E. The Christ Made Known, 16:13–17:13
11. In the light of the two miraculous feedings Jesus asks how they could have misunderstood his words in the way they did. The memory of the ample supplies received on those previous occasions should have taken their minds off current bread shortages. In any case it is not easy to see how they got from “the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” to their own lack of loaves. Jesus repeats his warning exactly as he had given it earlier (v. 6).
12. Then (see on 2:7) they understood. The reminder of Jesus’ provision for the multitudes and the repetition of his warning against “the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” enabled them to recognize that Jesus was not speaking about bread,18 but warning them against the teaching of these groups. It is curious that teaching is singular when followed by of the Pharisees and Sadducees, for the two groups had many differences and in fact were strongly opposed to one another. Thus the Pharisees put a great deal of emphasis on the “tradition of the elders” with its stress on the written and oral law, whereas the Sadducees would accept nothing but the law written in the Bible. The Sadducees were politicians; they were a comparatively small, but wealthy, aristocratic party, very anxious to work with the Romans. The Pharisees were not politically minded but would live under any government that allowed them to practice their religion. But in different ways both were conservative, and over against Jesus and his followers they might be said to be united and form a unit. At the very least they were linked by their inability to see that Jesus was the Messiah, by their hatred of him, and by their determination to overthrow his teaching if they could.19
E. The Christ Made Known, 16:13–17:13
Matthew has told the story of a group of people who followed Jesus of Nazareth, at first with somewhat dim perceptions of who he was and what he taught. As the story has unfolded the disciples have learned more and more about Jesus, but they have still not given expression to anything that shows any real appreciation of who he was and what it was that he had come to accomplish. Matthew now tells his readers of how they came to know Jesus explicitly as Messiah, and how that knowledge was given content because of Peter’s misunderstanding and then because of the vision we know as the Transfiguration.
1. Peter’s Confession, 16:13–28
13Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” 14And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elias, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15“But you,” he says to them, “who do you say that I am?” 16And Simon Peter answered, saying, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17And Jesus answered him, saying, “You are blessed, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you but my Father who is in heaven. 18And I say to you: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven.” 20Then he admonished the disciples that they should tell no one that he was the Messiah.
21From then Jesus began to show his disciples that it was necessary for him to go off to Jerusalem and to suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. 22And Peter took him aside and began to remonstrate with him, saying, “God forbid, Lord; this will never happen to you.” 23But he turned and said to Peter, “Go away behind me, Satan. You are a trap to me, because you are not thinking the thoughts of God but those of men.”
24Then Jesus said to his disciples, “If anyone sets his will on coming after me, let him deny himself, and let him take up his cross, and follow me. 25For whoever sets his will on saving his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 26For what will a man be profited if he gains the whole world and loses his life? Or what will a man give as an exchange for his life? 27For the Son of man will come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will recompense each person according to his behavior. 28Truly I tell you, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”
The little group were in Gentile country with no crowds coming to them for teaching and for healing. This doubtless gave them the opportunity for quiet reflection. Jesus took advantage of the situation first to clarify their thoughts about his person, and then to teach them some important truths about messiahship and about being disciples of the Messiah. Shortly he would set out for Jerusalem (19:1); Matthew is telling us about a little interval for quiet reflection away from the crowds. This was a significant time, a time when it would be made clear to the disciples who Jesus was and what that meant in terms of rejection and suffering and death. They would be taught also a little of what discipleship means.20
13. At this point Matthew puts his emphasis on the Master. Jesus came, he says, when it is clear that the whole band came. But in this section it is what Jesus says and does that dictates the action. He came to the district (literally “the parts”; see the note on 2:22) of Caesarea Philippi. This city was situated about twenty-five miles north of the sea of Galilee at the foot of Mount Hermon, which was largely pagan territory. One of the sources of the Jordan issues from a cave near this city, and there was an ancient shrine in the cave. When the Greeks came they dedicated the shrine to “Pan and the Nymphs”; they called the cave “Paneion” and the area “Paneas.” In 20 B.C. Augustus gave the district to Herod the Great and built a temple of white marble in honor of the emperor at Paneas. When Herod died in 4 B.C. the area became part of the tetrarchy of Philip, and this man rebuilt the city. He called it Caesarea in honor of the emperor Augustus and added “Philippi” (which distinguished it from Caesarea on the Mediterranean coast and, of course, honored Philip himself).21 Jesus asked the disciples a question about what people thought of him. There is no indication of why he did this, and nothing in the narrative leads up to it. But he asked them who men (i.e., people in general) said the Son of man was. This, of course, was Jesus’ favorite self-designation (see on 8:20), and it is clear that he was asking a question about how he himself was regarded by people outside his circle, not inquiring about how they interpreted Daniel 7:13. This is clear from Mark and Luke, neither of whom has “the Son of man,” but simply “who I am” (a number of MSS import “I” into Matthew and there is considerable textual variation, but whichever reading we adopt, it is clear that Jesus is asking who people think he is). Some scholars hold that Jesus would not have put the question in this form, for by calling himself “the Son of man” he was asserting his messiahship. But this title (which he had used before, 8:20; 9:6, etc.) was not an accepted title of the Messiah; it was simply the way Jesus referred to himself. The objection lacks validity.
14. They reported a variety of opinion, but did not include any hostile views. They concentrated their answer on people who in some sense approved of Jesus, and even among them they found different views, though in one way or another all the views mentioned affirmed that Jesus was a prophet. Some people22 thought that Jesus was John the Baptist, as Herod did (14:2, though at first he appears to have rejected the view, Luke 9:9). John had made a profound impression, and apparently there were some who thought that his death at the hands of Herod could not be the last of him. A second group regarded Elias as more likely. This is the Greek form of Elijah, and these people evidently saw Jesus as the fulfilment of the prophecy that Elijah would appear again (Mal. 4:5). It is not clear why others thought of him as Jeremiah (we owe this information to Matthew; neither Mark nor Luke mentions him). In the Hebrew Scriptures Jeremiah is said to be listed first in some groupings of “the latter prophets,” and he may have been considered the typical prophet.23 Perhaps, too, those who held this view remembered Jeremiah’s prophecies of doom and held that Jesus was Jeremiah all over again because of what he had to say about the future of the nation (cf. 11:21–24). There is Jewish teaching that Jeremiah will come, together with Isaiah, before the coming of the End (2 Esdr. 2:18). And Judas Maccabaeus before his battle with Nicanor saw a vision of “a man who loves the brethren and prays much for the people and the holy city, Jeremiah, the prophet of God” (2 Macc. 15:14; in the vision Jeremiah gave him a golden sword). One of the prophets is a loose, general category. The people who held this view were not prepared to identify Jesus with any particular prophet, but they held that he was great enough to be numbered among the prophets. They may have agreed with the previous groups that he was the reincarnation of some great prophet of earlier days, or they may have thought of him as a new member of the prophetic band. Clearly many people were impressed by Jesus and saw him doing the kind of thing they thought prophets would do. It is also clear that there was a good deal of discussion and that people held very varied opinions of him.
15. But you are two important words: But is adversative and marks a contrast, while you is emphatic (the question is identical in Mark and Luke). Jesus turns attention away from the general public with its casual contacts and its imperfect loyalty and understanding and asks how it was with the men who were his closest followers (Jesus did not ask Peter for his personal view). They had left all and followed him. They had been with him now for quite some time. They had seen what he did and they had heard what he taught. In the light of all this, how did they view him? We are apt to concentrate our attention on Peter as we reflect on this passage, but we should not forget that he is the spokesman for the Twelve as he answers a question addressed to them all.
16. As Peter speaks for the whole band on this significant occasion, Matthew gives him his full name, Simon Peter (which he does only here in his Gospel, though cf. 4:18; 10:2). Peter’s reply is, “You are the Messiah,” words that are found in all three Synoptists (Mark has no more, but Luke adds “of God”; for Messiah [= Christ] see on 1:1). It is unlikely that this is the first occasion on which the apostles thought of Jesus as Messiah; some such idea was surely in their minds from the beginning, and it was because they saw Jesus in this capacity that they left their homes and followed him. But as they lived and worked with him, their understanding of “Messiah” enlarged. We see this in the way Peter continued: he went on to say that Jesus was “the Son of the living God” (for Son of God see on 8:29; cf. 26:63). Jesus was God’s Anointed One, the One who was sent to do God’s will in a special way. It may not be easy to understand precisely what Peter thought the Anointed One would be and do (even with his insight that he was God’s Son), but he was certainly giving voice to an exalted view of Jesus. He could not have ascribed a higher place to him. His words bring out the essential being of our Lord in the most comprehensive expression in the Gospels.
17. Matthew introduces Jesus’ response with his “having answered, said” construction, so frequent in this Gospel. Matthew is the only one to report this response (Mark and Luke move immediately to Jesus’ instruction not to tell anyone about his messiahship, which Matthew has in v. 20). Jesus tells Peter that he is blessed (see on 5:3), a word that signifies godly felicity. It means not worldly happiness (as “fortunate,” AB, might indicate), but religious delight; nor does it signify gloomy piety but rather holy joy. This is the one place in the New Testament where Peter is accorded his full family name, Simon Barjona, “son of Jona.”24 Jesus follows his pronouncing of a blessing on Peter with the reason for it. He begins by denying that what that apostle has just said is the end result of some splendid human effort; flesh and blood means any human being over against God or angels or demons (NEB, “mortal man”).25 It is important to realize that this knowledge is not due to human cleverness or even profound spiritual insight. Jesus says that it is the product of divine revelation (cf. 11:25–27), for the source of Peter’s words was “my Father who is in heaven.” There is intimacy in the expression “my Father” (the Jews spoke of God as “Father,” but they preferred the plural “our Father”); Jesus’ relationship to God is not the same as that of anyone else; he is saying something about himself as well as about the source of Peter’s information. We should also notice that he accepted Peter’s use of the word “Messiah”; mostly he declined to use the word (presumably because it would arouse misunderstanding of what he was and had come to do). But popular misconceptions would not flourish in the little apostolic band, and he accepts the title there.
