdom. In that place there will be misery, which is described as the wailing and the grinding of teeth, a proverbial expression for pain and distress. Matthew uses it a number of times (13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30), but elsewhere in the New Testament it occurs only in Luke 13:28. Wailing signifies not only grief but grief loudly expressed, while the definite article “indicates the unique and extreme character of the action” (BAGD); it is not any old wailing that is meant, but the wailing that is associated with final rejection. It will be accompanied by the grinding of teeth, another proverbial expression for distress and mostly used in the New Testament, as here, for grief (or possibly anger or vexation) at the final rejection. Some of those who might be expected to respond to Jesus with faith and commitment will not do so, and their failure is shown up by the centurion’s faith. The Master leaves his hearers in no doubt that this is a failure with dire and permanent consequences.32
13. From the crowds (v. 10) Jesus turns to the centurion. He invites him to return home and gives him the assurance that the boy will be healed. This is linked with the man’s faith (as you have believed), for trust in Christ is always of the utmost importance. Here the gift is expressly related to the faith: as you have believed so be it. This probably does not mean that the gift is in proportion to the faith; Jesus does not work that way. We should see rather a causative meaning, “Because you have believed—” (cf. Moffatt, “as you have had faith, your prayer is granted”). The result was that the servant was healed33 immediately (at that hour), where hour does not mean the spread of time over one twelfth of the day, but something like “moment”; Matthew is describing a cure that took place as Jesus spoke the word.
c. Healing Peter’s Mother-in-Law and Others, 8:14–17
14And when Jesus came into Peter’s house, he saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever. 15And he touched her hand, and the fever left her; and she got up and waited on him.
16Now when evening came, they brought to him many who were possessed by demons; and he cast the spirits out with a word, and healed all who were ill, 17in order that what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet was fulfilled, saying,
“He himself took our sicknesses
and carried our diseases.”
All three Synoptists tell of the miraculous healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (Mark 1:29–31; Luke 4:38–39), and characteristically Matthew’s account is the shortest; he has 30 words, Mark has 44, and Luke 38. Almost everything in his account is found in one of the others.
14. Matthew does not say why Jesus went to Peter’s34 home, simply that he did (the other two accounts call the disciple “Simon” and say that the group came from the synagogue). Mark states that they told Jesus about the sick lady and Luke that they asked him about her, but Matthew concentrates on what happened: he goes straight to the fact that Jesus saw her and healed her. This is the only time Matthew tells of Jesus healing without some form of request; elsewhere people approach him. Lying sick is more literally “thrown” (as in v. 6; KJV renders this with “laid,” and REB with “in bed”), to which Matthew adds that she had a fever (Luke says it was “a great fever”).
15. Matthew informs us that Jesus touched her hand35 (Mark indicates that he “took” her hand, and Luke that Jesus “rebuked” the fever); touching was often for the purpose of healing (cf. Jesus’ touching of the leper, v. 3). The result was that the fever left her; she was cured immediately. Matthew brings out the completeness of the cure and tells us something significant about the lady when he says, she got up and waited on him. Not only was she cured of the fever but she was restored to full strength. And clearly this lady was no malingerer. She did not stay in bed but got up and immediately became busy serving Jesus in some way.36 The other Evangelists say that she served “them,” but Matthew concentrates on what she did for Jesus.
16. The healing of many sick people in the evening is recounted in all three Synoptists, though with not inconsiderable differences.37 Evening may mean the time just before sunset or just after (the context is often decisive). On this occasion we are helped by Mark’s information that they had been to the synagogue; in other words, it was the Sabbath. People would wait until the sun went down and the Sabbath ended before they took up the work of carrying sick folk to Jesus. Matthew does not say who his they were; the indefinite plural refers to people in general. Interestingly, he speaks only of demoniacs as being brought, though he refers also to the ill as being cured. Many physical ailments were attributed to demons (see on 7:22), but not all; Matthew differentiates the ill from the demoniacs. But it was an important part of Jesus’ ministry to cast out demons. Here people are said to be possessed by demons, but it is the spirits that are cast out. When it refers to demons, this term is usually qualified by “unclean” or “evil” or by some such word as “dumb”; the general term here means that whatever the alien spirits were, they were expelled. Jesus cast them out with a word, a contrast to the techniques characteristic of contemporary exorcists, but characteristic of Jesus (cf. v. 8) and indicative of his supreme power. In addition to dealing with the demons, he healed all who were ill. For Matthew’s interest in healing see on 4:23. All is comprehensive; there was no illness that was beyond Jesus’ power. For the expression “had [it] badly” to denote illness see on 4:24; it is a general term covering illness of any sort. Matthew is interested in the fact that Jesus brought healing and not in the precise ailments the patients had.
17. In order that38 indicates purpose; Matthew saw a divine purpose in what Jesus did, a purpose that was foretold in the prophets. Accordingly Matthew appeals to the fulfilment of prophecy again and again (see on 1:22). On this occasion he specifies that the prophecy is in Isaiah, and he proceeds to quote it (Isa. 53:4). If he is quoting from LXX, the quotation is very free;39 more probably he is using an independent translation from the Hebrew.40 He himself has some emphasis (so Turner, M, III, p. 40). Isaiah 53 is generally understood as setting forth in prophetic form some of the great truths of the atonement for sin brought about by the death of Jesus; it is unusual to see it applied to illness rather than to moral evil. Clearly Matthew saw in the passage scriptural warrant for Jesus’ healing ministry. For him it was plain that Jesus’ healing came from God, so it was natural to find it prophesied in the Scripture that also came from God. There may be the thought that Jesus in some way took on himself the ailments he cured; healing is at cost. There is certainly the thought that the final answer to sickness is in the cross. As Gundry puts it, “The healings anticipate the passion in that they begin to roll back the effects of the sins for which Jesus came to die.”41 We cannot say that all our sicknesses are due to personal sin, but we can say that sickness was not part of the original creation42 and that it will have no place in the final state of affairs. God not only “forgives all your iniquity” but also “heals all your diseases” (Ps. 103:3).43 In the final salvation there is “no more pain” (Rev. 21:4). Took and carried44 are unusual expressions to use of illness; they indicate the complete removal of the sicknesses in question.
