b. Fasting, 9:14–17
11. This event scandalized the Pharisees (see on 3:7). They would not have been at the dinner; the house would have been open and they could have come in (like the woman who came into the house of Simon the leper and anointed Jesus as he reclined at a meal, 26:6–7), but Pharisees would not have even entered the house lest they become unclean by contact with some uncleanness.26 Matthew is probably telling us what happened later when they heard all about it. Interestingly they complained not to Jesus but to his disciples. They ask why Jesus engages in table fellowship with tax collectors and sinners (they lump these two groups together under one article). This is not so much a question seeking information as an accusation. Sharing a meal was considered a closer association (and therefore more blameworthy) than simply teaching them. A religious teacher might well pass on words of wisdom to sinners (though the Pharisees seem to have been slow to do this). But to eat with them meant to refrain from condemning them; it gave countenance to their laxity. The Pharisees could not understand it. They saw Jesus as claiming to be a religious teacher, and they could not understand how a religious man could associate with irreligious people.27
12. But28 sets Jesus over against his Pharisaic critics. Their question was not addressed to him, but he heard what they said and made his response, without waiting for the disciples to think up what they should say. He takes a humble illustration from ordinary life, where it is the sick,29 not the well,30 who need medical help. The application of this to spiritual things is not difficult to find. We should not miss the implied rebuke of the Pharisees. They undoubtedly saw themselves as “well” in the sense that Jesus was using the word, and the tax collectors and sinners as “sick.” Why then were these “healthy” people doing nothing to heal the sick? And why can they not see that his concern is to help the sick, not persuade them to continue in their sickness?31
13. Go and learn does not mean “go off on a journey” but is a call for a genuine effort to understand.32 Jesus proceeds to quote from Hosea 6:6, 33 where the prophet looks for God’s people to show love and loyalty.34 In the first instance this will mean that they should love the God who loves them so much. But this means also that they should love other people as God loves them. So it is that Jesus looks for the self-satisfied Pharisees to show compassion to the outcasts instead of rejecting them so firmly. He makes that clear when he goes on to outline his own procedure. I did not come points to his existence before he “came” to this world and sums up the essence of his mission (cf. 5:17). When he left his heavenly abode to come to earth, this was not in order to congratulate people like the Pharisees who were so well satisfied with themselves and so ready to condemn all who failed to measure up to their finicky standards. Nor indeed was it to deal with people who were genuinely right with God (GNB has “respectable people,” but it is righteousness, not respectability, of which Matthew writes). Rather, his business was with sinners,35 those who must produce repentance if they were to be saved. The attitude of the Pharisees was such that these people were left far from God; they made no attempt to bring them near. Since they were ready to let these people die in their sins, their attitude lacked compassion and thus failed to comply with the standards taught by the prophet they professed to honor so highly. This failure meant that in fact the Pharisees belonged among the people Hosea condemned—a startling accusation for these so outwardly religious people! Luke tells us that Jesus came to call the sinful people “to repentance” (Luke 5:32), but Matthew lets this be understood. He leaves his emphasis on the fact that the people Jesus came to call were sinners. Later we find that he came to die for them (20:28). Jesus never said that the people in question were anything other than sinful. But that was not the point. The point was that he came to save sinners.36
b. Fasting, 9:14–17
14Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but your disciples do not fast?” 15And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? But days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast. 16And no one puts a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for it pulls its overlap away from the garment, and the tear gets worse. 17Neither do people put new wine into old wineskins; if they do, the skins burst, and the wine pours out, and the skins are ruined. But they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”
A further aspect of discipleship is brought out with a paragraph on fasting, a practice that occupied a large place in the religious observances of some of the Jews (and for that matter other people). Matthew makes it clear that fasting was not a feature of discipleship while Jesus was with his followers, but he leaves the way open for it in the days after Jesus would be “taken away from them.” As usual, Matthew’s account is shorter than those in Mark and Luke, but he has some touches peculiar to himself (e.g., the reference to mourning in v. 15 where the others have fasting).
14. For Matthew’s favorite then see on 2:7; it does not point to strict sequence. But it may well be that John’s disciples were fasting on a day that the followers of Jesus were feasting (cf. Mark 2:18). Matthew generally uses the term disciples (see on 5:1; 8:21) for the disciples of Jesus, but he can use it for the followers of other teachers, such as those of the Pharisees (22:16) or, as here, of John the Baptist. In the word “disciple” there is the thought of personal adherence to a teacher in the pursuit of learning. The Baptist is simply John without qualification. There is probably no great emphasis on we (despite the use of the pronoun): the pronoun had to be inserted so that John’s people could link themselves with the Pharisees. Fasting was a common religious practice in the ancient world. The only fast prescribed in the Law was that on the Day of Atonement,37 but in New Testament times pious Jews fasted every Monday and Thursday, and they might employ the practice at other solemn times. Perhaps we could say that whenever people felt that God should be approached in special humility for help in some time of trouble they saw fasting as the appropriate way. Fasting regularly twice a week and on other occasions as well certainly merits the description often.38 Fasting could be seen as a way of gaining merit before God, and thus it is not surprising that Jesus and his disciples eschewed the practice. But this certainly marked them out as distinctive; John’s men say that Jesus’ people do not do it (GNB has a strong antithesis, “fast often … don’t fast at all”). Jesus himself fasted at the time of the temptation in the wilderness, but there is no record of him engaging in the practice subsequently.
15. Jesus countered their question with one of his own. His question looks for a negative answer,39 and the negative along with the verb can points to a complete impossibility. The bridegroom’s attendants cannot be fasting while the feasting is at its height! The expression wedding guests (more literally “the sons of the bridal hall”40) refers particularly to “that group of the wedding guests who stood closest to the groom and played an essential part in the wedding ceremony” (BAGD). These people are necessarily preoccupied with the marriage; that is why they are there, and such practices as mourning are far from their minds. As long as is necessary because a wedding feast could go on for several days, but Jesus does not say “as long as the festivities go on” but as long as the bridegroom is with them; he concentrates on the presence of the bridegroom. The bridegroom (again in 25:1, 5–6, 10; 22:2, and developed toward the close of Revelation) carries on the same imagery,41 and, of course, John the Baptist spoke of himself as “the best man” and Jesus as “the bridegroom” (John 3:29). Mourn points to an activity proper at a funeral (and other sad occasions), but not at a wedding. Bonnard well remarks that the Pharisees and the disciples of John had not recognized that Jesus was the messianic Bridegroom: “their pious sorrow is the sign of their refusal of Jesus and of the true repentance.” But “Fasting is not appropriate if the kingdom is being manifested in Jesus’ mighty deeds” (Johnson).
But joy in the presence of the bridegroom is not the whole story. Jesus points to a future time when the bridegroom is taken away. There can be no doubt that by the bridegroom he means himself, nor that is taken away42 refers to his death. This is not part of the marriage imagery but an alien element, and it shows us that from quite early in his ministry Jesus faced the fact that it would end in rejection and death.43 John the Baptist had been put into prison and opposition to Jesus was growing, so it is not surprising that he should think of his death. When the bridegroom is no longer with them the disciples will fast. Cf. Carr, “There is a time of sorrow in store for my disciples when fasting will have a real meaning, now in my presence they can but rejoice.” Jesus does not command them to fast; he simply prophesies that they will. And they did (cf. Acts 9:9; 13:3; 14:23; 27:9).
16. Jesus brings out another point with a homely appeal to practices in poor households where patching old clothes was a necessary part of life. No one, he says, patches an old garment by using a patch of unshrunk cloth. No one indicates that the practice is unthinkable. There is a play on words in puts a patch that is difficult to reproduce in English,44 but the meaning is not in doubt; Jesus is referring to the process of mending a worn garment.45 It may signify any garment, but some translations make it specific, such as “coat” (NEB) or “cloak” (JB). The point is the wear the garment has had, its raggedness, rather than precisely which piece of clothing is in mind. The wrong patch, Jesus says, is one of unshrunk cloth;46 such cloth was considerably stronger than cloth that had been treated and was used to make clothing. A patch of this kind would be most unsuitable for use on an old garment,47 and Jesus proceeds to explain that such a patch48 on such a garment would mean trouble. When there was any strain the patch would not tear, but the garment would, and the patch would take some of the garment (its overlap) with it. Since sooner or later there would be some strain on a garment being worn (the first time it got wet the unshrunk patch would shrink!), this means that inevitably there would be a bigger split. Instead of mending a bad situation, such patching only makes things worse. This homely piece of wisdom would be immediately grasped by Jesus’ audience, and it brings out vividly the point that Jesus is not trying to patch up a worn-out Judaism.