18. And I follows the revelation made by the Father with a solemn statement from Jesus himself. He uses the emphatic pronoun, which in this context means “I, the Messiah”; it marks the following words as important. Peter has made a significant statement about Jesus: Jesus proceeds to make a significant statement about Peter. When he goes on to say “You are Peter,” his You is also emphatic: “You, the man who has just made this important statement, you to whom my heavenly Father has revealed this great truth.” We should not understand the words to mean that Jesus was giving the name at this point; that would more likely be in the form “You will be called” (cf. John 1:42); rather, Jesus was drawing attention to the significance of a name already familiar. He proceeds to make his point with a play on words: the Greek words for Peter and for rock are related.26 If a difference is intended here, the massive live rock will be the declaration, the great truth now revealed, that Jesus is the Messiah, over against Peter, the man who received the revelation.
“On this rock I will build my church”27 is a saying that has caused endless controversy in the church’s history. The big question is the meaning of this rock. Does it mean the man Peter? Or the faith Peter has just professed? Or is it the teaching of Jesus (as in 7:24)? Or Jesus himself? Each of the views has been argued passionately by some exegetes, often maintaining at the same time that other views can be espoused only by people who refuse to accept the plain meaning of the Greek. Clearly this is a place where we must tread carefully and keep in mind the possibility of interpreting the passage in ways other than the one that appeals to us.
Some scholars, especially from among the Roman Catholics, have insisted that Jesus is saying that Peter is the rock on which the whole church is to be built, and accordingly that only the church that can claim to be built on the apostle is the true church. But it is not easy to establish that the whole of the early church was built on the foundation of Peter, and what are we to say of the descendants of the non-Petrine churches? And so in later times with, for example, the churches of the Reformation that separated from the churches that professed a connection with Peter. Are we to say that because they understand this passage in a different way they are no part of the true church? Moreover, the statement that the rock is Peter is true only as we keep in mind what that apostle has just said; it is not Peter simply as Peter but Peter who has confessed Jesus as the Messiah who is the church’s foundation on whom the church is to be built. We must not separate the man from the words he has just spoken.28 From the earliest times it has been recognized that Peter’s faith is important for an understanding of the passage. Thus Chrysostom cites the words “upon this rock will I build my Church” and immediately goes on, “that is, on the faith of his confession” (p. 333). Any interpretation that minimizes the importance of the faith that found expression in Peter’s words is to be rejected. Barclay puts it this way: Jesus “did not mean that the Church depended on Peter, as it depended on Himself, and on God the Rock, alone. He did mean that the Church began with Peter; in that sense Peter is the foundation of the Church” (II, p. 141). And we must bear in mind that while the name Peter is connected with “rock” it is not easy simply to equate the two, for rock here is feminine, not masculine.29
We should also bear in mind McNeile’s point that to address Peter as this would be strange immediately following the direct address “You are Peter.” Why would Jesus not continue with something like “and upon you I will build my church”?30 This would be more natural if Jesus were addressing the whole group rather than Peter himself. And if Peter was here given the chief place, the question of the disciples just a little later as to who would have that place (18:1) is inexplicable. They at any rate knew nothing of Peter as the supreme pontiff. So it is argued that the church is built on Peter’s confession of the truth that Jesus is the Messiah, the truth that the Father has revealed to Peter. Against this is the emphasis on Peter himself in the incident. So perhaps it is better to think of the church as built on Peter as the man who has received the revelation.
Others argue that we should put the words in the context of Matthew’s Gospel as a whole. They point out that Jesus likens the person who hears his words and builds on them to a man building on rock (7:24–25).31 Throughout this whole Gospel the teaching of Jesus is taken with the utmost seriousness, and there is never a hint that his followers can take it lightly. This does not mean that people are expected to earn their salvation by keeping Jesus’ teachings; his atoning death is as clear in this Gospel as in the others. The whole of his teaching is to be taken into account. This includes his teaching that the lowly will be blessed (cf. the beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount). In this way the view that the teaching of Jesus is in mind runs into that which holds that Jesus himself is the rock (cf. 1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:6–8) or the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11; 2 Tim. 2:19).
Thus it seems that there is truth in more than one way of looking at the words. There is no doubting that Peter is assigned a preeminence (which we see clearly in the early chapters of Acts), but it is not an absolute preeminence and we must be careful in defining it. In any case there is no mention of any successors of Peter; whatever position is assigned to him is personal and not transmissible to those who would succeed him. Jesus is speaking of the apostle and not of those who followed him.32
The word church has also caused much disputation. Since it occurs in the Gospels again only in 18:17, many scholars hold that Jesus could not have used the word. Its occurrence here, they think, is a case of Matthew’s reading back onto the lips of Jesus an expression that would justify the existence of the church in his day. But this is surely unjustified. The word we translate as church could be used of almost any assembly; it is used, for example, of the rioting Ephesians in Acts 19:32, 40. Granted that Jesus intended his followers to continue after his death as a coherent group, there is no reason why he should not have used the word occasionally. If he was the Messiah he would be linked with a community that followed his teachings.33 This would be the more likely in that the word was used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament for the people of God, whether assembled or not. In the New Testament the word is mostly used of the local church, but in Ephesians particularly it refers to the whole church universal (as also in some passages in the earlier letters, e.g., 1 Cor. 12:28).34
Jesus goes on to say, “the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” The word gate is normally used in the New Testament for some impressive gate, such as the gate of a city (Luke 7:12), of the temple (Acts 3:10), or of a prison (Acts 12:10); it may indicate the gate to life (7:13–14). Hades is the underworld, the place of the dead; it may be contrasted with heaven (11:23). That the gates … will not overpower the church is a little puzzling, since we think of gates as part of the defense rather than as a weapon of offense. But gates were important parts of fortifications in the first century and were usually flanked by bastions. Wooden gates would be overlain with bronze. They thus lend themselves to the imagery of strength. The gates of Hades were probably regarded as especially strong (did not they keep in all the dead?). The expression may, of course, be metaphorical (cf. “powers of death,” REB). Jesus is then saying that the gates of Hades are not strong enough to prevail against his church; that church will never die. There may also be the thought that though Hades is strong and the dead do not come back from it, it is not strong enough to contain Jesus and it is not strong enough to contain the Christian dead. Whether we can understand all the detailed imagery or not, it is clear that Jesus is giving his followers the assurance that nothing in this world or the next can overthrow the church.35
19. Jesus continues with the promise that he will make Peter a gift, where the future tense probably points to the time subsequent to the resurrection (about which Jesus is about to speak, v. 21). He says that he will give Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven.36 The kingdom, of course, is not to be identified with the church. The kingdom has reference to the divine rule; the church to the people of God. They are closely related, but not identical. The key lends itself to metaphorical uses (e.g., the key of knowledge, Luke 11:52). It is an obvious symbol for admitting people through a door, but it was also used for exercising authority (the steward rather than the porter). We should understand it here in close connection with Peter’s confession of faith: it was on the basis of his confession and not on that of personal abilities that Peter was given the keys. In the Lucan passage the lawyers were excluding people from the knowledge of God by their handling of Scripture. Later in this Gospel Matthew will report that Jesus spoke of the scribes and Pharisees as shutting up the kingdom before people and thus preventing them from entering (23:13). Peter, by contrast, was to open the way. We see him doing this in Acts 2 and 3, where his preaching brought many into the kingdom, and in Acts 10, where he opened the way for the Gentile Cornelius to come in. We should see another aspect of the use of the keys in Acts 8:20–23, where he is excluding an impenitent sinner. And while the gift of the keys indicates that Peter is clearly given a certain primacy, we should not exaggerate this. The right to bind and loose, here connected with the gift of the keys, is given to the disciples as a whole in 18:18; thus we are not to think of Peter as elevated to a plane above all the others.
The metaphor of binding and loosing was used by the rabbis for declaring forbidden or permitted.37 There is a strong opinion that the Christians thought rather of excluding from and admitting to the Christian community. This may be correct, though we should bear in mind that whatever is neuter both times and that this fits better with things than with people. If we take this seriously, the saying means that the Spirit-inspired church will be able to declare authoritatively what things are forbidden and what things are permitted. The Jews held fast to the law of Moses, but this was not to be binding on the new community in the sense in which the Jews understood it; Jesus was telling Peter how it should make decisions about what is permitted and what forbidden. We should also notice that the verbs of binding and loosing are both future perfect, a tense about which France says: “as the future perfect sounds as stilted in Greek as in English, the tense is apparently deliberate” (p. 256). With respect to its significance in this passage Chamberlain remarks: “This is wrongly translated ‘shall be bound’ and ‘shall be loosed,’ seeming to make Jesus teach that the apostles’ acts will determine the policies of heaven. They should be translated ‘shall have been bound’ and ‘shall have been loosed.’ This makes the apostles’ acts a matter of inspiration or heavenly guidance.” He adds, “This incorrect translation has given expositors and theologians a great deal of trouble” (p. 80).38
In the end we must be guarded in our understanding of this passage, for there are several possibilities, and whichever view we adopt we must agree that there are quite good reasons why other people hold other opinions. But on the whole it seems that the right to “bind” and “loose” refers primarily to the regulation of conduct, while the keys point to admission and exclusion. The new community, while regarding itself as God’s Israel and retaining the Old Testament Scriptures, did not think of itself as nothing more than a variant of Judaism. Living by the same Scriptures and serving the same God, but rejecting the Jewish way of life, meant that there would be a continuing need for guidance in understanding what was permitted and what was forbidden. Jesus is saying that that guidance would be given to Peter and (a little later he adds) to the other apostles. Good reasons may be brought forward for holding that Jesus meant that the new community would exercise divinely given authority both in regulating its internal affairs and in deciding who would be admitted to and who excluded from its membership.
20. Matthew rounds off the episode, as do Mark and Luke, with Jesus giving the disciples firm instruction to tell nobody that he was the Messiah. Matthew’s favorite Then (see on 2:7) moves on to the next point. Jesus gave the Twelve firm instruction that they were not to disclose the conversation. There is some emphasis on he in the expression that he was the Messiah: he and no other was the Messiah. This was a fact, and he had admitted it among the disciples. But the term could all too easily be misinterpreted and understood, for example, in political terms. If the disciples had gone out proclaiming that Jesus was the Messiah, both they and their hearers would have thought of a glorious, conquering Messiah. They would have looked for armies and bloodshed and victories. To know that Jesus was the Messiah was one thing; to understand what messiahship really meant was quite another. To have proclaimed Jesus’ messiahship would have been to invite misunderstanding. Better by far for Jesus to get on with the completion of his mission and to keep the knowledge that he was the Messiah within the inner circle. The disciples are to follow the same path as the Master: he knew he was the Messiah, but he did not proclaim it publicly; they are to take up the same position.