2. The Cost of Discipleship, 8:18–22
18Now when Jesus saw a crowd around him, he gave orders to go off to the other side. 19And a scribe came and said to him, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.” 20And Jesus says to him, “The foxes have holes and the birds of the air roosts, but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head.” 21And another of the disciples said to him, “Lord, allow me first to go off and bury my father.” 22But Jesus says to him, “Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.”
Matthew shares this incident with Luke 9:57–62, but while Matthew is slightly longer in the matter they share, Luke adds a sentence telling about a man who wanted to bid farewell to his family. The paragraph brings out the necessity of wholeheartedness in following Jesus. There were people who were well disposed to him and apparently recognized that his teaching was outstanding, but who were not prepared to make the sacrifices necessary to be real disciples. Matthew leaves his readers in no doubt that Jesus demanded wholehearted loyalty. Some commentators take it that neither of these two men in the end followed Jesus,45 some that both did, and some that Matthew is giving us an example of one who responded and one who did not. We should be clear that all these are guesses. Matthew is concerned to make clear what Jesus looks for in a disciple; he is saying nothing at all about the ultimate attitude of either of these two.
18. Presumably the healings brought crowds about Jesus. Matthew does not say why the people came, but simply that there was a crowd there. Jesus may well have wanted some peace and quietness, and therefore instructed his immediate followers to cross the lake. Nothing is said about how they were to make the journey; the writer apparently assumes that a boat was available, but he says nothing about it. We do not know whose it was or how it came to be put to Jesus’ use. Matthew says nothing at all about the reason for the crossing, and it is possible to understand the passage not of a literal crossing of the lake, but in the sense that Jesus is inviting would-be disciples to leave their present places and follow him to the other side (as Patte thinks); discipleship means forsaking present securities and adventuring into the unknown. But it is better to think of a real boat and a real voyage (cf. v. 23), with the other side signifying the far shore of the lake.
19. Since we read a little later of Jesus embarking, it seems that the people now mentioned approached Jesus before he got away. For scribe46 see on 5:20; this man was obviously well versed in the law and was thus interested in the service of God, but NEB’s “doctor of the law” seems to be an exaggeration. Most scribes seem to have been opposed to Jesus, but this one clearly thought highly of him. Matthew may mean us to see this man as in some sense a disciple of Jesus: he does not call him one of “their scribes” (cf. 7:29), and “another of the disciples” (v. 21) may be meant to point back to this man and include him in the number. At any rate the scribe made the approach and addressed Jesus as Teacher, a courteous form of address, more or less equivalent to “Rabbi”; it is used by the rich young ruler who, of course, is not said to have followed Jesus (19:16). But in this Gospel it is never used by disciples; it is the form of address used by people who are not well disposed to Jesus, such as Pharisees (e.g., 12:38; 22:16, 24, 36), tax collectors (17:24), Herodians (22:16), and Sadducees (22:24). There does not appear to be any occasion when it is used by a committed follower of Jesus (such people call him “Lord”; see on v. 25). Follow may be used simply of coming along behind, but here it has the fuller meaning, “follow as a disciple.” Wherever you go indicates a readiness to be with Jesus through thick and thin.47 There is nothing wrong with this profession, but it appears that this scribe had not given sufficient thought to what following Jesus meant. It is possible that he thought of Jesus simply as a teacher and felt that being with him would bring security, the security of being constantly in touch with a reliable teacher.
20. Jesus’ reply reflects his poverty and complete freedom from earthly ties. But the emphasis falls on his lack of what most people would think of as basic, a home. He did not have even the human equivalent of what foxes and birds possessed. A foxhole is not exactly luxury, but the fox who has it has somewhere to sleep at night. Jesus had no such place. Jesus taught that the birds have no need to worry about food—they are cared for by the heavenly Father (6:26). Now he says that they have their places of residence.48 Creatures of the land and the air have their dwelling places, and in that the Son of man forms a contrast. He has nowhere to lay his head. “Laying the head” here stands for owning a place where one may rest; Jesus cannot claim a place of his own where he can sleep.49 As Schweizer puts it, he was “devoid of all middle-class security.” If the scribe wished to follow him, he must bear this in mind. Jesus sat loose to possessions, he had no secure job, and he owned very little. To be the disciple of such a man might well be interesting, but it would be far from comfortable. The scribe’s reaction is not given, but certainly the cost of discipleship is brought clearly before him. It is perhaps worth noticing that John uses the verb for lay50 when he is speaking of Jesus bowing his head on the cross (John 19:30); there the Master found the resting place that he did not have throughout his ministry.