17. The same point is made in another way, this time with an illustration from the practice of storing wine. Neither49 introduces another practice people do not follow. The verb put lacks a subject, but it is plural, conveying the notion of people in general. Those storing new wine,50 which here means wine that is still fermenting, must take care how they store it. They do not put it into old wineskins; old is the word used in verse 16; clearly it points to something close to “worn out.” Wine was commonly stored in containers made from the skins of animals.51 But old skins lose their elasticity; if52 new wine is stored in such containers, the process of fermentation puts more pressure on the skins than they can sustain, with the result that the skins burst and both wine and skins are lost. But (the strong adversative53—far from following the procedure that loses both wine and skins) people put new wine into new54 wineskins, with the satisfactory result that both are preserved. The two illustrations effectively make the point that Jesus was not simply bringing in a revised and updated Judaism, or even founding a new sect within Judaism. What he was teaching and doing were such that they could not be contained within the accepted Jewish system; to attempt to confine his followers within the limits of the old religion would be to invite disaster. This did not mean that he was rejecting the Old Testament; he came to fulfil the law and the prophets, not to reject them (5:17). What he repudiated was not Scripture, but the current religious practices allegedly based on Scripture. He did not even repudiate those practices all at once and call on his followers to forsake Judaism. But he did repudiate the suggestion that they should remain confined within the accepted understanding of the old system. His new approach could not be fitted into those old forms. His followers must find new forms or there would be religious disaster.55 Much the same point is, of course, made in the Fourth Gospel with its account of the changing of the water of Jewish purification into wine (John 2).
5. Three Stories of Healings, 9:18–34
Matthew rounds off his section on healings with another triplet, two of which have two healings. This concludes his making of the point that Jesus had an extensive ministry of healing and that he was able even to raise the dead. Later he has one or two miracles, but this is the section in which he makes his point firmly, after which it needs no further emphasis.
a. A Sick Woman and a Dead Girl, 9:18–26
18As he was saying these things to them, look, a ruler came to him and bowed down before him, saying, “My daughter has just died; but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live.” 19And Jesus got up and followed him, and so did his disciples. 20And look, a woman who had been suffering from a haemorrhage for twelve years came behind him and touched the tassel of his cloak; 21for she said within herself, “If only I touch his cloak, I will be healed.” 22But Jesus turned and saw her and said, “Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well.” And the woman was made well from that hour. 23And when Jesus came to the ruler’s house and saw the flute players and the noisy crowd, 24he said, “Go away, for the girl is not dead, but asleep.” And they laughed at him. 25But when the crowd had been put out, he went in and took her hand, and the girl was raised. 26And the report of this went out into all that region.
As is not uncommonly the case, Matthew’s account is shorter than that of either Mark or Luke (it is about one third the length of Mark’s and about half that of Luke). Even so, Matthew has some details that are absent from the others (e.g., the flute players and the raising of the girl where the others say that she “got up”). This short account includes all the essentials, and the final sentence helps us to see something of Matthew’s purpose in recording it all. H. J. Held points out that Matthew’s abbreviation of the story of the woman with the haemorrhage (which is in the middle of the story about the girl) is made in such a way as to emphasize the importance of faith. This, he notes, is also true of the little girl, and he goes so far as to say, “Thus in this instance, too, we see not really a miracle story but a teaching narrative about faith” (TIM, p. 180). That may be going too far. but there is no denying the importance Matthew attaches to faith.
18. Matthew alone locates this story: As he was saying these things (Mark has Jesus “by the sea,”56 and Luke says that it happened “when he returned”). For Matthew’s characteristic look see on 1:20; it introduces a note of vividness. It is not easy to know how to understand the word translated a ruler;57 it certainly means an important man in the community, a leader of some sort, but the term is not precise. Most interpreters understand the man to be a synagogue official, and this is probably correct. Mark calls him a ruler of the synagogue, and this is what Matthew implies.58 The synagogue was the center of local life, civil as well as religious to use our terms (though first-century people did not put a sharp distinction between the two), and a man who is designated a ruler, without any qualification, would have been one of the leaders in the local synagogue. That a member of the local establishment should seek Jesus’ aid probably means that he was desperate. It is clear that those in official positions were coming to regard Jesus as a dangerous heretic; thus there is every reason for supposing that a synagogue official would try every other source of help before turning to Jesus. But this ruler approached Jesus courteously: he bowed down59 to him, which certainly indicates respect and may even mean that he worshipped him.
But the first Evangelist’s interest is not in the man but in the daughter. There is a problem in that in Mark and Luke the daughter was no more than ill and that while Jesus was on his way to the house news came that she had died. It may be that we should understand Matthew to mean that the man’s daughter was as good as dead, a view that was shortly confirmed by news of the actual death. Or once again Matthew may have abbreviated a narrative by running together the opening of a story and the sending of messengers (as he did in the story of the centurion’s servant, 8:5–13; in neither passage do the messengers play any significant role for Matthew). The story was one that demanded a raising from the dead, and Matthew makes that clear from the beginning. What mattered to him was that the ruler sought Jesus out and that, even when it was known that his daughter had died,60 he went with Jesus to his home and saw the miracle of the dead girl brought back to life. So Matthew tells us that Jesus was acquainted with the death of the girl and that Jairus asked him nevertheless to come and lay his hand on her (an action often used in healing) in the assurance that then she would live. Hand is singular; one hand is sufficient.
19. There is no conversation or discussion; Jesus simply got up and followed the man. His disciples went along with him. There is no emphasis on them, for the story is about what Jesus did, but the disciples would be important to Matthew’s readers. They saw what happened, and the church owed its knowledge of the miracle to their report.
20. Again Matthew’s characteristic And look introduces something new (and no doubt unwelcome to the ruler). He speaks of a woman who had severe bleeding over a period of twelve years (the same span of time as the life of the ruler’s little girl; Mark tells us that she was twelve years old, Mark 5:42). The woman’s disability was not only a physical malady but one that had significant social implications; she would have been ceremonially unclean (Lev. 15:25–27), and therefore cut off from the ceremonial observances of the community. She could not join in worship, and her contact with other people would have been restricted because even a touch from her would make people unclean (Lev. 15:27). It was probably this that made her take the approach she did. She was convinced that one touch of Jesus would bring her healing, and she managed to effect this without drawing anyone’s attention. With a crowd of people thronging around Jesus she was able to come up behind him and touch just the tassel of his cloak. It is not quite certain what the word I have translated tassel signifies here. It is used for the border or edge of something, and thus could mean the hem of Jesus’ cloak. But among the Jews it was also used of the tassels attached to their outer garment to remind them to follow the commandments of God (Num. 15:37–38; Deut. 22:12; Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for making their tassels long, 23:5). Since this was a normal part of Jewish dress, we should probably understand the word here to mean one of these tassels. The cloak was the outer garment.
21. Matthew explains why the woman did this. She was sure that a touch would bring healing and reasoned that one touch of his cloak would be sufficient61 (cf. 14:36). There seems to be an element of superstition mingled with the faith of the woman, but Jesus did not reject her; he responded to the faith that he discerned. She certainly had the deep conviction that Jesus could cure her. If only she could get close enough to touch him, she would be free forever from her terrible disability. Her mind was clearly running62 on the certainty of her cure.