21. From then marks the incident as of critical importance; it changed the whole thrust of Jesus’39 instruction of the Twelve. Now that it was clear that the little band had come to understand that Jesus was indeed the long-promised Messiah, he proceeded to teach them something of what messiahship meant. For the Jews in general, and presumably for the Twelve up to this point, being Messiah meant unadulterated glory. The Messiah might encounter opposition and even hardship, but this kind of thing was no more than an unpleasantness that must be passed through on the way to majesty and splendor. For Jesus suffering was the essence of messiahship, and from this point on he brings it out again and again (cf. 17:9, 12, 22–23; 20:18–19, 28; 21:38–39; 26:2). Learning this was a lesson the disciples found very hard indeed. This may be the point of Matthew’s began; it would be a long, slow process, but Jesus began it right after Peter made his magnificent affirmation, and the others presumably acknowledged its truth.40 He told them that it was necessary for him to suffer, and we should take notice of the way he puts it. He does not simply prophesy that he will die, nor does he even say that, on the whole, this seems to be an advisable procedure. He says it was necessary41 for him to go off to Jerusalem. Most of his ministry, as Matthew records it, had been spent in Galilee and adjacent regions. But now a divine necessity takes him to Jerusalem (cf. 23:37; Luke 13:33–34) for the climax of his ministry. There he must suffer, a word that can cover a variety of unpleasantnesses,42 and many things indicates that the suffering will be no light affliction. Jesus makes no mention of what the suffering entails, but specifies that it will come from the elders and chief priests and scribes. The conjunction is a comprehensive term for the Jewish leadership, and the single article that precedes the list classes them as a united group. The conjunction can scarcely be anything other than the Sanhedrin, the supreme legislative body among the Jews. There were local elders in local governing bodies and synagogues, but those in Jerusalem would be members of the Sanhedrin. It is the same with chief priests (for the term see on 2:4); strictly it denoted the ecclesiastic holding the highest position, but it came to be used of others in the high-priestly family (unfortunately there is no information about which others).43 Scribes (see on 2:4; 5:20) were men learned in the law; they formed an important part of the Sanhedrin. What Jesus is saying is that the highest court in the land will inflict suffering on him. Not only will he suffer pain, but he will be killed. The disciples are to be in no doubt as to the outcome of the sufferings he describes.
But this is not the end. On the third day he will be raised. The verb is one regularly used for being raised from the dead, and the passive is important. Jesus does not say that he will rise, but that he will be raised, that is, the Father will raise him (the New Testament does sometimes say that Jesus will rise,44 but it is more common to have the passive in this way). For the third day see on 12:40; according to the normal Jewish way of counting time it was the third day on which Jesus rose. Jesus simply makes the statement and does not elaborate, and apparently the disciples did not take it in; their attention was concentrated on the suffering and death, which they could not fit into their understanding of what it means to be the Messiah.
22. Characteristically it is Peter who initiates the disciples’ reaction, probably all the more so since he has just received Jesus’ commendation and his promise of an important role in the future. He took him aside,45 which indicates a friendly attitude (though perhaps NEB’s “took him by the arm” is a trifle too definite). That he further began to remonstrate with him carries on with the superior attitude (began may mean that he only made a start). Peter is now assuming that he knows better than Jesus does what the Master should do. He does not accept what Jesus has said and presumes to criticize him for saying it. “Lord” is a respectful form of address, but “God forbid” is a strong repudiation of what Jesus has just prophesied.46 Peter has just given expression to the conviction that Jesus is the Messiah and has been praised by Jesus for this. He has seen something of Jesus’ greatness, and because he has seen that greatness it is inconceivable to him that Jesus would undergo the humiliation of which he has just spoken. For Peter it is unthinkable that the one he has just pronounced “the Messiah, the Son of the living God” should be rejected and killed. How could the Jewish nation reject the Jewish Messiah? So he says forthrightly, “this will never happen to you”; his double negative is very emphatic (and with the future indicative rather than the aorist subjunctive even more so).
23. But has adversative force and sets Jesus at odds with what Peter has just said. Evidently he had been facing away from Peter, but he now turns to him and in unusually strong words utters a vigorous repudiation of Peter’s pious petition. “Go away” is more forceful than elegant,47 while behind me consigns him to an insignificant place where he can be ignored. Most surprisingly of all Jesus addresses his follower as “Satan,” an address unparalleled in the New Testament. It expresses vividly Jesus’ rejection of Peter’s suggestion. Peter’s words are not what might have been expected from the man to whom the revelation of Jesus’ messiahship had been made; they are a suggestion emanating from Satan himself. We are to understand that Jesus’ death was so central to God’s plan that to try to avoid it was to do the work of none less than the evil one himself.48 Indeed, Peter was taking up essentially the position of Satan in the temptation narrative. The evil one had tried to get Jesus to take the easy, spectacular way and to avoid the path of suffering, and that in essence was what Peter was advising.
Jesus goes on to say that Peter was a trap49 to him. The apostle’s well-meant suggestion, if adopted, would lead Jesus seriously astray and turn him away from that death which was to be central to the gospel he came to establish. The trouble was that Peter was not thinking in the right way. The thoughts is really a general term meaning more literally “the things”; Peter’s mind was not set on the things of God. But is the strong adversative50 — far from the things of God (“You are not on God’s side,” AB), Peter’s mind was set on purely human ways of thinking. It comes naturally to us to think of glory and honor, of comfort and security. We find it difficult to understand things from the perspective of the righteous God who loves righteousness (Ps. 11:7). Peter had had his view that Jesus was the Messiah confirmed; in the light of that he found it incredible that this would entail rejection and suffering and death.
24. Then (see on 2:7) here means “next in sequence”; having vigorously set aside Peter’s unwelcome and worldly suggestion, Jesus now addresses the disciples as a whole. He has told his followers that he must suffer and now, in words similar to those in 10:38–39, he goes on to say that those who follow him must likewise expect suffering. He puts the resolution to be a disciple hypothetically but positively,51 and speaks of anyone, which makes the words refer to any would-be disciple whatever. Sets his will is important; the prospective disciple must exercise his will; nobody becomes a follower of Jesus by drifting into it. There must always be the wholehearted decision. Coming after me could mean simply walking behind Jesus as he moved along the road, but in a context like this there is no doubt that it means “be a disciple,” “be a committed follower.” Such a person must deny52 himself. The natural tendency of the race is to affirm oneself, to concentrate on what serves one’s own interests, to make oneself as prosperous as one can. Jesus calls on all his true followers to renounce such self-interest (NEB, “leave self behind”). It is not easy to understand that we must concentrate on meeting the needs of others rather than promoting ourselves (which is why people make utterances like the one Peter had just made).
Jesus brings out the truth that he is looking for the utmost in self-denial by saying that the disciple must take up his cross.53 We minimize the force of this with sayings like “We all have our cross to bear.” Jesus was not talking about minor discomforts. Those who heard him utter these words knew what taking up a cross meant; they knew that it was the prelude to that person’s crucifixion. Jesus was speaking about a death to a whole way of life; he was talking about the utmost in self-sacrifice, a very death to selfishness and all forms of self-seeking.54 We should not miss the force of his cross: there is a cross for every servant of God. And when we come to follow, we should not miss the present imperative: “let him keep on following me.” Jesus is talking about a discipleship that is a whole way of life.55 Taking up a cross is not something that can be done once and for all and gotten out of the way (Luke has “take up his cross daily,” Luke 9:23).
25. Jesus gives a reason;56 whoever makes the statement general. Jesus is enunciating a principle of universal application. Paradoxically anyone at all who sets his will on saving his life will lose it. As in the previous verse there is emphasis on the action of the will. To set one’s will on saving the life is self-defeating. Life57 may be understood as the soul (so Calvin, II, p. 195), in which case Jesus is saying that to concentrate on saving one’s own soul is to lose it; the follower of Jesus must be outgoing. Or it may be life here and now but life in its most meaningful sense.58 And, of course, it is not impossible that Jesus had both senses in mind, for what he says is true of both. If we regard life as no more than this ordinary, physical life, if we spend our time and our resources on getting as much out of this life as we can, Jesus is saying, we lose life in its more important sense.59 To spend oneself trying the get the best one can out of this present life, the here and now, is to lose life in the fullest sense. Jesus is not saying that anyone who concentrates on his own selfish concerns will be punished by having his life taken from him. He is saying that, by the very fact that he concentrates on his own selfish concerns, that person has lost life in the best and fullest sense. He exists, but does not live. Jesus is speaking of the person who puts his emphasis on all that increases the sum of things he finds attractive. It is the selfishness that makes one’s personal happiness the ultimate criterion. That, Jesus says, is self-defeating; to concentrate on saving the life is to lose it. It is otherwise with anyone who loses his life for my sake. Again there is the whoever that makes the words universal. But this time it is not only the will to lose one’s life that Jesus is speaking of, but actually losing it.60 This is the complete opposite of willing to save one’s life. Jesus is not talking about some masochistic activity; he is not referring to someone who has such a poor self-esteem that his life crumbles. He is referring to the person who loses his life for my sake, the one who puts the service of God’s Messiah before all else, who counts all well lost for Christ’s sake and who consequently devotes all his time to serving Christ and other people for Christ’s sake. That person will find life. He now finds that the life he lived before giving up all for Christ was not really life at all. Full and abundant life is the life of service, the life in Christ, the life that takes anyone out of concentration on merely selfish concerns and puts ultimate meaning into life.
26. Jesus drives home his point with a couple of questions. The first appeals to the profit motive and compares the value of the whole world and that of a person’s life (KJV has “soul” here, as do some of the modern versions, e.g., NIV, ASV; NEB has “at the cost of his true self”; cf. Moule, “in exchange for himself,” IBNTG, p. 185). What is the profit61 in an exchange where one gains the maximum imaginable at the cost of one’s life? Indeed, it is more than the maximum imaginable, because there are no circumstances in which anyone could gain the whole world. World, of course, means this world with all its riches, and the whole means all of it (cf. H. Sasse, “to gain possession of everything that man can control,” TDNT, III, p. 888). Put one’s life in the balance against this, and the life wins out. The magnitude of the loss is brought out by a second question in which Jesus asks what anyone would give as an exchange for his life, where the language of commerce is used (“What could a man offer to buy back his soul once he had lost it?” Phillips).62 But the language of commerce is not applicable when we are talking about one’s life. Nothing in the world of commerce has a value comparable to that of one’s life, his essential being. One’s life is in a different world; nothing can compensate for its loss. Allen thinks that Jesus is speaking about martyrdom, and, of course, what he says has relevance where martyrdom is a possibility. But the saying is of wider application. It is possible to lose one’s life in the highest sense while yet continuing in existence.