This is the first use of the Son of man51 in this Gospel. It is a literal translation of an Aramaic expression commonly used with the meaning “man.” It is used over 80 times in the New Testament and, with the exception of Luke 24:7 and John 12:34 (both quoting Jesus) and Acts 7:56, it is always on the lips of Jesus. It was his favorite way of referring to himself. The expression has caused endless comment. Matthew uses it 6 or 7 times to refer to Jesus’ earthly mission (8:20; 9:6; 11:19; 12:8; 13:37; 16:13; 18:11 [if this verse is authentic]), 10 times for his rejection and suffering (12:40; 17:9, 12, 22; 20:18, 28; 26:2, 24 [twice], 45), and 14 times for his future glory (10:23; 12:32; 13:41; 16:27, 28; 19:28; 24:27, 30 [twice], 37, 39, 44; 25:31; 26:64). Such a threefold division is to be discerned in the use of the term outside this Gospel as well. The expression was not an accepted messianic designation, which makes Jesus’ extensive use of it rather puzzling. There is lowliness about it because the unthinking could see in it no more than the meaning “a man.” But there is also greatness, for it is not unlikely that it is derived from the reference to the heavenly being described as “one like a son of man” in Daniel 7:13–14. This points to someone especially close to God and thus has messianic significance. But this does not answer our question, Why did Jesus use the term? I have suggested elsewhere that that was “firstly because it was a rare term and one without nationalistic associations. It would lead to no political complications. … Secondly, because it had overtones of divinity. … Thirdly, because of its societary implications. The Son of man implies the redeemed people of God. Fourthly, because it had undertones of humanity. He took upon Him our weakness.”52
21. Another53 would-be disciple is introduced. Indeed, this man is called one of the disciples54 so clearly that it appears that he had made some form of commitment, though the passage assumes that he was not a disciple in the sense in which the Twelve were. We should bear in mind that “disciple” may be used of people with varying degrees of attachment to Jesus. This man addressed Jesus respectfully as “Lord” (or perhaps he meant it in the sense “Sir”). He apparently realized that being a disciple of Jesus meant severing home ties, and he professed himself ready to do this. But before doing so, he made the stipulation that he wanted to go off and55 bury his father.
He may mean that his father was dead and that he wanted to discharge his family obligations before leaving all for Jesus’ sake. The Jews regarded the burial of one’s father as especially important (see Gen. 50:5–14; Tob. 4:3; 6:14), and, for example, even a priest, who was normally required to avoid defilement by contact with the dead, was exempted from this requirement on the death of his father (and other close relatives, Lev. 21:1–2). It was accepted that, faced with a burial, a man was exempted from a whole string of important religious duties: the saying of the daily prayers, the study of the law, the temple service, the observance of cirumcision, the killing of the Passover sacrifice, and the reading of the Megilla (Ber. 3:1; Meg. 3b). Burial was normally carried out the day the person died (Acts 5:6, 10), but mourning customs followed throughout the subsequent week.56 Paying proper attention to the last sad rites was considered of prime importance. If the man’s father was in fact dead, it is highly probable that the son would be caught up in all this. The death of the father meant that the son’s presence at home had a high priority. He would be busy with funeral arrangements and not speaking to Jesus about discipleship.
So it is much more likely that the man’s parent was still alive and that he was referring to the obligation that rested on a dutiful son to look after his father in his declining years until his eventual death.57 He was saying that he must fulfil his duty to his father, a most important duty. In that case he was postponing his discipleship, perhaps for several years. He was saying in effect, “Some day, after my father has died, I will follow you.” There is no way of being absolutely sure which is the right way to take the words, but it is clear that the man was insisting on a delay before he took his place with Jesus.
22. But is adversative: far from the course the man suggested, he should follow Jesus immediately. “Follow me” is a firm imperative. If the present tense is to be pressed, it means “keep following me,” that is, do not let even family obligations stand in the way. It is not easy to understand how the dead are to bury other dead people if we take the expression in the usual way, of the physically dead. But the expression may mean those who are soon to die (as in 9:24 Jesus says that Jairus’s daughter lives when she is about to leave the realm of the dead). The meaning then is that those who are preoccupied with the issues of death are the ones to concern themselves with burials. Or we could understand the words figuratively, of those who have not attained the new life of the kingdom: “Let the spiritually dead bury their physically dead ones.” Burying the physically dead is a suitable pursuit for the spiritually dead (for the use of “dead” in such a way cf. Luke 15:24, 32; Eph. 2:1). What Jesus is saying in this striking expression is “The claims of the kingdom are absolute and immediate” (Nixon).58
3. Three Wonders, 8:23–9:8
For the second time in this section of his Gospel Matthew brings three miracles before his readers. He is emphasizing the authority and the power that were manifest throughout Jesus’ ministry.
a. Calming a Storm, 8:23–27
23And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him. 24And look, a great storm arose in the sea, so that the boat was covered by the waves; but he stayed asleep. 25And they came to him and woke him up, saying, “Lord, save us, we are perishing!” 26And he says to them, “Why are you frightened, you men of little faith?” Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm. 27And the men were astonished and said, “What kind of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?”
Mark and Luke both share this story with Matthew (Mark 4:35–41; Luke 8:22–25), and as usual Matthew has the shortest account. He has only twenty-one of his seventy-three words in common with Mark and twenty-three with Luke, so the resemblances are not close. And despite the common matter there are not inconsiderable differences on important points. For example, the other two have no equivalent of Matthew’s “Why are you frightened, you men of little faith?” while they have the boat filling where Matthew has it covered with the waves. There are thus formidable differences as well as agreement on the main happening. The other two have the story in teaching contexts, but Matthew uses it as part of the way in which he brings out the power and the authority of Jesus.59 In his famous treatment of the story G. Bornkamm stresses its importance for an understanding of Matthew’s view of discipleship: “the story becomes a kerygmatic paradigm of the danger and glory of discipleship.”60 He points to the sayings about would-be disciples that precede this miracle (vv. 19–22), to the verb “followed” (v. 23), and to Jesus’ “accusing remark” that precedes the miracle (v. 26). And “As the need of the disciples on the sea becomes a symbol of the distresses involved in discipleship of Jesus as a whole, so also in the same connexion the great peace which his word evokes takes on the meaning of the Johannine saying… (John 16:33).”61
23. Matthew has told us that Jesus had given a command to go to the other side (v. 18); now he tells us that Jesus embarked and that the disciples followed him. Disciples here refers to the Twelve, not to all those who followed Jesus, and the possessive his is the early use, differentiating the disciples of Jesus from those of other teachers. Notice that Matthew refers not to “a” boat, but to the boat.62 It seems that he had a definite boat in mind, but we have no way of knowing what that signified. On the entering into the boat Hill comments, “the disciples ‘follow’ Jesus: the story of the storm is concerned with discipleship.”