22. The other Gospels tell how the woman tried to remain concealed and slip away quietly in the crowd, whereas Jesus insisted that she come forth. Matthew passes over all this and concentrates on Jesus’ words to her. Jesus’ refusal to let her remain hidden is probably connected with the nature of her complaint. All those who knew her would have known that she was unclean and accordingly would have excluded her from a good deal of the social life of her community. It was important that her cure be widely known, so that she could slip back into normal community and religious life. So Jesus turned and saw her; he gave her his full attention. His first word is one of encouragement, which was probably very much needed. The life she had led must have made her a bit scared of being with people, and there may possibly have been the thought that perhaps Jesus would not like what she had done (would he take her cure away?). But Jesus said, “Take heart”; he was concerned to encourage her, not dishearten her. He uses the tender address, “daughter”; the word could be used of a literal daughter (as in v. 18), but it was also used as a friendly greeting (this is the only woman Jesus is recorded to have called daughter).63 Then he speaks of your faith; it is important that the woman understand that she had not been cured by magic of a kind that meant that anyone who touched Jesus would be healed. Her cure had been the result of a mighty power in Jesus, indeed, but it came to her because of her faith, not because of magic in a touch. That her faith has made her well64 raises the question of whether the words mean more than physical healing (Bruce gives the meaning as “you are a saved woman”). Healing is certainly prominent, but it is not unlikely that we should understand that a real trust in Jesus was followed by spiritual blessing. The verb is the normal one for “save” (it is used in the message of the angel to Joseph when he said of the child that was to be born, “he will save his people from their sins,” 1:21). While it is certainly used of salvation from sickness and the like, it is also used with a deeper meaning when connected with faith. It may well be that Matthew is not unmindful of that deeper meaning and that he recalls that Jesus certainly saved people like this woman from physical ailments, but that this was only part of a fuller and more wonderful salvation. It is difficult to think that the blessing received by even a small faith means no more than physical soundness. At any rate, from that moment65 the sufferer was made well, the specification of that hour making it clear that it was Jesus’ saving power that was responsible and not some spontaneous cure.
23. The interruption over, Matthew returns to the story of the ruler and his daughter. He says nothing more about the journey, but goes straight to the point when Jesus reaches the ruler’s house. In first-century Palestine burial was normally carried out very soon after death; in this case it is clear that the process was already underway. The professional mourners had not even waited for the father’s return to his home. Thus it was that when Jesus reached the house he found some flute players and a noisy crowd, which we must understand as the normal mourning at a time of bereavement. The Mishnah lays it down that “Even the poorest in Israel should hire not less than two flutes and one wailing woman” (Ketub. 4:4); for the daughter of a ruler there would be much more than that. Matthew is referring to professional mourners who were on the job very promptly (cf. Jer. 9:17–18). But relatives and friends would join in with their loud wailing (the noisy crowd).66
24. Jesus immediately commanded them all to go away. He had insisted that the haemorrhaging woman come out into the open; in her case publicity was important. The same consideration that he had shown for her need is now shown to the little girl,67 but it takes a different form. When she came back from the dead she was not to be confronted with a noisy and certainly confusing group of mourners. Jesus goes on to explain that the girl was not dead, but68 asleep. Some students take this to mean that Jesus had made a diagnosis that assured him that she had not died. But this is surely not Matthew’s intention. He is not telling a story of how Jesus woke a girl from a daytime nap, but recounting a miracle of a raising from the dead.69 For him what we call death is nothing more than sleep (cf. John 11:11); the girl’s death, though real, was not permanent. For the people there the girl was dead; all that remained was to go ahead with a decent burial and the proper period of mourning. But Jesus wanted none of this; he wanted them out of the way. To the mourners this must have seemed stupid, for at this point Jesus had not even seen the girl. They had. So despite the solemn business in which they were engaged, they laughed70 at this person who, in their view, did not know what he was talking about. Since they had been engaging in loud-voiced mourning, this was quite a shift!
25. Matthew speaks of a crowd of people in the house, which makes it clear that the number was not small. But Jesus had his way, and the crowd was removed71 from the house. Then he entered the house and went to the place where the girl was lying. He took her by the hand (touching the dead meant contracting ceremonial uncleanness; cf. Jesus’ healing touch of the leper, 8:3) and raised her. As we have seen, Jesus did a number of cures by taking people by the hand, and for Matthew evidently that was what mattered. Mark and Luke record that Jesus spoke to the dead girl, recalling her from death, but for Matthew the taking of her hand was sufficient. When he did this, the girl was raised (or “arose”).
26. Matthew rounds off the story with an addition of his own that the news72 of what had happened spread around. It went out into all that region, which indicates that the report was widespread. The incident made a deep impression and was widely spoken of.
b. Two Blind Men, 9:27–31
27And as Jesus passed on from there, two blind men followed him, crying out and saying, “Take pity on us, Son of David.” 28And when he had come into the house, the blind men came up to him, and Jesus says to them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” They say to him, “Yes, Lord.” 29Then he touched their eyes, saying, “According to your faith let it be done for you.” 30And their eyes were opened. And Jesus said to them sternly, “See that no one knows (of this).” 31But they went out and spread the news about him widely in all that region.
There are no miracles of the giving of sight in the Old Testament, nor in the New after the Gospels (the restoration of sight to Saul of Tarsus, Acts 9:17–18, is not of the same order). But in Jesus’ ministry there are more miracles of the giving of sight than of any other single category. The giving of sight is a divine activity (Exod. 4:11; Ps. 146:8), and it has messianic significance (Isa. 29:18; 35:5; 42:7). Matthew has a story very similar to this one in 20:29–34 (with parallels in Mark 10:46–52; Luke 18:35–43). In both of Matthew’s stories the blind men cried out, “Have mercy on us, Son of David,” in both Jesus touched their eyes, and in both their eyes were opened. But this story is located in Galilee, while the later one takes place near Jericho; here the men follow Jesus whereas there they sit by the way. In the later story people told the blind men that Jesus was passing and then rebuked them for crying out, Jesus called the blind men to him (here they follow him into the house), he asked what they wanted (here he questions them about their faith), and the story ends with the blind men following him (here with them spreading the story throughout the region). It seems plain enough that Matthew regarded the two stories as distinct, and that it is the later one that is paralleled in the other Synoptists.
27. And links this healing loosely with what precedes, while passed on and from there are also expressions of a general kind. Matthew is not tieing this story very closely to what has gone before. Matthew often speaks of people following Jesus, and there is frequently an overtone of discipleship. Here the blind73 men follow because they want Jesus to give them sight. They were crying out,74 which indicates that they were determined to be heard. “Take pity75 on us” does not specify in what way they want the pity to be effective, but for the blind men there is little doubt as to their major concern. “Son of David,” a messianic term (see on 1:1), is here used for the first time in this Gospel as a form of address. The men may not have understood all that was implied in the term, but they saw Jesus as a great person and used a suitable designation when they approached him. It may well be that it was their use of this messianic name that caused Jesus to say nothing to them until they got into the house. It is unusual for him to ignore anyone who came to him for help, but to respond to such a term might well have led many of the passers-by to think that he was claiming to be a political Messiah.
28. Jesus was on his way to the house, and the blind men followed him there. There is an article: it is the house rather than “a house” to which Jesus went, and many conclude that it was Jesus’ own house. This may be so, but we have no way of knowing which house is in mind, or indeed whether he had a house (8:20 does not support the view). Matthew may mean that he went to the house where people had given him lodging. For the word see on 2:11; REB has “had gone indoors.” The blind men went in too, and they came up to Jesus. We might have expected that they would repeat their plea (it had apparently been continuous as they followed Jesus along the way). But in the house it is the Master who speaks first (unless in compressing his narrative Matthew has omitted some words of theirs). He does not ask them what they want; that can be taken for granted. Instead he asks whether they believe,76 whether they have faith. Faith is being given strong emphasis in this part of the Gospel, for Matthew has just brought out its place in the stories of the woman who came behind Jesus in the crowd and of the man whose daughter was dead. So now what matters is whether these blind men believe that Jesus can do this.77 Neither he nor they spell out that it is a cure for blindness that they want. In the situation that may be taken for granted. They do not hesitate, but reply, “Yes, Lord.” Their affirmation is definite, and their address is to be understood as “Lord” (as NRSV, NIV, LB) rather than as simply the polite “Sir” (as NEB, GNB, JB). At this point they are giving the term all the meaning they can put into it. They are respectful and certain. We should not overlook the fact that, being blind, they could not have seen anything that Jesus had done. They had had to depend on what people told them. Yet they came through with a definite and positive faith.