27. Jesus further brings out the point by referring to eschatological values. In due course this world with all its values will be done away, and in the world to come the profits made in the here and now will be seen for the shoddy things they are. This is the third consecutive verse with an opening For; Jesus is following a tightly reasoned argument. The giving of an exchange for life in this world is nonsense, for in due course this world will be replaced by something new. The Son of man is, of course, Jesus’ favorite way of referring to himself (see on 8:20). He does not say when or where he will come, but clearly he has ceased to speak of the ordered life of the present world and is speaking of the end of that ordered life. The end will be ushered in by the coming63 back to this earth of the Son of man. He will then be coming in the glory of his Father, an expression that brings out the oneness of the Father and the Son and also something of the brilliance that will attend the second coming. That will not be in the lowliness that characterized his first coming to this earth, but in glory and splendor. This is further brought out with the addition with his angels. We should probably understand his to refer to the Son’s angels rather than those of the Father, but there is probably no great difference. In that new world it is hard to think of any division of glory into that of the Father and that of the Son.
Then leads us to what is next in sequence. Jesus speaks of the judgment wherein each will receive the appropriate requital.64 His behavior is the sum of his achievement; it includes all that he has done.65 Jesus makes it clear that there will be a final reckoning and that those who have exchanged their essential being, their “life,” for ephemeral profit or pleasure will receive the recompense that is due. In the end there will be a righting of all wrongs.
28. “Truly I tell you” (see on 5:18) marks out the words that follow as especially solemn and significant. Jesus goes on to say that there are some of his present audience (those standing here) who66 will not undergo death67 before the coming of the Son of man in his kingdom68 (there are many references to the kingdom in this Gospel, but few that refer to it as “his” kingdom; though cf. 13:41; 20:21). Some interpreters have understood this to mean that the end of the age would come about during the lifetime of some of Jesus’ hearers. But it seems unlikely that Jesus would mean this; he consistently refused to set dates, and in any case he said explicitly that he did not know when the End would come (24:36). In his commentary on the equivalent passage in Luke Alfred Plummer lists seven principal ways of understanding the passage that have been put forward: (1) the transfiguration, (2) the resurrection and ascension, (3) Pentecost, (4) the spread of Christianity, (5) the internal development of the gospel, (6) the destruction of Jerusalem, and (7) the second advent. He points out that the passage assigns special privilege to those standing there over against people in general, and in his judgment that rules out all except the first and the sixth; he prefers the sixth.69 He may be right, but we must bear in mind that the Son of man comes in many ways. There is a good deal to be said for a reference to the events linked by the death and resurrection of Jesus and the coming of the Spirit that led on to the preaching of the gospel and the growth of the church. That was a decisive coming, of permanent significance to the church.
Ridderbos reminds us that prophecy “often compresses the distinct phases of the future into a unity.” He further points out that “Whenever He (i.e., Jesus) told the disciples about His exaltation, He spoke either of His resurrection or of His coming again.” He holds that “coming in his kingdom” is a compressed way of referring to the whole exaltation and that it was not until after the resurrection that the disciples would see that there were two parts to the coming in of the kingdom. They would see the early manifestation in the resurrection and what followed immediately, though the final fulfilment of the words is yet future. Some such understanding of Jesus’ words is surely required.
Matthew 17
2. The Transfiguration, 17:1–13
1And after six days Jesus takes Peter and James and John his brother, and brings them up into a very high mountain by themselves. 2And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as the light. 3And look, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him. 4But Peter answered Jesus, saying, “Lord, it is good that we are here; if you wish, I will make three shelters here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.” 5While he was still speaking, look, a bright cloud covered them, and look, a voice from the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, the beloved, in whom I am well pleased; listen to him.”
6And when the disciples heard this, they fell on their face and they were greatly afraid. 7And Jesus came to them and touched them and said, “Get up and don’t be afraid.” 8And when they raised their eyes, they saw nobody but Jesus himself alone.
9And as they were going down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, “Tell the vision to no one until the Son of man has been raised from the dead.” 10And the disciples asked him, saying, “Why therefore do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” 11And he replied, “Elijah indeed comes, and he will restore all things. 12But I tell you, that Elijah has come already, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wanted. So also the Son of man will suffer at their hands.” 13Then the disciples understood that he had spoken to them about John the Baptist.
This incident is related in all three Synoptists, though not in John, perhaps because he prefers to bring out the point that the glory was everywhere in Jesus’ life. Whereas Matthew normally abbreviates matter he shares with Mark, on this occasion he is significantly longer (most of the added matter is in vv. 6–8). There are individual differences, such as Matthew’s information that when they heard the heavenly voices the disciples fell on their faces, or Luke’s recording of the fact that the conversation between Jesus and the heavenly visitants concerned Jesus’ death. The central truth, that Jesus was transfigured, is common to all three, though it is not easy to see exactly what that means. But at least Peter, James, and John saw a transformed Jesus, one who for a short time appeared in heavenly glory. After Jesus’ teaching on taking up the cross, it may be that the vision provided some encouragement for the disciples. But we should also see the incident as having significance for Jesus himself. Only a few verses back he has spoken of the suffering and death that he faced; now the heavenly Father gives Jesus the assurance that what he is doing is pleasing in his, the Father’s sight. That will help him as he goes forward.1
Many recent scholars have regarded the story as originally a resurrection story, and Rudolf Bultmann, for example, asserts this strongly.2 But despite the firmness with which this view is held by some, it is hard to understand why. As Stendahl says, “The prevailing interpretations of the story as a post-resurrection appearance projected back into the ministry of Jesus hardly account for many of its precise details.” The story does not read like a postresurrection story and nothing in it indicates that Jesus was already risen, quite apart from the “precise details” to which Stendahl draws attention.3
1. Matthew and Mark both locate the next incident after4 six days (Luke has “about eight days”). Time links like this are not common in the Synoptic Gospels (before the passion narratives), and this may indicate that the two incidents should be taken together. Jesus has made it clear to the disciples that he must suffer in the fulfilment of his vocation. Now in the vision on the mountain he receives the assurance that the path on which he has embarked is the right one. Matthew has a series of present tenses (which makes for a vivid narrative) as he tells his readers that Jesus took5 a small company of his apostles up a high mountain. This is the only place where Matthew links Peter, James, and John, but the other Gospels make it clear that the three formed something of a unit and that they were especially close to Jesus. In the Greek they are linked by a single definite article; Matthew regards them as in some sense a unity. To John he adds the description his brother; perhaps in these early days John was of rather less stature than James. Jesus then took these three up a very high mountain. There has been a good deal of speculation as to which mountain this was. The traditional site is Mt. Tabor, but most scholars agree that this is not likely to be correct: it is too far away from Caesarea Philippi and, moreover, it seems to have been occupied at the time, which would mean that it was not a good place for the solitude Jesus sought. A spur on Mt. Hermon is more likely; other suggestions include Mt. Miron and Jebel Jermak, but we have no means of knowing for sure. Jesus took them to a place where they could be by themselves;6 this was to be a special occasion, and Jesus avoided publicity. Luke tells us that Jesus went up the mountain to pray (Luke 9:28). He also speaks of the disciples as being asleep (Luke 9:32); thus it appears that the transfiguration took place at night (they went down the mountain the next day, Luke 9:37).
2. There on the mountaintop Jesus was transfigured. There is a variety of translations; for example, GNB reads “a change came over Jesus,” and Cassirer, he “was transformed.” I have retained the conventional and somewhat obscure word transfigured because in fact we do not know exactly what happened, and this word at least brings before us the truth that Jesus underwent a unique transformation before the disciples. Matthew selects two features of this change, the first being that Jesus’ face shone like the sun. This is a detail we owe to Matthew; Mark says nothing about Jesus’ face, and Luke tells us that while Jesus was praying the appearance of his face “became other”7 but he does not tell us in what way it was “other”; only Matthew speaks of it as shining.8 He goes on to say that Jesus’ clothing9 became white as the light. The shining of the face indicates unusual radiance. It is perhaps curious that his clothing became white as the light, for we do not normally regard light as being white (though we can use the expression “white light”). The meaning appears to be that even Jesus’ clothing became splendid in appearance. J. Behm understands this as the “transformation from an earthly form into a supraterrestrial,” and he explains further, “Before the eyes of His most intimate disciples the human appearance of Jesus was for a moment changed into that of a heavenly being in the transfigured world.”10
3. A characteristic Matthean And look draws attention to the astonishing appearance11 of two great Old Testament figures, Moses and Elijah.12 Matthew does not say how the apostles recognized them, but the important thing is not how they knew, but that it was these people who talked with Jesus and not some of their own contemporaries. Moses, of course, was the great lawgiver, and Elijah an outstanding figure among the prophets. The two represent a way of saying that the whole of the Old Testament revelation found its fulfilment in Jesus.13 None of the conversation is recorded, though Luke tells us that it concerned Jesus’ death, which was soon to take place in Jerusalem.
4. A typical Matthean “having answered said” construction introduces a typical Petrine initiative. Peter answered Jesus, which is somewhat curious since Jesus is not said to have spoken to Peter; that apostle “answered” the situation in which Jesus was appearing. Peter spoke to Jesus, not to the heavenly visitants, and addressed him reverently and appropriately as “Lord” (in Mark the address is “Rabbi,” and in Luke “Master”). He went on to say that it was good that they were where they were, and to make a suggestion. If you wish14 defers to what Jesus thinks is good and proper, and Peter goes on to suggest the construction of shelters for Jesus and the heavenly visitors. I will make characteristically thrusts Peter into the forefront of the proposed action (some MSS read “we will make” [cf. KJV], but this reading is unlikely to be correct). It is not clear what shelters means,15 but since temporary shelters were used at the Feast of Tabernacles some scholars hold that we should see the Tabernacles motif here. Be that as it may, clearly Peter was envisaging a lengthy stay on the mountain for the heavenly visitors and wished to provide suitable lodging places. He says nothing about shelters for himself and his earthly companions; perhaps that is to be understood, or he may have in mind that they would remain in the open. Luke tells us that Peter did not know what he was saying, and his suggestion is certainly incongruous (cf. Bruce, “The whole scheme a stupidity”).