24. And look is Matthew’s characteristic way of making it all vivid (see on 1:20). Matthew’s word for storm is unusual;63 it more commonly refers to an earthquake or the like (the addition in the sea makes it clear that a storm is meant). It is a vivid word and, reinforced with great, brings out the magnitude of the turbulence. Luke calls this sheet of water a “lake,” but Matthew always refers to it as a sea. It is about 700 feet below sea level, and the winds sweep down through the steep ravines that run into it to whip up tumultuous and sudden storms. On this occasion the storm was such that the boat was covered by the waves, the only place in the New Testament where a boat is said to be covered by waves (cf. REB, the waves “were breaking right over the boat”; Filson has “submerged by the waves,” and LB “with waves higher than the boat”). The meaning is that when the boat was in the trough between the waves, those waves towered over it, completely concealing it from view. But64 has adversative force and introduces what is contrary to what might have been expected. And it is certainly surprising that in a storm of the magnitude of that described by Matthew anyone could stay asleep. But Jesus had had a very heavy day with healing and teaching, and dealing with potential disciples. Wearied as he was with all his labor, he fell asleep and remained asleep despite the magnitude of the storm.
25. So they came to him (Mark tells us that he was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion) and woke him. Matthew has a terse, three-word expression, “Lord, save, we-perish.” Matthew alone has the disciples address Jesus as “Lord” here (the disciples characteristically address Jesus as “Lord” in this Gospel, as in 14:28; 16:22; 17:4; 18:21, as do those who are coming to believe in him, 8:2, 6, 8; 9:28, etc.). And he alone has the word save. The lack of any mention of what they want to be saved from injects a note of urgency into their plea. The verb perish (in Matthew 19 times) is used of disasters of various kinds, which may explain the variety in translations (e.g., REB, “we are sinking”; JB, “we are going down”; GNB, “we are about to die”; Moffatt is precise with “we are drowning!”). The present tense states the process as already in progress; it is a cry of anguish.65
26. In Mark and Luke Jesus stills the storm immediately, but Matthew concerns himself first with the words Jesus addressed to the stricken disciples: “Why are you frightened?” His word66 is often used in the sense of “cowardly” or “timid” (REB has “Why are you such cowards?”); it indicates more than a slight nervousness. Some of these people were fishermen, well versed in the storms on the sea of Galilee, and the fact that they were so afraid indicates the magnitude of the tempest. It is also significant that, when the skill of the sailors was unavailing, they called on one whose training had been in the carpenter’s shop; clearly he had impressed them so greatly that it was natural to turn to him in a crisis. Jesus goes on to characterize them as men of little faith (for this expression see on 6:30; this is the second of Matthew’s uses of the term with respect to the disciples).67 Jesus signifies that, while the storm was no doubt a great one, they might well have trusted more.68 This may mean either that they should have trusted God or that they should have trusted him. Having dealt with the troubled disciples, Jesus turned to the boisterous winds and the troubled sea and rebuked69 them (for addressing the waves of the sea cf. Job 38:11). This is a somewhat surprising verb and perhaps indicates that Jesus saw an evil force in the tempest that put him and his disciples in peril. He deals with that force as sovereign over it. The result of the rebuke was a great calm (“it became perfectly calm,” NASB). Matthew does not describe a gradual diminution of the force of the winds and the waves, but a sudden cessation of all the storm’s activity, so that everything was peaceful. We are not to think that the storm had blown itself out, but that Jesus had power over the elements and replaced tempest with calm.
27. The men doubtless means the men in the boat at that time. But since this is not the way disciples are generally described, many interpreters have suggested that Matthew’s use of the general term means that others than the disciples were in due course impressed. This, of course, did happen, but here Matthew is more probably using the expression “as a foil to the divine figure of Jesus” (Gundry); the men stand over against the one whom the winds and the sea obey. Matthew certainly contrasts the majesty of Jesus with the powerlessness of his followers. Those in the boat were in no doubt that a mighty miracle had taken place. Some of them, as we have noted, were familiar with the sea of Galilee and its moods, and they knew that this was not the way this stretch of water behaved. They were astonished (for the verb see on v. 10), and they expressed their astonishment by asking What kind of man Jesus was that70 even71 the elements are subject to him.72
b. The Gadarene Demoniacs, 8:28–34
28And when he came to the other side, to the country of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men met him, coming out of the tombs; exceedingly violent, so that no one was able to pass by along that road. 29And look, they cried out, saying, “What have we to do with you, you Son of God? Did you come here to torment us before the time?” 30Now there was at a distance from them a herd of many pigs feeding. 31And the demons besought him, saying, “If you cast us out, send us into the herd of pigs.” 32And he said to them, “Go.” And they came out and went into the pigs; and look, the whole herd rushed down the steep slope into the sea and died in the waters. 33And the swineherds fled, and when they came into the town they told everything, and what had happened to the demon-possessed men. 34And look, the whole town went out to meet Jesus; and when they saw him, they begged him to leave their region.