29. Once again Jesus heals with a touch. Matthew can use eyes for spiritual perception (e.g., 13:15), but here the word, of course, means the physical organs of sense perception. Jesus accompanied his healing touch with some words that underline the importance of faith. We should understand according to your faith in the sense “since you have faith” rather than thinking of strict proportionality (the meaning is not “the more faith, the better the result”; cf. 8:13). JB renders, “your faith deserves it,” but this makes of faith a merit instead of a trust in Jesus through which God’s good gift is received (for faith see on 8:10). It is better to understand the words in the sense of REB, “as you have believed, so let it be”; cf. Bruner, “You believe; you have it.”
30. The miracle is put very simply: their eyes were opened. The verb is used of opening one’s mouth to speak (5:2), of opening the mouth of a fish (17:27), and again of opening the eyes of the blind (20:33). In this last sense it means, of course, the giving of sight. Jesus follows this with a firm injunction78 that they keep silent about what he had done for them (cf. 8:4). Sternly indicates that Jesus was deeply serious about this: he did not want the men to take his injunction lightly. Matthew does not explain why he was so much in earnest about silence at this point, but he leaves his readers in no doubt that this was the case. “See, let no one know” is a more literal translation of what Jesus said. The command is compressed but the meaning is quite plain.
31. But79 although Jesus’ injunction was made so firmly, it seems that the men’s joy at what had happened was too great for them to keep quiet. It was inevitable that some people would know; it is impossible for two blind men to become sighted without those near them knowing that something wonderful had happened. But it was not inevitable that the news should be made known far and wide. These two men had faith, and it was in response to their faith that they were given sight. But they lacked obedience. They did not supplement their deep conviction that Jesus could give them sight with an equally deep resolve to do his will. In the context they went out means that they left the house, they went off, but in view of the next words it may be meant to signify that they went out throughout the region. And as they went, they told80 people what had happened. Matthew expresses this in a way that means something like “they spread him abroad”; it was obviously news that they spread abroad, but they did so in a way that centered on Jesus. The sequel to the miracle meant that Jesus was now known throughout the entire area where the formerly blind men moved.
c. A Dumb Demoniac, 9:32–34
32And as they were going out, look, people brought to him a dumb man who was demon-possessed. 33And when the demon was cast out, the dumb man spoke. And the crowds were astonished, saying, “Nothing like this was ever seen in Israel.” 34But the Pharisees said, “He casts out demons by the ruler of the demons.”
There is a parallel to this story in Luke 11:14–15, and for once Matthew does not abbreviate (he has 38 words and Luke 34). There are minor differences throughout, but the words of Matthew’s Pharisees are identical with those of Luke’s crowds except that Matthew lacks the words about Beelzebul (which he has at the end of his similar story in 12:22–24). This, the last in this series of miracles, shows us Jesus doing a healing of a kind different from those earlier in the section.
32. As in verse 31, Matthew speaks of going out without specifying from where. But the context shows that it is the house of verse 28 that is in mind. The present tense indicates that the incident happened as they were on their way (JB, “they had only just left”). The Evangelist does not say who brought the dumb81 man (he simply has the verb “they brought”), but he makes it clear that the man did not come by himself as in some other cases. This man was dumb, a disability caused by demon possession (see on 4:24); he may well have been deaf as well. Chrysostom says, “the affliction was not natural, but the device of the evil Spirit; wherefore also he needs others to bring him. … For this cause neither doth He require faith of him, but straightway heals the disease” (p. 211).
33. Nothing is said about a request for healing; people simply brought the man. Nor is there anything about what Jesus did. With his passion for brevity Matthew assumes that his readers will understand (a) that the man was brought to Jesus in order for his dumbness to be cured, and (b) that Jesus responded to the need. So he simply goes on to the situation when the demon had been cast out (the verb has the notion of a forcible expulsion; for demon see on 7:22). The demons do not readily leave those in whom they have taken up residence; hence the forcible word. Notice that there is no mention of faith, nor any action of Jesus like the laying on of the hand (contrast Mark 7:32–35). The expulsion of the demon is not the same as the cure of a disease (though the verb “heal” may be used of it as well as “expel,” 12:22–24). That the man is now said to speak (rather than to hear) shows clearly that he had had a speech disability, though he may have had a hearing defect as well. Those who brought the man to Jesus had presumably expected a cure, but the crowds had not; they accordingly were astonished and gave voice to their astonishment, exclaiming that this was a completely new thing for Israel.82 Israel here means the nation (as in 8:10), not the patriarch (10:6). The people are saying that their nation had never seen a miracle like this. We might reason that the raising of the dead is even more stupendous, but these people may not have known of that, and in any case this was “their” miracle: they had actually seen it done.
34. But the Pharisees (see on 3:7) had their own explanation. They were sure that they were right and Jesus was wrong, and nothing could be allowed to interfere with that basic conviction. They did not deny that something miraculous had occurred; they had seen this just as “the crowds” had done. If something miraculous had occurred and if Jesus was not on the side of the good, then for them the conclusion was obvious—it was by means of83 Satan that the dumb man was made to speak. They give the evil one the title the ruler of the demons (again in 12:24; from Mark 3:22 it seems to be a standard accusation of Jesus’ opponents). The Pharisees shut their eyes to the good Jesus does and ascribe it to the working of evil. This calling of good evil is perhaps the greatest blasphemy, the blasphemy that is unforgivable (12:28–32).84
E. Jesus’ Second Discourse, 9:35–10:42
Matthew has concluded a major section on Jesus’ teaching and another on his miracles, and through the two he has brought out the fact that both word and deed showed his authority. He now moves to a further important topic and tells us that Jesus conferred a certain authority on his disciples. He precedes the second of his great discourses, which will tell us something of what Jesus expects of his followers, with an account of the way Jesus chose twelve disciples and sent them on a mission to preach and to heal. Until now it has been Jesus who has taught and healed, but in the providence of God the followers of Jesus are to be given an important place in the work of the kingdom. The choosing and the sending out of the apostles is the first step; in due time this will be further extended through the work God would do through his church. In this passage we may discern some of the things that Matthew saw as of continuing importance for the ongoing mission of the church.
1. The Harvest and the Workers, 9:35–38
35And Jesus went around all the cities and the villages, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and every sickness. 36And when he saw the crowds he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and cast down like sheep without a shepherd. 37Then he says to his disciples, “The harvest is great, but the workers few. 38Therefore pray the Lord of the harvest that he will send out workers into his harvest.”
As a whole this section is peculiar to Matthew. Some expressions about Jesus going about preaching are paralleled in Mark and Luke but in different contexts. Matthew is giving a summary of a good deal of Jesus’ activity, and he may well have embodied in it isolated sayings from other contexts. Verse 35 is very similar to 4:23, and it may be that the two are meant to bracket the intervening section on the authority of Jesus for teaching and healing. But perhaps it is more likely that for Matthew each passage forms an introduction to an important section on the teaching of Jesus. Here he goes on to bring out the compassion of the Master and his call to prayer for the sending out of those who would bring in the spiritual harvest.
35. The verb went around is in the imperfect, pointing to a continuing process (cf. Moffatt, “made a tour”), while the combination of the cities and the villages, reinforced as it is by all,85 indicates a comprehensive activity. This is what Jesus kept doing. Matthew does not say explicitly that this tour took place in Galilee, but this is to be understood. There is no indication that Jesus journeyed into Judea or the region east of the Jordan. Jesus’ tour of the area was one in which he proclaimed the gospel of the kingdom and healed all kinds of illnesses (the same program that preceded the Sermon on the Mount, 4:23). The synagogues were places of instruction as well as of worship; they were a natural place in which a teacher would do his work. Their has no discernible antecedent, but it perhaps distances Jesus from the synagogue establishment: it was their synagogue, not his (cf. 7:29; 10:17). For proclaiming see on 3:1, and for the gospel of the kingdom on 4:23. The good news Jesus brought was about the kingdom; Matthew does not say what kingdom or whose, but that Jesus was proclaiming the rule of God is plain enough. And he healed every disease and every sickness, which may mean every illness that was brought to him, or “every kind of disease and sickness” (GNB). It is a comprehensive expression that brings out Jesus’ mastery over all ill health. Matthew has a threefold description of Jesus’ ministry: teaching, proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing.