5. While he was still speaking means that the next phase of the action did not wait until Peter was finished with his suggestion; it went right on while he was still bringing out his idea for the huts. A bright cloud16 came over the area. The traditional translation is something like “overshadowed,” but since the cloud was full of brightness there is no thought that it cast a shadow; it covered them with light rather than with shade (NIV has “enveloped”). Here it is surely symbolic of the divine presence.17 It is not clear whether we should understand the cloud as enveloping them all or whether this refers only to Jesus together with the heavenly visitants. But since the voice came to them from or “out of” the cloud, perhaps we should understand that the three disciples saw the cloud come upon Jesus and the heavenly visitants who were thus drawn into the immediate presence of God. Matthew’s characteristic and look (the third use of the expression in this vivid narrative) introduces the high point: first there were the heavenly visitants, now a voice from the cloud. He does not say whose voice it is, but the fact that it comes from the cloud, taken together with its reference to Jesus as my Son, shows plainly that it is the voice of God (and the words spoken are very similar to those God spoke at the baptism of Jesus, 3:17). Matthew does not say how it was made clear that This refers to Jesus, but clearly that is his meaning. The divine voice speaks of the Son as the beloved. This may mean “my own dear Son” (GNB), but more probably it is a messianic title; the Messiah is “the Beloved.”18 Matthew tells us (as the others do not) that the voice went on, “in whom I am well pleased,” which may well signify, “I take pleasure in him.”19 At the very least it indicates warm approval and makes it clear that the Father is setting his seal of approval on the Son in his earthly mission. The heavenly voice concludes with the command, “listen to him” (cf. Deut. 18:15). His credentials are unrivaled; mortal people should take heed to all that he says.
6. Matthew adds (as the others do not) that at the sound of the voice the disciples fell on their face, and further that they were greatly afraid (“fell on their faces in terror,” REB). Prostration (falling on the face) was characteristically used for taking up a lowly position before God or on occasion before a great man. It was a sign of humility and devotion. Fear is not infrequently used to denote a deep reverence before God, but it may also be used of fear generally. Since Jesus counseled them not to be afraid, on this occasion we should understand the term to refer simply to being scared. The three disciples were going through an awesome experience; it is not surprising that they were very frightened.
7. We owe to Matthew the information that when the disciples were distressed in this way Jesus reassured them. He came20 to them and touched them (this verb can be used for fastening oneself to, clinging to, but clearly here no more than physical contact). Matthew does not indicate why he did this, but the disciples had been through a very trying experience and one in which they had been on the frontier of the supernatural. The three had had a wonderful blessing, but they had evidently had a feeling of the uncanny as they had had this contact with another order of being, and this human touch must have been very comforting. They realized that the Master was still with them and that he felt for them. He told them to get up and stop being afraid. Clearly the wonderful episode had had its terrifying aspects, but it was now over and they must get on with the business of living. Their experience on the mountain had doubtless been wonderful, both for what it was in itself (people do not usually experience such a close presence of God or hear his voice so audibly) and for what it told them about Jesus. They had thought enough of him to leave “home and toil and kindred,” but they could not have known that he stood in such a close relationship to the heavenly Father.
8. The disciples had fallen with their faces to the ground (v. 6), and evidently they did not raise their eyes until Jesus touched them and spoke to them. Now that they did, they found that the wonderful experience was over; the heavenly visitants had gone, and so had the cloud. They were with Jesus himself alone. This puts the emphasis on Jesus and on the absence of anyone else. They saw that he alone was there, he and no other.
9. Matthew moves to the descent from the mountain. As the little party went down, Jesus gave them firm instructions21 to keep quiet about what they had seen on the mountain. No one comes first in its clause with a certain emphasis; they are to tell no one at all.22 The Son of man refers to Jesus in his divine mission, a mission that would involve death and then resurrection, to which he alludes here. The passive raised looks to the action of the Father in bringing his Son back from the dead.23 Jesus looks through death to the certainty of the resurrection (which, of course, implies that his death will take place along the way). By referring to the resurrection he concentrates on the ultimate triumph.24
10. The disciples reply with a question, where we might have expected them to make some comment on the vision or the need for silence. But instead they ask why the scribes say that Elijah must come first.25 Therefore is not what we expect, and it is not easy to see its force in this place. Perhaps it arises because they had just seen Elijah in the vision and were interested in his further activities. The disciples would have had a problem in that the prophecy said that Elijah would precede the Messiah and “restore all things”; why therefore should the Messiah suffer? Moreover, Jesus had just spoken of his resurrection, which, of course, implies a preceding death. If the Messiah was going to die, where did Elijah fit into the picture? Other passages show that Elijah was in people’s minds (16:14; John 1:21), so there would be interest in him. For whatever reason the disciples want to know about him, and in any age there is curiosity about a worthy from the past who is said to be about to reappear on earth. It is interesting that they refer to the teaching of the scribes when they might well have referred to the prophecy of Malachi 4:5 that was the origin of the teaching of the scribes. But since these men were the religious experts, their teaching about important religious matters would be respected by people like the disciples. Their word must26 indicates a compelling divine necessity; in the view of the learned scribes it was in the divine will that Elijah would precede the Messiah. In view of the prophecy this required no profound insight, but perhaps the disciples want to reinforce their own position by reference to accepted authorities. They do not say who Elijah is to precede, but the prophet speaks of “the great and dreadful day of the Lord” and this is easily understood of the coming of the Messiah. After Peter’s confession narrated in the preceding chapter and now the splendid vision on the mountain, none of them would have had any doubts but that Jesus was the Messiah. But where was Elijah? The scribal interpretation of the prophecy was clearly widely known, but these disciples had not seen a fulfilment. Had Elijah come unnoticed? Were the scribes wrong? They ask Jesus to clear up the point for them.
11. It may be a little too strong to translate “But he replied,”27 but there is certainly some adversative force as Jesus speaks to the puzzlement of the disciples out of his own clarity and knowledge. “Elijah indeed28 comes,” where the present tense is used to refer to something that is past; it brings out the continuing validity of the prophecy (the present is not infrequently used in “confident assertions regarding the future,” BDF 323[1]), and the aorist in the next sentence points to the fact that Elijah has already come. The future, he will restore, indicates a future aspect of the work that prophet has inaugurated. Restore signifies a bringing back to a former state of affairs, and all things shows that the restoration will be thoroughgoing (REB’s “will come and set everything right” misses the restoration idea). The thought is apparently that sin has corrupted and ruined the creation, but Elijah’s function is to usher in the events that will (through the atoning work of Jesus) restore the pristine blessedness. A less likely view is that we may understand the words to mean that Jesus accepts this as a fair statement of what the scribes taught. However, John did not in fact restore all things; that was still future.29
12. Jesus goes on to make plain that the prophecy about Elijah has already been fulfilled: “Elijah has come already,” but the surprising thing is that they did not recognize him. Jesus does not say who they were, but evidently it is people at large who are in mind, perhaps particularly the Jewish leaders; there was no general recognition of Elijah. The great prophet had come among the people unrecognized and therefore without receiving the welcome he would surely have had if they had known who he was. But is the strong adversative,30 “but, on the contrary.” They ill-treated him, and this is described in the words did to him whatever they wanted (“worked their will upon him,” NEB). The verb did is neutral and may be used of doing good (7:12), or evil as here. To him is really “in him,” a somewhat unusual construction that perhaps means that what they did had its effects not only around the prophet but “in” him (though the preposition may simply be equivalent to the dative). Whatever they wanted indicates that they acted toward him as though there was nothing to be considered but their own will. They did not realize that they were answerable to God for their mistreatment of God’s own messenger to them.
The ill treatment afforded the prophet is the measure of the ill treatment Jesus himself will in due course receive; so31 also links the fate of the Son of man with that of the prophet. Will suffer is not a simple future,32 but a compound that expresses the certainty of the outworking of a divine purpose. The suffering of the Son of man will be the doing of evil by wicked men, but God will use it to bring his purpose to pass, and this means that there is a certain inevitability about it. At their hands is more literally “by them”; the expression sheets home their responsibility. They are not to be thought of as spectators watching while the Son of man suffers, but as the perpetrators of a grievous wrong, those who will bring the suffering about. The scribes on whose interpretation of Scripture the disciples had relied so much were wrong about Elijah and wrong about the Messiah. They thought of both in terms of earthly glory and victory. They did not understand that the purpose of God in both was worked out in terms of lowliness and suffering. There is glory on the mountain of transfiguration, but it is a glory that meant suffering for the Baptist and would mean suffering for Jesus.
13. Following the explanation came understanding, though it is not easy for us to see how Jesus’ words would convey to the disciples the information that he had been speaking of John the Baptist. Perhaps there had been no other religious figure of importance in recent times, at least among those known to the disciples, who had been mistreated in the way Jesus had indicated. Or perhaps he said more than Matthew has recorded. Or the disciples may have recalled that Jesus had identified John with Elijah (11:14). For whatever reason, they now understood that the prophecy about Elijah had its fulfilment in John the Baptist and that that great man’s treatment at the hands of the authorities set the pattern that would in due course receive further fulfilment in Jesus.
F. The Christ at Work, 17:14–18:35
Matthew has practically concluded his account of Jesus’ public ministry in Galilee. He will shortly move on to the Master’s move to Jerusalem for the final showdown and the passion and resurrection (19:1). But before he does this, he gives his readers one final glimpse of Jesus at work.
1. Casting Out a Devil, 17:14–20
14And when they came to the crowd, a man came to him, falling on his knees 15and saying, “Lord, take pity on my son, for he is a lunatic and suffers grievously; for frequently he falls into the fire and frequently into the water. 16And I brought him to your disciples, and they could not cure him.” 17But Jesus answered, saying, “O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring him here to me.” 18And Jesus rebuked it, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured from that hour. 19Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, “Why could we not cast it out?” 20And he says to them, “Because of your small faith. For truly I tell you, if you have faith like a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you.”