This is another story in the triple tradition, and again Matthew has the shortest account and Mark the fullest.73 The principal difference between Matthew and the others is that he speaks of two demoniacs and they of one. For modern students there is a problem in the demons entering the pigs, and in the end we must remain content with an element of mystery. But since this feature is in all three accounts, we cannot lightly dismiss it. We should notice that demon possession is rare if it occurs at all in the Old Testament, and there are very few examples after the Gospels. In the Bible demon possession is part of the upsurge of evil opposing Jesus in the time of his incarnation.
28. For the other side see on verse 18. Matthew explains that this was the country of the Gadarenes.74 There is a problem in that Gadara was about six miles away from the lake and separated from it by the deep gorge of the Yarmuk. But Gerasa was about 40 miles away, so it is unlikely. The third reading, Gergesa, appears to have arisen because Origen suggested it (he does not cite earlier manuscripts for this reading). He argued that the other two readings arose only because Gergesa was a little town, not known to the scribes, who accordingly substituted the names of towns they knew in the region. There is some evidence that Gadara had territory on the shore of the lake,75 and our best understanding is that Matthew is right in referring to Gadara and that the territory ruled from this city extended to the lake. We lack information about the precise boundaries of the territories claimed by any of the cities in the region, but there is nothing improbable in the suggestion that the sovereignty of Gadara reached the lake and that there was a settlement there with a name that could be corrupted into “Gergesa” and perhaps “Gerasa” (cf. the modern Khersa), so that all three names entered the tradition. We should notice that Matthew does not say that they went to Gadara or Gerasa or Gergesa, but to “the country” of whatever city is to be read (the “town” of v. 34 may refer to a settlement established in the territory of the main city). It was a predominantly Gentile region, as is shown by the reference to the herd of pigs, which would not be found in a Jewish area.
The landing party encountered two demoniacs. This presents us with a problem, in that Mark and Luke speak of only one. It may be that one was more prominent than the other and that Mark and Luke concentrate on this man. A less probable solution is that Matthew is including the demoniac in Mark 1:23–28; he has a much shorter account than Mark, and the suggestion is that he has rolled two exorcism stories into one. But in the end we must confess that we really do not know the reason for the difference. Matthew says that the two were coming out of the tombs. They would not have been literally in the tombs; the reference may be to “the little ante-chambers in front of the ‘rooms’ in which bodies were laid” (Hill). Alternatively, it is possible that some tombs had been abandoned (so Lenski). Matthew tells us that they were exceedingly violent.76 Thus the form their demon possession took made them a menace to society. The result77 was that no one was able78 to pass by. The fierceness of their attacks made it impossible for people to make ordinary use of that79 road (which need not mean a well-made road; a place where pedestrians could walk is all that the word necessarily denotes).
29. Matthew’s typical and look carries the narrative along at a lively pace. The demoniacs cried out; the word may be used of unintelligible screaming (cf. GNB, “At once they screamed”), but here they scream out meaningful words. “What have we to do with you?” translates an expression Matthew uses only here.80 Literally it means “What to us and you?” and indicates that the speakers see no common ground between themselves and Jesus. The demoniacs have an understanding of the nature of Jesus not very common at the time, for they address him as Son of God, though, of course, we have no way of knowing what content they put into the expression. It was not used very often by the Jews as a messianic designation, but in the world of the day the title was common in myths and the like and sometimes was even used of great men. It was an exalted title, and at the very least it shows that the demoniacs sensed that Jesus belonged with God in a way that others do not and that because of that relation he might be expected to do things that ordinary people could not do. This raises the question of the meaning of here. Did they mean “here to this earth” or “here to this Gentile land”? Their recognition of Jesus as Son of God makes the former somewhat more likely. They go on immediately to refer to torment before the time; clearly they think that Jesus may well have come to torment81 them. As demons they must expect torment in hell as their ultimate fate, but not torment here and not torment now, before the time.82 This last word may be used in a variety of ways, but there is little doubt that here it signifies the end time, the time of judgment with its punishment of wickedness (NIV, “the appointed time”), when the devil and his helpers will be cast into hell (25:41). The demons recognized that their ultimate fate would be unpleasant, but they did not want it to come any more quickly than was necessary.
30. Matthew pauses to set the scene.83 He speaks of some pigs some distance84 from them all. There is no indication of how far off they were, but clearly they were not close. Matthew tells us that there were many pigs in the herd;85 we are to think of no small number. Feeding indicates a normal, peaceful occupation. There was nothing to indicate imminent trouble from the animals.
31. Matthew pictures the demons,86 not the men, as speaking, though presumably they spoke through the men’s lips. There is a note of urgency, but also of respect, as they make their request to Jesus (they besought him). Their if you cast us out leaves little doubt that they thought Jesus would do this.87 They request that in that eventuality Jesus would send them into the pigs. There is no indication in the narrative as to what that meant for either the demons or the pigs, or as to why the demons should make such a request. But we may reflect that unclean animals would be suitable dwellings for unclean spirits.