36. When he saw the crowds looks like a reference to a specific occasion, but if so, Matthew does not say when or where. The main thing is that Jesus had compassion86 on them (this is said of Jesus again in 14:14; 15:32; 20:34). In the New Testament this verb is always used of Jesus or by Jesus in his parables; it is particularly associated with him. H. Köster comments, “outside the original parables of Jesus there is no instance of the word being used of men. It is always used to describe the attitude of Jesus and it characterises the divine nature of His acts.” He finds in Matthew’s use of the term “a Messianic characterisation of Jesus rather than the mere depiction of an emotion” (TDNT, VII, pp. 553, 554). What we are to see here is not purely human pity, but divine compassion for troubled people. Matthew goes on to use two picturesque expressions to bring out the plight of those who were the object of Jesus’ compassion. The translations employ a variety of expressions: “worried and helpless” (GNB); “harassed and helpless” (NRSV, REB, NIV); “distressed and downcast” (NASB); “harassed and dejected” (JB). The imagery is that of shepherdless sheep, sheep wounded and torn either by hostile animals or by thornbushes and the like, and then prostrate and helpless. Harassed is probably as good a translation as we can find for the first term, while cast down is almost exactly what the second conveys.87 This picture of people completely without resource is rounded off by explicitly likening them to sheep without a shepherd, an expression used of the Old Testament people of God (Num. 27:17; 1 Kings 22:17; 2 Chron. 18:16; Zech. 10:2) Sheep are defenseless animals. Without a shepherd they are vulnerable to any attack. Even without predators they are in trouble if they have no shepherd, for they are not good foragers. They need a shepherd to lead them in green pastures and beside still waters (Ps. 23:2). Goats manage very well by themselves, but sheep do not. Sheep without a shepherd points to people who are in great danger and without the resources to escape from it.
37. For Matthew’s characteristic then see on 2:7; here it means “next in sequence.” His disciples is Matthew’s characteristic early use; this is what would be said at a time when it was necessary to distinguish Jesus’ followers from those of other teachers. The harvest may refer to a literal crop of grain or the like, but here it is used metaphorically of people.88 Jesus does not spell it out, but he is speaking of people who are ripe for inclusion in the kingdom. In that situation it is necessary that something be done to bring them in. A crop of wheat needs workers89 to bring the grain into the barn; without the laborers the crop cannot be reaped.90 Jesus says that in the great harvest of which he is speaking the workers are few.
38. In that situation action is demanded. Jesus himself could be in only one place at a time; therefore, to reap the harvest he saw, he enlists the disciples to take part in the harvesting. Therefore means that the state of affairs indicated in the previous statement demands action. Because there are few workers for the great harvest it is incumbent on the disciples to do something. The particular action Jesus singles out is prayer.91 In an age like ours we would expect a call to more vigorous and effective action ourselves (and situations continually arise when that is the right course to pursue). But Jesus points to prayer as the really effective thing.92 No matter how great our personal exertion, we will not be able to gather in the whole harvest. Therefore we are to pray to him who can send out93 the workers who are needed. The Lord is used of God in a variety of ways (all of which bring out his superiority); here the term is related to the harvest. The harvest is already his. But it must be gathered in. It is one of the functions of the workers in God’s field that they pray for more workers to be sent into the field. Some exegetes see the thought of judgment here,94 for harvest is often used in connection with judgment. It has an obvious suitability, with the sickle cutting off the possibility of further growth and development. But in this passage there is nothing to indicate judgment; the thought is rather that of the owner’s care for his crop. He takes infinite pains over it.
Matthew 10
2. The Mission of the Twelve, 10:1–42
Having given a general introduction to this next section of his narrative, Matthew proceeds to Jesus’ summoning of the Twelve and his commissioning of them for the mission to which he is sending them. The other Gospels have no parallel to this charge as a whole, but there are parallels to most parts of it in a number of places in Mark and Luke (see Mark 3:13–19; 6:7–11; Luke 9:1–6; 10:1–15). Matthew speaks of persecutions (e.g., vv. 17–18), which seem to have taken place later than this sending of the Twelve; perhaps he has included instructions given to the disciples on a number of occasions in one compact section. Some of the parallels in Luke come from that Evangelist’s narrative of the sending out of seventy (or seventy-two) disciples (Luke 10), an event not mentioned in Matthew or Mark. It is likely that the Twelve would have been included in the seventy, and it would be in line with what we have seen of Matthew’s method if he telescoped the instructions given on the two occasions (cf. his omission of the messengers in the healing of the centurion’s servant and in the raising of the daughter of Jairus). Or there may be a better explanation of this Evangelist’s procedure. I am not so much concerned with how he wrote his Gospel as with its meaning as we have it. He tells us then that Jesus chose twelve men for special service and sent them on a mission; he tells us of instructions that Jesus gave, some of which had a good deal of relevance during the years subsequent to the life of the Master.
a. The Twelve, 10:1–4
1And having summoned his twelve disciples, he gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness. 2Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4Simon the Cananaean, and Judas the Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
Matthew has told his readers how Jesus called five disciples and he has spoken of people following Jesus, but this is the first indication that the Master chose out twelve to be especially close to him. These men were to be especially significant for the whole Christian movement, and through the centuries the Twelve have been held in special honor. But very little is known about most of them; evidently some of them were not memorable men. If this is so, it would accord with the fact that God has often chosen people the world has regarded as insignificant through whom to do his wonderful works.
1. And seems a curious way of introducing a new narrative; as in 9:1 it will introduce something new with a loose connection to what precedes (BAGD, 1.5). Jesus called to him his twelve disciples, who come before us for the first time as a special entity (until now we have heard of five who responded to the call to be disciples, 4:18–22; 9:9, but there must have been many more). Matthew is the only New Testament writer to use the expression “the twelve disciples” (11:1; 20:17; 26:20), though there are quite a few references to “the twelve.” There were many disciples, but twelve were especially close to Jesus and were destined to have a unique place in the church that would emerge in due course. Matthew does not say why Jesus chose twelve, but it is the number of the tribes of Israel and may point forward to the true Israel and the renewal of the people of God that Jesus would bring about (cf. 19:28).1 To these men Jesus gave authority2 for both exorcisms and healing (Bonnard points out that it is authority for the apostolic mission that is in mind and not an authority for government of the church). Matthew refers to unclean spirits again only in 12:43; Mark has 11 such references, and Luke 5. Unclean may be used in a cultic sense of that which has no contact with deity, but when used of spirits the moral sense is more prominent. These spirits are to be thought of as evil. They are opposed to the purposes of God and the welfare of people; the Twelve now have the authority that enables them to3 expel such evil beings. With that is joined the authority to heal (see on 4:23). The repetition of every kind before both disease and sickness shows that the disciples were equipped with a far-reaching power (the same expression is used of Jesus’ healings in 4:23).
2–4. This is Matthew’s one use of the word “apostle,”4 and the only use of the expression the twelve apostles in the Gospels (it occurs in Rev. 21:14). These men are to be understood as identical with the twelve disciples of verse 1 (though “disciple” has a wider significance than “apostle”). They were the leaders in the group that attached itself to Jesus and have always been seen by the church to have great significance. The word “apostle” has a new sense in the New Testament. In earlier times the word was used of naval expeditions, of ships “sent” on a mission, sometimes also of other groups that were “sent,” and now and then of the commanders of such groups (the “admiral,” for example). Jesus was not simply repeating some earlier practice when he sent out his Twelve; the twelve apostles, sent out with Jesus’ authority, represent something new in the world of religion. These men were to have a key role in the church that would in due course be set up.
Matthew proceeds to record the names of the Twelve (so also Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16; eleven are listed in Acts 1:13). He has arranged them in six pairs: the two in each pair are connected by “and” (which may be a reminiscence of their being sent out two by two, Mark 6:7), but the pairs are not connected (except the first two pairs). Matthew begins with Simon, who is called Peter, and says that he is first, which indicates that he was in some sense the leader (cf. Barclay, “first and foremost”). It can scarcely mean that he was the first to come to Jesus, for Andrew brought him in the first place (John 1:41–42). But we should bear in mind Bengel’s reminder that Peter was “first among the apostles, not placed over the apostles: in the apostolate, not above it.” All the lists have three groups of four, with the same name coming first of the four in each list. No name appears in one four in one list and in another four in another list, though there are variations in order within the fours and some slight variations in the names. In all the lists the members of the first two groups are identical though the order is not the same. Thus in the first four Mark puts Andrew in fourth place (as does Acts), while Luke agrees with Matthew in placing him second. In the second four Mark and Luke put Matthew before Thomas, while in this Gospel Matthew follows Thomas and has the tax collector added; Acts also has this order but does not refer to the tax collector. In the final four James the son of Alphaeus is first in all the lists and Judas the Iscariot5 is last. All have a second Simon, but, while Matthew and Mark call him the Cananaean, Luke speaks of him as “who was called Zealot.”6 Matthew and Mark have Thaddaeus7 before Simon, but Luke has “Judas, son of James” after him.