All three Synoptists tell us that immediately after the wonderful experience on the mountain Jesus and the three were confronted with a situation in which the rest of the band had been unable to cure a lunatic (or epileptic) boy. In sharp contrast to the glory on the mountain is the scene of frustration and defeat that awaited Jesus and the three when they came down and were immediately confronted with a demoniac—a veritable “coming down to earth” experience. Although on an earlier occasion the disciples had had power over demons (10:1), this time the nine were powerless. But the Jesus who had been so wonderfully transfigured on the mountain was well able to cope with the problem on the plain. He reasserted his authority over the demons (for the last time in this Gospel) and gave some significant teaching on the importance of faith. Matthew greatly abbreviates Mark’s narrative, but he stresses the disciples’ lack of faith as Mark does not.33
14. Matthew does not tell us where this incident happened; he simply says that they (evidently Jesus and the three) came34 to the crowd (Matthew prefers to speak of “crowds,” but on this occasion he has used the singular; Mark and Luke both note that it was a great crowd). He says that a man came35 to Jesus and fell on his knees, a piece of information found in this Gospel only. The attitude is that of one who is respectful and who is seeking a favor.
15. He addresses Jesus respectfully as “Lord,” as befits his kneeling posture. He asks Jesus to take pity on his son (5 times Matthew records people as asking Jesus to take pity on the sufferer when they come for healing). Actually he says “the” son, that is, the son in his family. He speaks of the boy as a lunatic,36 which most modern interpreters take to mean “epileptic” (so, e.g., NRSV, NIV), for the boy’s symptoms are those which we associate with that complaint. Some translations retain “lunatic” (as JB, Phillips, and, of course, KJV; Carr says, “the child was a possessed epileptic lunatic”!). Mark and Luke both speak of the boy as possessed by “a spirit” (Mark adds that it is a “dumb” spirit). All three bring out the fact that it was a very serious case, Mark and Luke by describing convulsions and Matthew by saying that the boy suffers grievously37 (“has such terrible fits,” GNB), and further that he falls into fire or water. These falls are cited as indicating epilepsy, which, of course, they might; but they are also congruous with lunacy. The falls happened often, and since the boy was still alive we may presume that there was good family care.
16. The father says that he had brought his boy to your disciples, where your distinguishes Jesus’ disciples from those who learned from other teachers; disciples does not necessarily confine the reference to the Twelve, but they must have been primarily in mind. Unfortunately the disciples were not able to cure him. This verb is of interest since it is mostly used of curing people from illnesses of one sort or another, whereas demons are said to be “cast out” (both Mark and Luke mention that the man asked them to cast out the spirit, but they could not do it). Matthew seems here to regard the problem as one of sickness. But the main point is that the boy remained in his unhappy condition. The disciples could not provide the answer, and the father now looks to Jesus to do what his followers could not do.
17. But has adversative force and sets Jesus over against his powerless followers. He came down the mountain and “found Himself confronted by that helpless boy, by that helpless father, by that helpless age, by those helpless disciples” (Morgan, p. 225). Matthew introduces his words with his frequent “having answered, said” and tells us that Jesus complains not only about the powerless disciples and the crowd looking on, but about the whole generation. O (elsewhere in Matthew only in 15:28) may be used in address or as an exclamation; not much turns on which we accept in the present case. It may perhaps indicate emotion or it may be no more than a stylistic element.38 Generation (see on 16:4) refers to all the people alive at that time, at least in Galilee. Jesus castigates them in two ways: they are faithless and they are perverse. The former term39 points to their wrong attitude toward God; throughout Scripture people are urged to trust God, and when they do that nothing is impossible to them (cf. v. 20). The fact that nobody in the crowd, including some of his own disciples, could bring about the lad’s cure is evidence for Jesus that they were lacking in the faith through which God delights to work. They are also perverse,40 which may mean that they are “twisted” in their thinking, “distorted” in their spiritual attitude. With such a fundamental imbalance they were quite unable to do things like cure the troubled boy.
Jesus asks how long41 he is to be confronted with this sort of problem. He asks first how long he is to be with people like this, which gives us a little glimpse of how trying it must have been for such a one as Jesus to be set in the middle of such spiritual pygmies. A second question refers to “putting up with”42 people like this. The two questions bring out something of the trial it was for Jesus to be constantly confronted by people who were not fully sympathetic with what he was doing. His words are apparently directed at the crowds and the disciples; they can scarcely be aimed at the father, who was trying to do the best he could for his boy. It seems that the father and others had left the scene of the attempted cure and rushed to meet Jesus when they saw him approaching. The Master was thus some way from the boy, so he called on them to bring him to him.
18. When the boy arrived, Jesus took firm action. He rebuked43 it.44 It was important to cure the boy, but it was also important to make it clear that evil in any form is to be opposed. Although no emphasis is put on it, for example, by calling the spirit “unclean” or “evil,” it was clearly seen as one who brought harm to the boy. For that it was rebuked. Matthew does not say that Jesus told the spirit to come out of the boy. That may be implied, or perhaps the rebuke was sufficient. The result was that the spirit left the boy and its departure meant healing. Mark says that the demon convulsed the boy when Jesus commanded it to come out of him, so that people thought that he was dead until Jesus took him by the hand and raised him. But Matthew concentrates on the simple fact that the boy45 was cured from that hour. Again Matthew refers to a cure even though the expulsion of a demon is in mind. And the cure was instantaneous (“at that very moment,” GNB). The lack of any delay stresses Jesus’ mastery over demons and disease.
19. Matthew’s favorite Then (see on 2:7) carries the narrative along, and it is supplemented by another Matthean word translated came to (see on 4:3). The expression for privately46 is used 6 times in Matthew and 7 in Mark, but only sporadically throughout the rest of the New Testament. These two Evangelists are more than a little interested in what went on outside the public gaze. The disciples were evidently chagrined at their failure to deal with the demon. They had received power to do this on an earlier occasion (10:1, 8), and clearly they had expected success this time too. Their we is emphatic: “Why could not we cast it out?” Their expression could not47 shows that they recognized that they lacked the power. Earlier it was said that they did not have the power to heal (v. 16), here that they were unable to cast the demon out.
20. We could translate And he as “But he”:48 Jesus is set in contrast to the powerless disciples. In one concise expression Jesus explains it: “Because of your small faith.” This is the one place in the New Testament where the word small faith occurs (though the corresponding adjective is found 4 times in Matthew and once in Luke). In view of the fact that Matthew is often accused of softening hard words about the disciples we should notice that more than anyone else he preserves the information that Jesus found his followers lacking in that most important quality—faith.49 By small faith he is probably referring to the poor quality, the poverty of their faith, for he goes on to speak of even a very little real faith as able to move mountains. Perhaps the disciples had been treating their power to cast out devils as a new possession of their own—a kind of magic—they would go through their routine and the devil would come out! But that is not the way it was. There was nothing in the disciples themselves that overcame demons. It was God who in every case gave the power, and it was necessary for them to look to him and to act in humble faith. Jesus speaks of faith like a mustard seed (see on 13:31 for this smallest of seeds), an expression that clearly had become proverbial for the smallest thing. Jesus is saying that even a little faith would enable the disciples to do what they had just proved they could not do. It is not necessary to have great faith; even a small faith is enough, as long as it is faith in the great God.50
Jesus illustrates. He envisages a disciple telling a mountain to move and says that it will happen. The moving of mountains was proverbial among the Jews for accomplishing something of very great difficulty (e.g., it was said that Rabbah was “an uprooter of mountains,” Ber. 64a; one who saw Resh Lakish in debate “would think that he was uprooting mountains and grinding them against each other,” Sanh. 24a). The expression should, of course, be understood metaphorically.51 Through the centuries pious souls have never been conspicuous for transferring physical objects such as literal mountains, but there are many instances on record where mountainous difficulties have been removed by the exercise of faith. Then Jesus makes a staggering promise: “nothing will be impossible for you.” This is comprehensive; Jesus sets no limit to what can be done by the person of faith.52 We should perhaps reflect that if there is no limit to the power the person of faith can exercise, Jesus says nothing about that person’s knowledge. It is possible to misunderstand the will of God and to try to move a mountain that should not be moved. In that case the believer will be disappointed.53 Jesus is not dealing with such cases. He is not trying to cover every eventuality. He is saying that there are infinite resources open to the believer, and he is calling on those who follow him to exercise the faith they have.54
2. A Prophecy of the Passion, 17:22–23
22And as they were gathering in Galilee, Jesus said to them, “The Son of man will be delivered into the hands of men, 23and they will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised.” And they were very sad.
Matthew has already twice recorded Jesus’ prediction that he will be killed in Jerusalem and once that he will rise again (16:21; 17:12; the frequent statement that this is the second prediction of the passion is thus inaccurate). Now he has another such prophecy, but this time it is not related to a specific context, other than that it was spoken in Galilee.
22. This passion prediction took place as they were gathering in Galilee. Matthew does not tell us who they were, but we must believe that the words were spoken to the Twelve. It is highly unlikely that Jesus would have given teaching like this to people outside the inner circle. That they were gathering in Galilee tells us that it took place before Jesus moved up to Judea, but there is no more indication of time than that and no more indication of place than that it was in Galilee. The group was gathering, but the word is very general and tells us little.55 Jesus apparently did not wait for them all to assemble (it was not “when they had gathered”). No reason is given for his choice of time and place; Matthew simply records the prediction. He tells us that Jesus spoke to them; evidently he took the initiative, for there is no indication that he was replying to a question or a remark that any of the disciples made. He began with the Son of man, his normal way of referring to himself in the fulfilment of his messianic vocation. The Son of man, then, will be delivered,56 where will be is not the simple future but the compound used in verse 12 (where see note; see also on 2:13), which is often used to denote “an action that necessarily follows a divine decree is destined, must, will certainly.”57 The passive is often taken as “the divine passive,” signifying that it is really God who delivers him up, a truth that Paul brings out (Rom. 8:32). This delivering up will be into the hands of men, where the verb perhaps is used in the more or less technical sense of handing over to the courts. The arresting officers are not defined and the whole prediction is left very general. But it is plain enough that Jesus says that he will be given over into the power of those who are no more than men (and evil men at that!).
23. Jesus makes it plain that he is not facing some minor discomfort. Those evil men will kill him, so he is facing the end of his life here on earth. But that is not the end of the matter; on the third day he will be raised. For on the third day see the note on 12:40; it is consistently said that that will be the day on which Jesus’ resurrection would take place. Here, as often, he does not say that he will rise but that he will be raised, using the expression that brings out the action of the Father. Jesus is in no doubt that he will die, but in no doubt either that death will not be the end. The Father will raise him, and that speedily, for it will be as early as the third day. For Christians through the centuries (and even for these very disciples sometime later), this has been the heart of the faith. But at that time the disciples were more impressed by the words about death than by those about resurrection. So Jesus’ words grieved them, and that in much more than a slight degree. They were very sad.