32. Jesus told them to leave the men. Go (“Begone!” NASB, NEB) orders them out (though we should probably take this as an imperative of permission); it may be held to imply consent for the demons to do as they had requested, though Jesus says nothing about the pigs. His basic concern was for the well-being of the men. Matthew tells us that the demons came out, then that they went into the pigs. Again he uses his vivid and look, which leads to the information that the whole herd bolted. What this meant is difficult to ascertain in an age like ours that does not believe in widespread demon possession. Moreover, this is the one occasion on which demons are said to enter beings other than people. All that we can say is that the entry of the demons into the pigs was followed by a rush down the steep slope88 into the sea, where the animals all perished (Mark and Luke say that they “choked,” but Matthew says no more than that they died). We can at least say that this visual demonstration of the exit of the demons must have been of great value to the formerly “possessed.”89
33. Attention moves to the swineherds who had been looking after the animals. What had happened not unnaturally scared them, and they took refuge in flight. The town means the town that was nearby; town does not necessarily indicate a bustling metropolis, for the term could be used of any reasonably sized aggregation of people (Greek does not seem to have a word for a medium-sized town; every place is either a village or a city). The town would have been the place where the pigs’ owners were and, being the center of population, would be the place to which the herdsmen would naturally go. There they told their exciting story, and told it completely (everything). We need not doubt that they told it all in such a manner that they were exonerated from all blame for the loss of the pigs they were minding; they would have insisted that it was all Jesus’ fault. An interesting little problem centers on and. This word can mean something like “namely,” in which case they described “everything, namely what happened to the demon-possessed men.” But it is incredible that they omitted the fate of the pigs, and, if we take and to mean an addition, the meaning is that their big story was the loss of the pigs, after which they added the healing of the men.
34. For the third time in this story and the fifth time in this chapter Matthew has his vivid And look. It is a good story, and he does not let his readers miss its dramatic force. The whole town was impressed with the story, and all the people came out to meet Jesus. It might have been expected that they would want to welcome the man who had power over the demons and who had brought such spectacular and unexpected deliverance to the demon possessed in their own area. But this was not the case. They were evidently more concerned with their economic loss. Mark and Luke say that the people came out and saw the healed demoniac, but Matthew omits this. Since he is concerned with Jesus, he speaks only of their meeting with him. They begged him; the verb has a note of respect, but also of imploring; they left no doubt as to what they urgently wanted. The verb is the same as that used by the demons in verse 31 (are we to see this request as having something demonic about it?). They asked him to90 leave their region. Matthew gives no reason for this, nor does Mark; Luke says that they were very much afraid. This may have been fear of further economic loss, or fear of such an authoritative figure.
The story leaves us with some unanswered questions. We do not know what demon possession really is, though the New Testament examples make it plain that it is hostile to people’s best interests; it seems always to involve suffering of some sort. Nor can we know what it means for demons to enter animals, or why, when they do, the animals should behave in the way this story says they did. A difficulty of another kind is why Jesus should have permitted the destruction of the herd of pigs. “Permitted” is the word; there is nothing in the narrative to indicate that Jesus deliberately set out to destroy the animals. Matthew does not say that Jesus told the demons to enter the pigs, nor that he sent the pigs into the lake. But at least we can say that this brought to light the real values of the local people: they valued their pigs more than the healing of the demoniacs. Their request that Jesus leave them makes it plain that they preferred to live on a lower level than the one he was opening up before them. Further, they ignored the benefit conferred on their neighborhood in that two men who had terrorized the district (v. 28) were now normal citizens. How did that compare with the loss of their pigs? And the wonderful thing is the way the compassion of Jesus for those poor, tormented men shines through. Nobody else in their day did anything for them, but Jesus liberated them from their dreadful bondage.91
Matthew 9
c. Healing a Paralytic, 9:1–8
1And getting into a boat, he crossed over and came to his own city. 2And look, they brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take courage, my child, your sins are forgiven.” 3And look, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.” 4And Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why are you thinking evil things in your hearts? 5For which is easier: to say ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say ‘Get up and walk’? 6But so that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—then he says to the paralytic, “Get up, take up your bed, and go home.” 7And he got up and went off to his home. 8And when the crowds saw this, they were awe-struck, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.
This is another story that is found in both Mark and Luke, and characteristically Matthew’s account is the shortest. He has 126 words, whereas Mark has 196 and Luke 212. His most significant omission is the lowering of the sick man through the roof, which makes such an impressive feature of the other accounts. This healing shows once more the importance of faith. On this occasion, however, Jesus declares the forgiveness of the sins of the patient before the healing. This provokes opposition, and the Master demonstrates his authority to declare sins forgiven by healing the patient. Matthew’s abbreviation of the story enables him to put greater emphasis on forgiveness.1 That for him is the important thing. Until now Matthew has said little about opposition to Jesus, but there is opposition to him in all the incidents related in this chapter.
1. This incident apparently follows on the healing of the Gadarene demoniacs. Thus Jesus got back into the boat2 for the return voyage. Matthew simply says that he crossed over without telling what it was that he crossed (cf. 14:34). But the context makes it clear that it is the sea of Galilee that is in mind. Jesus came to his own city,3 which is not specifically named, but which is clearly Capernaum (cf. 4:13). That it was this city rather than Nazareth (where he had lived for so long) that is called his own indicates that he now lived in the lakeside city and not simply that he paid it an occasional visit. It was the center for his ministry.