It thus transpires that the lists are identical except for the variant descriptions of the second Simon and Luke’s Judas where the others have Thaddaeus. This may be another name for the same man (Chrysostom accepts the identification); Lenski and others think the name “Judas” would have been dropped after the betrayal by Judas Iscariot. Or possibly the exact composition of the Twelve varied a little from time to time. It will be seen that most of these have left very little mark on the history of the church, and it may well be that that was because they were not outstanding people (“They were very ordinary men,” Barclay, I, p. 358; “men of obscurity, and of no repute,” Calvin, I, p. 290). When Jesus chose his Twelve he did not choose supermen; God does not need outstanding people to do his work, and it seems that, while some of the Twelve were very able men, others were very ordinary.
b. The Charge to the Twelve, 10:5–15
5These twelve Jesus sent out, after instructing them in these words: “Do not go off on the road to Gentiles, and do not go into any town of the Samaritans; 6but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven has drawn near.’ 8Heal sick people, raise dead people, cleanse lepers, cast out demons; without cost did you receive, without cost give. 9Don’t get gold or silver or copper in your money belts, 10or a bag for the journey, or two tunics, or shoes, or staff; for the workman deserves his keep. 11And into whatever town or village you enter, inquire who in it is worthy; and stay there until you leave. 12And when you go into the house, give it your greeting. 13And if the house is worthy, let your greeting of peace come upon it; but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14And whoever does not receive you or listen to your words, when you go out of that house or town shake off the dust from your feet. 15Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Day of Judgment than for that town.”
Having named the Twelve, Matthew proceeds to relate the instructions Jesus gave as he sent them out on a preaching and healing mission. On this occasion they were to confine their labors to Israel, and he expressly forbade them to to beyond Israel’s borders, even to the Samaritans. At a later time they would have a wider commission (28:19), but their first venture was to their own people. Matthew was more interested in the instructions Jesus gave the preachers than in the actual trip, for he mentions neither that they departed, nor where they went, nor when they returned.
5. These twelve comes first with a certain emphasis: it was the people named, those whom Jesus has chosen and Matthew has called “apostles” (for the only time in this Gospel) whom Jesus now sends forth8 on a mission. He gives them instructions, where the word instructing has a military ring about it; it points to authoritative commands.9 The first direction Jesus gives is one that confines the apostles to Israel for the duration of this mission. They are not to take the road to Gentiles,10 which places the whole of the Gentile world outside the scope of the work they are now beginning. So with any town of the Samaritans. This is Matthew’s only use of the word, and he does not use the name “Samaria” at all. Though the Samaritans were not viewed as on exactly the same level as the Gentiles, they still did not belong with the ancient people of God. It was to the Jews that this mission was directed. All this means that on this first mission the Twelve were to work in Galilee; the roads to the north and east led to Gentile territory, while that to the south went to Samaria. Only Galilee was left. In due time the followers of Jesus would preach to people of any nation, but there was a proper order; here they were told to start with the Jews (cf. Paul’s practice, Acts 13:46, and his theory, Rom. 1:16; 2:9–10).
6. Instead11 the Twelve are to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matthew uses a present imperative (whereas he had two aorist imperatives in v. 5); if it is used strictly, it means “keep going.” Throughout this mission they are to keep going to Israel. Matthew is fond of the sheep imagery; he has the word sheep 11 times in all (elsewhere only John with 17 has it more than twice). Mostly, as here, the usage is symbolical. In John 10 the sheep belonging to the Good Shepherd are the saved; but sheep all too easily go astray, and here they are the Israelites who have wandered far from God.12 This probably does not refer to a part of the nation, for as the prophet put it, “All we like sheep have gone astray” (Isa. 53:6; cf. Jer. 50:6; Ezek. 34, etc.). The house of Israel means all the descendants of Jacob; it is a common way of referring to the nation (Matthew has the expression again in 15:24, and “sons of Israel” in 27:9; he has Israel 12 times).
7. Again the present imperative seems to point us to continuous action. The message the apostles were to preach was constant: they were not directed to preach a variety of topical sermons but simply to say, “The kingdom of heaven has drawn near,” the message of John the Baptist (3:2, where see note) and of Jesus himself (4:17). As we have seen, the message of the kingdom included the thought that Jesus had a special place; so, as the disciples went on this preaching tour, they would be proclaiming their Master. It was not their business to work out the solution to contemporary problems, but to sound out the message Jesus was proclaiming. Preach (see on 3:1) came to be used characteristically for the preaching of the gospel, but it cannot have that technical meaning here (Jesus had not yet died and risen). It means here the preaching of the same message as Jesus. The fact that the kingdom was near shows that their message concerned a present reality rather than a distant future possibility.
8. The apostles’ message was to be accompanied by action, and this is along the lines of what has already been narrated of Jesus. First, they were to heal sick people (for heal see on 4:23). Jesus does not tell them how they are to do this, simply that it was their task. Presumably they are to follow his example. Most translations have “the sick,” and perhaps this is the way we should take it. But since the word lacks the article, it may be that the direction is not that they should heal sick people as a class and thus turn into full-time healers. Rather, they were to preach the kingdom, and as an adjunct to that they were to do some works of healing. So, too, they were to raise dead people. Again there is no article, so it is not the dead as a class that are in mind, but those dead people whom they would encounter in the discharge of their commission. There are no recorded examples of their raising dead people (though later some disciples did this, Acts 9:40; 20:9–10), but then there are no recorded examples of their healing sick folk either. We do not know how they did either or how frequently. A similar remark attaches to their cleansing of lepers; it is good to know that these needy people came within the scope of their commission, but we have no information about how extensively they performed this task. And, finally, they were to cast out demons. Matthew has the word “demon” 11 times, of which 7 refer to these evil spirits being cast out and an eighth to a demon going out (17:18; cf. 7:22). Mark records that the disciples cast out demons (Mark 6:13), and Luke that demons were subject to them (Luke 10:17).
Until now the verbs have all been present tense, but now we have two aorists. “You received” points back to what God has already given to them; give points forward to their own act of giving. The same adverb13 is used in both clauses: the way God has treated them is the way they are to treat others. REB renders, “You received without cost; give without charge”; this brings out the sense of it nicely, though it translates the adverb in two different ways.
9. Jesus goes on to the way they should look forward to their journey. Normally people make provision for such a trip, but Jesus is telling the disciples that they must go as they are. They are not to get14 a store of money that would enable them to meet the expenses that they thought might well arise as they journeyed. Gold might refer to the precious metal in itself, but here it will refer to its use in coins. So with silver; it is not the metal in itself that is in mind or its use in ornaments, but coined silver. Copper can refer to anything made of copper, but when used of coins, as here, it will refer to coins of least value, small change. The word I have translated as money belts is used of girdles in general, though in the New Testament it always refers to the belt of a man or an angel. In this context it clearly is a place in which money can be kept. Jesus sweepingly forbids them to take money, and that of either large or small denominations. It is not money that will sustain them on the journey they are about to make, and they are not to rely on any monetary resource.