3. The Temple Tax, 17:24–27
24And when they came to Capernaum, the collectors of the didrachmas approached Peter and said, “Does not your teacher pay the didrachmas?” 25He says, “Yes.” And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth receive customs duties or tribute? From their sons or from outsiders?” 26And when he said, “From outsiders,” Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free. 27But lest we be a snare to them, go to the sea, cast a hook, and take the first fish that comes up, and when you have opened its mouth you will find a stater; take it, and give it to them for me and you.”
This paragraph is found in Matthew only. It indicates Jesus’ view that in the light of his relationship to the heavenly Father he was under no obligation to pay the temple tax, but also the fact that while he was here on earth he submitted to the regulations that people in general were bound to observe. After the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 the Romans made the Jews pay the temple tax to Jupiter Capitolinus; some scholars connect the story with the Christians’ attitude to that tax. This, however, seems fanciful, as do other attempts to see it as concerned with the payment of taxes by Christians to the civil authorities. It makes a lot more sense to understand it as fitting in with the Palestine of Jesus’ day.
24. The little group proceeded to Capernaum (see on 4:13). This is Matthew’s last reference to the city that had been so important throughout Jesus’ ministry. There the collectors of the didrachmas came to Peter. It is not clear why they approached him rather than Jesus; perhaps it was the custom not to approach a rabbi directly, and they saw Peter as the person who would be involved in handling day-to-day matters like settling taxes. The didrachma58 was the amount the Jewish adult male would pay each year for the upkeep of the temple. The impost was based on the provision that each man should pay a half shekel for the upkeep of the tabernacle in the wilderness (Exod. 30:11–16), though the tax itself was of much more recent origin.59 It was paid by Jews outside Palestine as well as those in the holy land, and provided a significant part of the revenue that kept the temple going with all its functions. So important was it that the Mishnah devotes a whole tractate to it (Sheqalim). From it we learn that pledges for the tax might be exacted from “levites, Israelites, proselytes, and freed slaves, but not from women, slaves, or minors” (1:3). Priests did not pay it (1:4); Gentiles or Samaritans were not allowed to pay it (1:5). Those who collected this tax approached Peter with a question that assumes that Jesus would in fact pay the tax (Patte says, “They anticipate a negative answer” [p. 246], but he has not paid sufficient attention to the form in which their question is couched; it looks for a positive answer).60 Evidently it was due but had not yet been paid, and they were giving Peter a gentle reminder that something ought to be done.
The tax men inquired whether your teacher paid the tax. We should understand this as a polite request that the tax be paid, but a dispute could have been raised by it. It seems that Jesus and his followers were living on the gifts of well wishers (Luke 8:3), and they may possibly have been exempt. There is also the question of whether it would be right to pay tax out of gifts given for their maintenance. The priests in the temple service were certainly exempt from the tax, and others occupied solely in God’s service apparently could claim exemption. The collectors would not have been learned people, so that any objection would have to be referred to the authorities in Jerusalem. There could be a lengthy and possibly acrimonious dispute, which was not in keeping with Jesus’ approach.61
25. Peter agreed that Jesus did pay the didrachma; he says is in the present tense, which gives greater vividness (curiously Cassirer has “It is true that he does not”; Peter’s answer is a one-word affirmative). It would be expected that the apostle would proceed to take the matter up with Jesus, but when he came into the house to which they were going Jesus took the initiative (“forestalled him,” REB).62 He asked Peter’s opinion and addressed a question to him, calling him Simon as he usually did (it was Jesus who gave Simon the name Peter, but only once is he recorded as having addressed him as Peter, Luke 22:34). He went on to ask whether in Peter’s judgment earth’s kings get their taxes from their sons or those outside their families. Many translations have something like “The citizens of the country or the foreigners?” and record Peter’s answer as “The foreigners” (so GNB). But this is not really the alternative, and it does not correspond to reality.63 Conquerors, of course, have always shamelessly plundered conquered peoples, and some of them may perhaps have been able to make do with this source of revenue, but the kings of the earth in general certainly have always taxed their own people and have never been in the luxurious position of being able to finance their activities solely from taxes levied on foreigners. Such translations do not pay enough attention to the language Jesus uses. He speaks of their sons, which draws attention to the male members of the royal households (and would probably include all in those households): the contrast is not between citizens and foreigners, but between those of the royal household and those outside.64 Kings regularly tax their citizens, not their families. Jesus speaks of different kinds of taxes,65 but he does not seem to be defining narrowly two kinds of taxes; he is using the words to refer to taxes in general.
26. Peter’s reply66 gives the expected “From outsiders,” whereupon Jesus points out the consequence, “Then67 the sons are free.” The logical result of the reasoning Peter has pursued is that the king’s sons (and, of course, their dependents) are in a different relationship to taxes than the population in general; they are free from the obligation. Those who belong to the king’s household are exempt from the king’s taxes. Since Jesus was in a special sense the Son of God, he was exempt from taxes to be paid to the temple of God, and by extension his close servants were exempt too.
27. But exemption from the requirement to pay taxes was not the only element in a complex situation. If Jesus paid the tax he would be putting himself in the same position as others; he would be classing himself as an “outsider,” not as a “Son,” and that impression should be avoided. If he refused to pay the tax, he would give the impression that he rejected the temple and all that it stood for, whereas the Gospels make it clear that he did no such thing.68 Moreover, there were the people entrusted with the obligation to collect the taxes to consider. Had Jesus insisted on his rights, those men would not have been able to collect the tax from him. Jesus did not intend to be a snare to them,69 to lead them into sin in some way, though it is not clear precisely how a refusal to pay would cause the collectors to sin. It is salutary to notice that in that situation Jesus gave thought to the position in which the tax collectors found themselves and the effect his actions would have on them. As Meir puts it, “Jesus is interested in something more than theoretical rights. If the sons are free from tax, they are not free from the claims of love, even love of enemies” (cf. Green, “Payment is an expression of pastoral concern”). A refusal to pay would put the tax collectors in a difficult position. We do not know exactly what would have followed, but they would probably have had to appeal to their superiors (the authorities in Jerusalem?), who would have been most unlikely to have been sympathetic to Jesus. When the result came back, it would surely be that they must take the money from Jesus, even though he maintained that he was not liable to pay. The collectors would thus be placed in an awkward position, and in the end they might find themselves constrained to take action they were not convinced was right. Perhaps this was the sin (as Derrett holds).70 Alternatively the sin might be that which resulted from the effect on the tax collectors (and all who knew what he had done) if Jesus refused to pay the tax. They would conclude that he rejected all that the temple stood for and accordingly turn away from him and his message of salvation.
To prevent any such unfortunate consequences Jesus took action that would satisfy the tax collectors without using money given by supporters for the maintenance of the little band. He instructed Peter to do some fishing with a hook (the only reference to catching fish with a hook in the New Testament; elsewhere a net is spoken of). He is to take the first fish he catches and open its mouth, and there he will find a stater.71 Derrett argues that the fish in mind would have been a catfish, which scavenges near landing places, is without scales, and thus is not to be eaten by Jews. It grows to a length of four feet or more. It has a large mouth and, according to Derrett, would be attracted by a bright disk, which when taken into the mouth “might easily be caught in the framework of the hinder part of the mouth” (p. 259).72 A stater was enough to pay the temple tax for two people, and it seems to have been often used in this way. “Found” money did not belong to anyone, so there was no barrier to Peter’s paying the tax with it. The little group’s meager store of money would then not have been used to pay taxes. It is also possible that the use of a “found” coin, while it satisfied the tax collectors, did not involve any admission that Jesus was liable to pay the tax; it was not “his” money.73 Jesus tells Peter to give the coin to the collectors for me and you.74
Matthew does not tell us that Peter actually caught the fish in this way and paid the tax. His interest was not so much in the act as in the fact that Jesus spoke in the way he records. That Jesus was in the relationship of Son to the heavenly Father was for Matthew the important thing. Many commentators find the story difficult and rationalize in one way or another. Thus Melinsky thinks that Jesus’ words to Peter “may have been a humorous way of saying, ‘Get on with your fishing and the tax will look after itself.’ ” But if this is what Matthew meant, he has recorded it in a very strange way. It is better to understand him to mean that there would be a real coin in the mouth of a real fish.
Matthew 18
4. Life in the Messianic Community, 18:1–35
For the last section of his narrative before going on to Jesus’ departure for Judea Matthew has a discourse of Jesus on what it means to live as servants of the Messiah. He stresses the importance of lowly people in the kingdom. The values of the kingdom are not those of the world. Uprightness and a readiness to forgive others are important. There is disagreement as to whether Matthew has combined statements of Jesus made on a number of occasions or whether this chapter formed a connected whole from the first. There is disagreement also as to where the divisions in the chapter ought to be made. All in all it seems better to take it as Matthew has given us and study it as one piece of teaching.1
1At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2And he called a little child, and stood him in the middle of them, 3and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are turned and become like little children, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. 4For whoever humbles himself as this little child, this person is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5And whoever receives one such little child in my name receives me. 6But whoever makes one of these little ones who believes in me to sin, it were better for him that a heavy millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned in the depths of the sea. 7Woe to the world because of the things that lead people to sin. The things that lead to sin must come, but woe to the man through whom the thing that leads to sin comes.
8“And if your hand or your foot leads you to sin, cut it off and throw it away from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or maimed rather than having two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. 9And if your eye makes you sin, pluck it out and throw it away from you; it is better for you to enter life having one eye than having two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.
10“See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I tell you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of my Father who is in heaven. 12What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them goes astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go and keep looking for the one that strayed? 13And if it happens that he finds it, truly I tell you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that did not go astray. 14Just so it is not the will of your Father in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.
15“And if your brother sins against you, go and reprove him between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16But if he does not listen, take with you one or two more in order that every matter should be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 17But if he refuses them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses even the church, let him be to you like the pagan and the tax collector.
18“Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on the earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on the earth will be loosed in heaven.
19“Again, I truly say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about any matter that they may ask, it will be done for them by my Father who is in heaven. 20For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there in the middle of them.”
21Then Peter came and said to him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” 22Jesus says to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy-seven times.