2. For And look see on 1:20; it is Matthew’s favorite way of introducing a vivid touch. He does not say where in the city the incident took place, but from the other Evangelists we learn that it was in a house. Nor does Matthew say who were bringing4 the man, but only that the action was performed. The patient was a paralytic,5 which explains why he was being carried. He was lying,6 on a bed, where bed will mean a portable bed, a “mat” (NIV). None of the Evangelists indicates that either the bearers or the patient asked for healing. Not a word from them is recorded; the plight of the man and what they looked for from Jesus were obvious enough without words. Jesus saw7 their faith, though Matthew does not say how he saw it. Mark and Luke, with their fuller narratives, tell us that the bearers made a hole in the roof and lowered the man in front of Jesus, a striking demonstration of their deep conviction that Jesus could and would heal their friend. For faith see on 8:10; there as here it is concerned with trust in Jesus as a helper of those in physical need. We would naturally take their to refer to the faith of the bearers, but we cannot say that the faith was confined to these friends; it was clearly shared by the paralytic himself. Jesus spoke to him rather than to those who had brought him (though it was their faith that he had perceived). He began with encouragement: “Take courage”8 (“Take heart,” NRSV; Matthew alone has this word of encouragement), and addressed the man as “my child,”9 a warm and friendly form of address that must have encouraged a man in dire need. Then Jesus said, “your sins are forgiven,” words that must have astounded everybody. It is interesting that Jesus begins by ignoring the man’s physical need and grants him forgiveness. The tense points to a gift now:10 Jesus is not pointing to a future time when the forgiveness would take place. Sins is a comprehensive term, including all the man’s departures from the way of righteousness. Now the man has nothing to fear—all his sins are gone. In the early part of this Gospel we were told that Jesus would save his people from their sins (1:21), but this is the first occasion when we read of his giving anyone forgiveness. Indeed, it is the only occasion in this Gospel when Jesus forgives a specific individual.
3. Again the vivid And look introduces something new. What Jesus said set some of the scribes (for this word see on 5:20) thinking. They were the experts in the law, and the law was ecclesiastical as well as civil. If there was to be any question of forgiveness they were the ones to decide it, or so they would have thought. They were disturbed by Jesus’ words, but they did not speak out against him: they spoke to themselves. Matthew is talking about what went on inside them, their inward reflection on a most unusual saying. We should probably discern a note of contempt in This man (NASB reads “this fellow”), and the most serious accusation possible is expressed in the verb is blaspheming.11 There was a good deal of discussion among the Jews as to precisely what constituted blasphemy, but it was laid down in the Mishnah that “ ‘The blasphemer’ is not culpable unless he pronounces the Name itself” (Sanh. 7:5; in 7:4 we find that the punishment for blasphemy was stoning). It would seem that the scribes were enlarging the concept for their own purposes. H. Beyer says, “In the NT the concept of blasphemy is controlled throughout by the thought of violation of the power and majesty of God” (TDNT, I, p. 622). As the scribes saw it, for Jesus to forgive sins was to assume the divine prerogative; indeed, in both Mark’s and Luke’s accounts they go on to ask who can forgive sins but God alone. That was what concerned them. They viewed Jesus as no more than another Galilean, and thus as someone to be understood within ordinary human limits. For such a person to claim to bestow forgiveness was for them nothing less than blasphemy.
4. But though they said nothing out loud, Jesus knew12 what they were thinking. He first asked them a question, “Why13 are you thinking evil things?” This invites them to examine their motivation. Jesus castigates their thoughts as evil things, where evil covers a very wide range. It can refer to deeds or actions and is applicable to things and people alike. Here it could possibly be thought to mean the planning of evil deeds, but it is more likely to be confined to thinking badly of Jesus. For hearts see on 5:8; Jesus passes by what is merely on the surface and asks about their innermost being. It is there that the trouble lies.
5. Jesus goes on to a further inquiry. He sets forth two statements and asks the scribes which is the easier to affirm. His first is the statement he made when he forgave the paralytic’s sins (v. 2), while the second introduces a new dimension into the situation, “Get up and walk.” The obvious answer is that it is easier to say that sins are forgiven, for it is impossible for the bystanders to confirm or refute what has been said, whereas when a paralyzed man is told to get up and walk anybody can see whether the command is obeyed or not. On a deeper level, however, it is the second statement that is the easier: a healer can say that, but it takes deity really to forgive sins.14
6. Jesus makes no pronouncement on which of the two statements is easier to make; he has posed his question and he leaves it there. Now he goes on to demonstrate that he can say both things. He has already pronounced the paralytic’s sins forgiven, and he now goes on to heal him. So that15 introduces the thought of purpose; the healing is, of course, in order to overcome the man’s disability and open to him a whole new way of living, but it is also in order that the scribes may enlarge their horizon. Some of the translations bring this out by introducing the notion of proof: “But to prove to you” (JB), “I will prove to you” (GNB). For the Son of man see on 8:20; here there can be no question but that it refers to Jesus himself, but perhaps we can say that it refers to him in his “official” capacity. He is the man from Nazareth, but he is also the Son of man, and it is as the Son of man that he has the right to forgive. In this context his authority means his right to forgive. The addition on earth brings out two points: the Son of man is not adequately accounted for by his earthly manifestation; there is that about him that refers to heaven, not earth. And even here on earth he has the right to forgive sins. Jesus does not deny the scribes’ premise that only God can forgive sins, but he invites them to reflect on what that means in the present situation.
Then introduces what follows next in time (see on 2:7). As often, Matthew uses the present tense for greater vividness. He tells us that Jesus turns to the paralytic and commands him, “Get up, take up your bed, and go home.”16 More literally go home means “go to your house” (for “house” see on 2:11). Jesus is directing the man to his own familiar surroundings.
7. The man did as he was told. Matthew does not say that he took up his bed (Mark and Luke both include this detail), but concentrates on the fact that the former paralytic got up and went off home. Matthew has a different verb for went off from that used in the command, but the meaning is essentially the same. The point being emphasized is that this man who had to be carried to Jesus by four companions was now able to walk back home.