10. Nor15 are they to take a bag in which to store possessions. JB makes this “a haversack” and GNB “a beggar’s bag,” while LB thinks of “a duffle bag.” Such translations may be a trifle over-definite; the word is used of a wide variety of bags. W. Michaelis maintains that the bag here is the normal bag a traveler would take in which to store the food he would need for his journey;16 he denies that we should think of a beggar’s bag. Jesus is saying that it will not be necessary for them to take provisions for the road. He goes on to say much the same about clothing. His followers should not take two tunics. The tunic was the usual undergarment and was worn next to the skin by either sex. It is not certain whether Jesus is saying that they should not wear two tunics at once (perhaps for extra warmth? Josephus speaks of a man wearing two tunics, though he does not say why; Ant. 17.136) or that they should go as they were and not take along an extra one. Shoes were made of soft leather, whereas sandals were of hard leather.17 Jesus may mean that they were to wear sandals (as Mark 6:9 says), or perhaps, as some of the poor did, that they were to go barefoot; he may mean that his followers were to identify with these poor. Alternatively, if the difference between shoes and sandals is not in mind, the meaning may be that they should not take an extra pair along with them (get seems to mean “get in addition to the pair you are now wearing”). That they were to use some form of footwear seems implied in the instruction to shake the dust off their feet (v. 14). Nor should they take a staff, an implement that most people would take when walking.18 The accumulation of things not to be taken emphasizes the point that they are to go as they are. They are not to make elaborate preparations for their journey.19 That God would surely supply their need is the unspoken thought, and they are not to rely on their own resources and ingenuity. There may also be a reference to the fact that a man “may not enter into the Temple Mount with his staff or his sandal or his wallet, or with the dust upon his feet” (Ber. 9:5). If this is in mind, the meaning is that they must not give even the appearance of doing anything other than serving God.20
A reason21 is introduced. It will not be necessary to take these various precautions, for the workman deserves his keep (cf. Luke 10:7). The disciples are workmen for God, and they can rely on their employer to supply the things they need. The workman is strictly a farm laborer, a worker in the fields, but from this the word came to be used of workmen of various kinds. Such workmen would be paid a wage, but they would also be given the food they needed while they were on the job. As they are doing the work they are deserving of their keep.22 The workman receives his food as of right; it is not a gift, for he has earned it. The Twelve were going out in the service of God; they, too, would therefore merit their food as they labored for their Master. They would not need to pay for it, for he would supply what was needed.
11. Jesus turns to what is to happen when his emissaries reach a town or village.23 Matthew uses the word for town (or “city”) 26 times, but that for village only 4; for the most part he is more interested in the larger centers of population than the smaller (though here, of course, he is saying in effect, “When you enter any inhabited place, large or small”). There was, of course, a long tradition of hospitality in that land, and in any case inns do not seem to have been plentiful. It was natural to expect to stay as guests in private homes. The apostles are to inquire24 about a lodging, where the word signifies careful scrutiny but gives no indication as to how this is to be done. But the point is clear: they are not to choose lodgings haphazardly, but to look carefully for the right person. The householder is to be worthy (the word occurs 4 times in vv. 10–13), but worthy of what? GNB renders, “look for someone who is willing to welcome you,” and this may be the sense of it; in that case it is hospitality that is being stressed. Or it may be people who are willing to welcome the message of the kingdom; if so, it is spiritual fitness that is to be sought. The word does not seem to have the ethical connotation it has with us (people might be “worthy of blows,” Luke 12:48). Having found a suitable lodging place, they are told to stay there until you leave. The point about remaining in one home is apparently that they could well prolong their stay if they went from house to house, whereas Jesus was sending them on a trip that would embrace a large number of centers of population in a short space of time. They were not to spin it out. Another suggestion is that they might be tempted to move from a less luxurious home to a more luxurious one, but this does not seem as likely.
12. Now come instructions for behavior when they go into the place where they are to stay. The house will be the house chosen as the result of the scrutiny just described. The travelers are to begin by giving it (grammatically the house, but in sense the household) the greeting. Matthew uses the verb for giving a greeting again only in 5:47; it is the usual word and does not denote anything other than the greeting normally used, “Peace be to you.”
13. Two possibilities arise from their selection of a house: they may be right or they may be wrong in adjudging the house (i.e., “the household”) to be worthy. If the household really is worthy, then their greeting of peace will be effective; there really will be peace to these people.25 But this will not be the case if the household be not worthy; it is unrealistic to think that the peace of God would rest on such people. It is not easy to see precisely what is meant by their peace returning to them, but clearly it is a way of saying that despite the prayer involved in the greeting there would be no peace for the unworthy householders. The peace of which the apostles were the messengers would not remain with the contemptuous.
14. Jesus gives attention to those who reject the preachers. There will be some people who will not receive them, that is, receive them as guests, or welcome them. With the failure to welcome the preachers is coupled a failure to heed their words. These people will not listen to them, that is, hear them with understanding and appreciation. Neither the men nor their message is being welcomed. In such a case the preachers are to register what has happened with a small gesture of repudiation. As they leave that house or town (rejection might be on a smaller or larger scale) they are commanded to shake off the dust from your feet.26 This seems to mean the dust that clings to the feet, but BAGD notes the view of A. Merx that it means the dust raised by the feet that settles in the clothing. Either way it is clear that it is a symbolic act whereby the unfriendly people are repudiated. It points to the severing of the smallest of ties. The Jews held that even the earth in Gentile lands was unclean, and it was their custom when they returned from abroad to shake from their feet the dust they had acquired when abroad.27 Jesus is telling his followers to treat the unwelcoming Jews as they would treat Gentiles.
15. For Truly I tell you see on 5:18. It introduces a solemn and important statement. Those who reject the messengers of Christ will find themselves in a very difficult situation in the Day of Judgment (both nouns lack the article in this technical expression; cf. our “Judgment Day”). Sodom and Gomorrah, the cities of the plain, were proverbial for wickedness, and their overthrow showed something of the power of God and the certainty that wickedness could not forever go unpunished.28 It is perhaps significant that just before their overthrow they had committed a grievous sin against the laws of hospitality (Gen. 19). That it would be more bearable29 for the proverbially wicked cities than for these cities shows the seriousness of their offense: deliberately to reject those who came to them with the message of the nearness of God’s kingdom could not go unpunished forever. We should not miss the christological claim that is implied. If the punishment of those who rejected Jesus’ followers who brought his message was greater than that of notorious sinners of old, then how great must we understand Jesus to be?
c. Troubles Ahead, 10:16–25
16“Look, I send you out as sheep in the middle of wolves; therefore be sensible as serpents and innocent as doves. 17And beware of men, for they will hand you over to the courts and they will flog you in their synagogues; 18and you will be brought before governors and kings for my sake as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. 19But whenever they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you will speak; for it will be given to you in that hour what you are to speak. 20For it is not you who will be speaking, but the Spirit of your Father who will speak in you.
21“And brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child, and children will rise up against parents and have them put to death. 22And you will be hated by all on account of my name; but he who endures to the end, this one will be saved. 23And when they persecute you in this town, flee to the next. For truly I tell you, you will not finish (going through) the towns of Israel before the Son of man comes.
24“A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master. 25It is enough for the disciple that he be as his teacher, and the slave as his master. If they have called the head of the house Beelzebul, how much more the members of his household.”
The next section of the discourse is one that looks beyond the immediate mission on which the Twelve were to be engaged to a time when Christian preachers would be brought before hostile tribunals and undergo severe persecution. Whereas in the earlier section the preachers could expect a fairly friendly reception (they would receive hospitality in homes in each place to which they went), now there is the thought of bitter hostility.30 Matthew has gathered here teachings of Jesus that would be of importance to the Christian preachers of his own day. He seems to have liked to put together sayings that related to similar topics.