8. Matthew does not tell us what the effect of all this was on the scribes who had been so supercilious when Jesus forgave the paralytic’s sins (unless he includes them in the crowds, which seems unlikely). As often, Matthew uses the plural crowds rather than the singular as he refers to the bystanders generally. These were people who were presumably not particularly well disposed to Jesus (they are not spoken of as disciples or the like). But they were not hostile like the scribes, either. The effect of the miracle on them was that they were awe-struck.17 They reacted as in the presence of God. The healing of a man who had to be carried by four others was not to be taken as commonplace, and the crowds recognized this. They recognized the hand of God in it all, and they glorified him. They saw that the power that had raised the man from his bed was divine, not human. But they also recognized that God had given this authority to men. Some understand authority in terms of power (KJV translates the word here as “power”), but it is not so much naked power as power rightfully exercised that is in mind. That the authority is given to men does not mean that any person can do what Jesus had just done.18 There is not the slightest indication that anyone in the crowd thought that. Rather, the thought is that God has been pleased not to keep the power in heaven, but to give it to people here on earth in and through Jesus.
4. Discipleship, 9:9–17
Matthew inserts a little section on discipleship, starting with his own call to be a disciple of Jesus. That leads to a meal that he apparently gave for Jesus and his disciples at which a question of the Pharisees leads to an important saying about Jesus’ calling of the disreputable. Discipleship means something very different from anything the Pharisees had imagined.
a. The Calling of Matthew, 9:9–13
9And as Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax office; and he says to him, “Follow me.” And he got up and followed him.
10And it came to pass that as he reclined at table in the house, look! many tax collectors and sinners came and reclined with Jesus and his disciples. 11And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 12But when he heard it, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a doctor, but those who are sick. 13But go and learn what this means, ‘I want compassion and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call righteous people, but sinners.”
All three Synoptists have the story of the call of the tax collector (who is called Matthew in this Gospel and Levi in the other two), and all three place it immediately after the healing of the paralytic. In all three he is sitting in the tax office when he responds to the call. Matthew and Luke give the story about the same amount of space, but characteristically Mark’s account is a little longer.
9. Jesus went on his way after healing the paralytic19 and came across “a man sitting at the tax office, Matthew,” a word order that adds the name almost as an afterthought. The other two Evangelists call him “Levi” and give the name more prominence, but this writer is not fastening attention on himself. The difference in the name should not concern us, for there were others who had two names (e.g., Simon Cephas = Peter, Saul who was Paul, John Mark, Joseph Barnabas, and Lebbaeus Thaddaeus).20 The name Matthew is found only here in the New Testament in lists of the Twelve (10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), and in the title of the first Gospel; the tax office occurs only in the three accounts of this incident. For the system of tax collection see on 5:46. The taxes in mind here would have been tolls levied on goods passing through or customs duties, so that the toll booth would have been situated in a strategic spot, which may have been on the great road from Syria to Egypt (when Matthew would have collected tolls) or near the lake (when Matthew would have been concerned with customs levied on goods that came across the lake, for the eastern shore lay outside the dominions of Herod Antipas; it was ruled by Herod Philip and thus was another country).21 The Romans allowed Herod Antipas to collect and use the taxes from this area (Josephus, Ant. 17.318). Matthew does not speak of any preliminary conversation, nor does he say what previous contact he had had with Jesus (though it is probable that he knew Jesus; how could a citizen of Capernaum not know him?) or what knowledge he had of Jesus’ teaching. He concentrates on the one central thing: Jesus called him with the words “Follow me”; the present imperative seems to indicate a continuing following, and there is no doubt that Matthew is describing a call to discipleship with all that that means. And Matthew obeyed: he got up and followed him. He says no more, but concentrates on that one decisive action. Luke brings out a little of its meaning by telling us that he left everything (Luke 5:28), and this is implied here. Matthew left a whole way of life to follow Jesus.22 Tax collectors were usually wealthy men, for there was ample scope for profit in their business, so Matthew was probably making a great material sacrifice when he walked out of that office. And the action was final. They would surely never take him back again if he later decided he wanted to return. The fishermen might go back to their fishing, but the tax collector would not be able to return to the levying of customs duties. Anyway, his lucrative post would soon be filled. And if he tried to get another job, who would want to employ a former tax collector? Matthew’s response indicated a thoroughgoing trust in Jesus.
10. Matthew’s grand gesture in leaving everything was not made in a spirit of grim resignation, as of a man doing what he knew was right but saddened by the cost. He tells of Jesus and others reclining23 at a banquet and says no more than that, but Luke tells us that it was the new disciple who made “a great feast.” Matthew celebrated becoming a disciple with a banquet at which many of the guests were as disreputable as he himself had been. This took place in the house (see on 2:11), where the article points to a particular house, probably Matthew’s own house (Mark and Luke say that it was).24 Matthew’s characteristic look makes it all so vivid: his readers are invited to see it all in their minds’ eyes. The guests were not such as might be expected where a religious teacher was the honored guest, but disreputable, tax collectors and sinners. The combination points to social outcasts. The tax farmers themselves were not regarded as necessarily unclean, but those they employed to do the actual work were unclean. Tax collecting necessarily brought the collectors into close contact with Gentiles, which, taken in conjunction with the social ostracism imposed by the religious parties, led to their being careless about the niceties of ceremonial uncleanness. They were also seen as following a disreputable profession. Sinners were in much the same position. The kind of ceremonial purity that was valued so highly by the Pharisees was such that many people could not attain it and still follow their profession. So they were lumped with the tax collectors as sinners.25 Jesus and his disciples reclined at table with these people. Some take this as an indication that Jesus was the host, but the words need mean no more than that the people mentioned “had their meal with Jesus” (cf. Hill in n. 24† above).