16. Matthew’s characteristic Look (see on 1:20) introduces a note of vividness as we come to a new section of the exhortation. Jesus’ I is probably emphatic (though Carson doubts this, as does McNeile; Bruce, however, affirms it, and Plummer finds “a notable emphasis on the Sender,” p. 151):31 “it is I who am sending you.” The preachers are now likened to sheep in the middle of wolves (the danger is even clearer in Luke 10:3 with “lambs in the middle of wolves”). Bengel points out that the word is in, not “into,” for they are already among wolves. Earlier Jesus has likened the hearers to sheep (v. 6, where see note), for they so easily go astray. Here the thought is rather that sheep are defenseless;32 they have no way of resisting fierce animals like wolves.33 Other than rams (who are so designated) they have no physical equipment designed for offense, and they are in trouble against most predators. In the middle puts them squarely in the place of danger; it leaves them no escape route. Wolves (again in Matthew only in 7:15) may be used literally or metaphorically. The expression leaves no doubt that there is serious trouble ahead. But there is also encouragement in the expression, for it speaks of no unforeseen tragedy but a difficult time that their Master has known would come and has reckoned with in his plan for them.34
But this does not mean that they need not be concerned. They must do their very best in the difficult situations they will meet. They are to be sensible as serpents, where the term rendered sensible35 is given various nuances in the translations, such as “wary” (REB), “cunning” (JB), or “shrewd” (NASB). It points to the need for careful thought when confronted with these difficult situations. Disciples are sheep indeed, but that does not mean that they are to be stupid. Serpents were widely thought to be clever as well as hostile to people (cf. Gen. 3:1).36 So when confronted with them it behoved the preachers to put forth their best mental effort. But brains are not enough. They must also be innocent37 as doves.38 The dove was thought of as chaste and as faithful to its partner for life, and its gentleness and guilelessness were proverbial.39 But also on occasion a dove may be thought of as “silly” (Hos. 7:11), so dovelike conduct must be balanced with a figure that brings out the need for wisdom. The Christian preacher must live in such a way as to commend the message, not carelessly as non-Christian people generally do. Cf. Bruner, “If we are to be sheep among wolves—and this is Jesus’ intention—then we should at least be smart sheep, sheep who use our heads, sheep who don’t overestimate the benevolence of wolves” (p. 381).
17. Jesus leaves the metaphors and says beware of men, where men, of course, is used inclusively to mean “people” and does not signify “members of the male sex.” The term is quite general, but in this context it has special reference to people in authority, for it is they who are in a position to bring believers before the courts. Hand over (see on 4:12) may be used of various kinds of handing over; it is the usual word for Judas’s betraying of Jesus (as in v. 4). Here it has the technical sense of handing over to the court for trial. Courts is more literally “sanhedrins,” a word that is used for all sorts of councils. Mostly in the New Testament it refers to the great council in Jerusalem, but here it signifies local councils (only here and in Mark 13:9 do we have the word in the plural); a council of twenty-three men was found in each locality. With it is linked synagogues, which, as we have seen before, means centers of Jewish life. Synagogues were places of worship, but they were also places of instruction and, as we see here, places where local justice was administered. The court would sit in the synagogue and punishment be inflicted. The terminology shows that Jesus is referring to the Jewish administration of justice, not that of the Gentiles. The offender would be whipped with a scourge of four thongs through which smaller thongs were plaited (Mak. 22b). Three judges were required (or, according to another opinion, twenty-three, Sanh. 1:2). One man would read passages of Scripture, a second would count the strokes, and a third would give the command before each stroke (Mak. 23a). There could be as many as thirty-nine strokes, but no more in a Jewish synagogue (cf. 2 Cor. 11:24).40
18. Jesus envisages that his followers will be brought before the highest in the land. Governors41 will stand for the highest officials in any given area (people like Pilate), and the link with kings (puppet kings like the Herods, though they were strictly tetrarchs and the like) makes it clear that Jesus is speaking of all the chief people. There would be the strongest possible opposition to his preachers. These expressions make it clear that Jesus is not now referring to the preaching trip on which the Twelve were about to embark, for that would not bring them before governors or kings. He seems to be speaking of what would happen when his followers preached in Gentile lands. When in due course some of his followers would undergo the trials of which he is speaking, this would be for my sake and it would be as a testimony to them. The authorities would think that they were simply dealing with ordinary lawbreakers, but that would be a superficial view. The prisoners would be people who were there for the sake of their leader, the Messiah, and the trial would not really be an ordinary legal process. It would be an occasion when witness would be borne to the coming of the kingdom and to what that should mean for those who were sitting in judgment on God’s messengers. To the Gentiles indicates that the testimony would extend beyond the officials of the courts and makes it quite plain that Jesus is now referring to happenings outside Palestine. The sufferings of the disciples would be the means of bringing the essential Christian message to Gentiles, people outside the ancient people of God but within the scope of the Christian message.
19. Whenever indicates that the fact is certain, though the time is not. Hand over, as in verse 17, refers to the official handing over for trial. Jesus is still concerned with the troubles his followers would have before hostile judiciaries, but now he is concerned with the problems his frequently illiterate followers would face in unfamiliar and terrifying surroundings. He tells them not to worry (see on 6:25 for this verb), a thought that receives some emphasis in this Gospel. In this place it means that those who trust the heavenly Father and who are acting in obedience to Christ need not be anxious when they stand before earthly councils. Specifically they need not be concerned about the manner or the content of their defense; they are to give forethought to neither. What they are to say before the great ones might well have been a worry to Galilean peasants, and Jesus’ words must have been a very welcome encouragement. This does not, of course, mean that those who speak for Christ on other occasions are spared the necessity of careful preparation and the proper marshalling of their thoughts. Jesus is not speaking about the general conduct of his followers but of the specific problems facing those who are haled before hostile tribunals. They are not to worry nor to prepare. It will be given is another example of the divine passive. God will give them what they need is the thought, and this is spelled out in the next verse with its reference to the Holy Spirit. The gift will be given in that hour; they will not know a long while beforehand what to say, but divine inspiration in the law court will enable them to give the witness that God wants them to give.
20. For42 carries the argument along in logical sequence, and you, preceded by its negative, is emphatic: “you will not be the speaking ones!” They will, of course, provide the mouth and throat through which the voice will come, but43 they will not have the responsibility for producing the defense. That will be something the Spirit of your Father will do for them. This expression is found nowhere else in the New Testament, but we need not doubt that Jesus is speaking of the one who elsewhere is usually called “the Holy Spirit.” This form of expression relates the Spirit more closely to the Father than do other ways of referring to him. Notice further that the Spirit is the Spirit of your Father. Jesus often refers to God as his own Father, and it is clear that he stands in such a relationship to God as do none of his followers. But that does not mean that they may not think of God as their Father, too. There is a difference in the relationship, but they are in a very meaningful sense children of the heavenly Father, and it is that Father who will send his Spirit to them to speak in them at this critical time. Matthew says that it is the Spirit who will speak, Mark, that it is “not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit” (Mark 13:11), and Luke, “I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries will not be able to resist” (Luke 21:15). All three assure the followers of Jesus that they will not be left to their own devices in the critical hours of which he speaks. We should not think of disciples in such situations as mere passive instruments; Bonnard points out that “to you” and “in you” are significant, and adds, “the man is never more himself than when the gift of ‘the Spirit of the Father’ is given him.”
21. Jesus is speaking of no minor difficulties but of troubles on a grand scale. He says that family life will be disrupted in the coming trials, and gives examples of the divisions that will occur (cf. Mic. 7:6; Mark 13:12). Brother will “hand over” brother (note again Matthew’s interest in brothers), so that there will be treachery in that place above all where we look for love and loyalty. The verb betray is that used of Judas in verse 4 and repeated in verses 17 and 19; the failure of people to be loyal is emphasized, while to death indicates a situation of the utmost seriousness. Jesus is not referring to minor troubles that can easily be put right, but to situations of the utmost gravity. There is no more far-reaching consequence of an action than that it leads to death. And it does not stop with fratricidal strife. A father will act in the same way toward a child, as will children to parents44 as they bring about their deaths. It is impossible to think of any more complete breakdown of the family, the basic unit of society.
22. Jesus turns from family disruption to a universal hatred for his followers. They will be hated (see on 5:43), which points to much more than mild opposition,45 while by all indicates wholehearted rejection of the disciples by the communities in which they are found. It cannot mean every individual without exception (for then there would be no point in their preaching), but it does indicate widespread and strong opposition. Christ’s people have often faced unreasoning hatred (why should people actually hate those committed to love for all?), but it helps to know that the Master foresaw this from the beginning. And the reason for the hatred? On account of my name! The name, of course, means all that the person is and stands for (see on 6:9). The persecution and the hatred will arise because of the disciples’ connection with Jesus, whose very name indicates that he came to save people from their sins (1:21). Hill thinks that there may be an allusion to bearing the name Christian (as in 1 Pet. 4:14). Either way we see the unreasonableness, the irrationality of the hatred. Of course, through the years Christians unfortunately have sometimes been less than faithful and have acted in anything but the spirit of Christ. But Jesus is here telling them that even when they are completely faithful they cannot expect to be universally liked. There is that about the name of Christ that arouses opposition and hatred from worldly people.