23“For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24And when he had begun to reckon, there was brought to him a debtor owing ten thousand talents. 25And since he did not have the money to repay, the lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife and his children and all he had, to repay the debt. 26Therefore the servant fell down and prostrated himself, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you all.’ 27And the lord of that servant, moved by compassion, released him and forgave him the debt. 28But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he took hold of him and began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay back what you owe.’ 29Therefore his fellow servant fell down and besought him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you.’ 30But he would not, but he went off and threw him into prison until he should pay back what was owed. 31When therefore his fellow servants saw what had happened, they were very sorry and went and told their lord all that had happened. 32Then his lord summoned him and says to him, ‘You wicked servant, I forgave you all that debt because you appealed to me; 33and was it not necessary for you also to have had mercy on your fellow servant, even as I also had mercy on you?’ 34And his lord was angry and handed him over to the torturers, until he should repay all that was owed. 35So also will my heavenly Father do to you unless you each forgive his brother from your hearts.”
As he finishes his account of Jesus’ Galilean ministry, Matthew records a discourse some of which is not recorded in Mark and/or Luke and some of which is recorded but not in the same context. He begins with a section on the importance of lowliness. Mark tells us that the disciples were disputing about who would be the greatest (Mark 9:34); Jesus’ teaching about lowliness responds to this. He goes on to the importance of avoiding evil and of being forgiving to other people.
1. At that2 time3 the disciples is general enough to signify any followers of Jesus, but in this context it surely means the Twelve. Came (see on 4:3) may indicate a more or less formal approach, and this is favored by the nature of the question they put to Jesus. They seem to have become increasingly sure that Jesus was the Messiah, which meant that the messianic kingdom was just around the corner, and that in turn meant for them that the top places in the kingdom were up for grabs. So they ask a question about the greatest in the kingdom.4 Jesus has said some unexpected things about what being Messiah meant and about the kingdom. The disciples wonder who will be the great ones in the kingdom of which he spoke, so they ask a question to find out. They use the comparative of the adjective meaning “great,” so that their question strictly means “Who is greater—?” But the comparative is often used in the sense of the superlative, and there is no reason for doubting that here they are looking for the name of the person who would be second to Jesus when the kingdom was established. Barclay remarks, “the very fact that they asked that question showed that they had no idea at all what the Kingdom of Heaven was” (II, p. 174).
2. Jesus did not answer immediately or in the way the questioners expected. He called a little child5 and stood him in the middle of the group. Surrounded by grown men, the child must have looked insignificant, which of course is Jesus’ point.6
3. Jesus prefixes his comment on the child with “Truly I say to you” (for which see on 5:18). It is a solemn opening and emphasizes that what follows is important; it is to be heeded carefully. Mark and Luke tell of Jesus taking a child, and Mark of setting him in the middle and taking him into his arms; they also tell us (much in the manner of v. 5) of teaching that Jesus gave on that occasion. But Matthew alone has the words about being turned and becoming like children.7 Be turned can refer to any one of a variety of turnings, but in this context it will signify a change of direction of the whole life, a conversion.8 This is further described as becoming like little children; adults tend to leave childlike ways behind them (and some such ways certainly ought to be abandoned; children can manifest qualities like pride, selfishness, and temper),9 but Jesus is pointing out that there are some things to be learned from small children. He seems to be referring to the insignificance and unimportance of children as the ancient world saw them, perhaps also to qualities like trustfulness and dependence.10 Adults like to assert themselves and to rely on their own strength and wisdom. This attitude is impossible for those who wish to enter the kingdom. We should notice further that Jesus does not answer the set terms of the question. He does not concern himself with relative positions and who will have the top job when the kingdom comes: he speaks of the more basic problem of getting into the kingdom. His emphatic double negative rules out the possibility of even entering the kingdom for those seeking great things for themselves. He does not talk about eminence in the kingdom at all; without genuine humility it is impossible even to get into it, and for humility the question of personal preeminence does not arise.
4. That humility is foremost in Jesus’ mind is now made clear. Whoever makes the following statement quite general; what Jesus says is of universal relevance. And he does not think of any quality in the child other than humility; it is the one who humbles himself as this little child who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.11 We should not take this to mean “humbles himself as this little child humbles himself” but rather “humbles himself until he becomes like this little child.” Humility was a quality Jesus himself displayed (Phil. 2:8) and which he looks for in his own. It is not a quality that comes easily and naturally to people like us; a person must work at being really humble. In modern Western societies children are often seen as very important, but in first-century Judaism they were not (other, of course, than that a man who had many children was seen as richly blessed; children formed an important indication of divine approval). In the affairs of men children were unimportant. They could not fight, they could not lead, they had not had time to acquire worldly wisdom, they could not pile up riches, they counted for very little. To speak of them as humble is surely a reference to their small size rather than any intellectual or spiritual virtue. Their smallness made them very humble members of society. Thus when Jesus says that his followers must humble themselves as this little child, he was not uttering a truism, but making a most unexpected pronouncement.12 He draws attention to this little child, the concrete embodiment of childhood standing there in their midst. In the previous verse Jesus spoke of children generally, as the plural shows; now he refers to the child standing there.
The kingdom of heaven is not like earthly kingdoms. In earthly kingdoms military might or earthly wealth is what counts. It is the ability to overthrow others or to outsmart them or to outbid them that matters. The person who asserts himself is the one who gets on. But Jesus’ kingdom is quite different. Paradoxically it is the person who is like the little child who is the greatest. Being in the kingdom does not mean entering a competition for the supreme place, but engaging in lowly service. True greatness consists not in receiving service but in giving it. The genuinely humble person is the one that really counts in that kingdom. The humble person is the greatest.
We should not overlook the fact that this implies reliance on the love and the grace of God. Jesus does not emphasize these qualities at this point, but they are implied. The little child can do nothing to bring about his status; all that the child is and has comes from someone else. Jesus’ followers are not great achievers who carve out for themselves a niche (or a cave!) in the kingdom of heaven. For all that they have and all that they are they depend on the heavenly Father.
5. A different aspect of the kingdom is now brought out, but one in which the child is still important. Jesus speaks of anyone13 who welcomes14 one such little child. The numeral one indicates the minimum, the smallest possible number of children, and such widens the thought to include children in general, not only the child there in the middle. To receive even one of them hospitably is important. It is the habit of the world to serve the great and the popular, but for the follower of Jesus the priority must be to receive and welcome the world’s little people. Jesus says further that the reception is to be in my name,15 where the name is used “of all that the name implies, of rank, authority, character etc.” (AS; cf. “believe on the name” and similar usages; see further the note on 6:9). Jesus speaks of the disciple as receiving the little child because that is what Jesus would do and therefore it is what Jesus would want his servant to do too. And when that happens, Jesus says, “me he receives.” In the Greek “me” comes first, which gives it emphasis, “no less than me.” What started this whole discussion off was the question “Who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven,” but this leads to the surprising statement that one receives Jesus by receiving just one little child like the one in the midst. The kingdom is not to be envisaged in the way the disciples had been thinking of it.
6. From the privilege Jesus moves to the responsibility. Just as receiving the little child properly brings such a great reward, so acting against the interests of the child brings a severe punishment. Another whoever shows us that Jesus continues to deal in sweeping generalities; this is what happens universally, not simply in the isolated instance of the one little child in the middle of the group of disciples. He speaks of one who makes one of these little ones … to sin.16 The verb with its idea of entrapment indicates that the person in question is leading the little one into something that that little one does not properly understand. The little one is deceived into committing sin, and sin involves dreadful penalties that the sinner cannot escape. Jesus does not specify any particular sin; the meaning will be any sin, for all sin draws people away from Christ. The person responsible for this outrage will be in a serious plight. Jesus does not say precisely what this plight is, but he brings out its seriousness by saying that it would be better for the person to be drowned. That means a sentence of death, which is the ultimate penalty in human affairs. Jesus speaks picturesquely of the person having a heavy millstone17 tied around his neck and for him then to be drowned in the depths of the sea.18 Jesus is speaking of a fate the person cannot possibly escape.
We should notice that Jesus does not here speak of children generally, but of one little one who believes in me. The question arises whether he is still speaking of children or whether the “little ones” are now the unimportant people who believe in him. Most commentators agree that the “little ones” include not only small children but all lowly believers (Johnson holds the “little ones” to be “not merely children but the ‘weaker brethren’ who did not understand the implications of their faith,” but there seems to be no reason for limiting the expression in this way). The word little is sometimes used of importance in this world rather than age, for example, in the expression “both great and small” (cf. Acts 8:10). This view is assisted by the fact that the little one in question is said to believe in Jesus. The addition in me makes it clear that it is faith in Christ that is in question, faith that trusts in him alone, centers its trust in him.19 We should understand Jesus to be referring to lowly disciples, those who claim nothing great for themselves but trust him for all things; they are God’s little people.
7. Matthew tells of Jesus’ words denouncing those who lead others into sin, a passage found only in this Gospel. Woe20 is to be understood as an expression of regret and compassion (see on 11:21); Jesus is not exulting in the punishment that must come, but he is making it clear that punishment will come (woe is a verdict as well as an expression of sorrow). The person who leads others to sin is storing up grievous trouble for himself. The world here denotes earth’s people, those who sin and those who lead them to sin;21 unhappiness is inevitable for both. The sinner is in trouble because of the evil he does, and the person who leads another into sin is in a worse position, as Jesus is now saying. The world being what it is and people being what they are, it is inevitable that the things that lead to sin (Phillips, “pitfalls”) will make their appearance. But that they are certain to come does not excuse the person who brings them about. A second woe brings out the certainty of that person’s unhappiness in due course. Jesus does not speak of the man who leads another to sin, but of the man through whom the enticement to sin comes. The evil is almost seen as having an independent existence and as coming on the scene through the offender; his offense is in facilitating the coming of the enticement, not in originating it. There is more to evil than the wrong deeds of the sinner.
8. Jesus moves from provocation to sin to the importance of avoiding sin of any kind. These words are much the same as those in 5:29–30 (where see notes). He makes the supposition22 that one’s hand or foot leads one into sin. Jesus does not define how this should take place, but leaving it general covers all the ways in which one of these members of the body should occasion evil. If that takes place, he enjoins a drastic remedy: cut it off and throw it away. In other words, get rid of the source of the sin. Jesus is not, of course, counseling his followers to engage in mutilation of the body. He is using picturesque language to make clear that he looks for a complete and thorough repudiation of evil. He underlines his point by saying that it is better23 to be alive with an impaired body than to be destined for hell. He speaks of entering life, where he means more than this earthly existence which we share with all others; the sinner obviously has already entered this life. He is speaking about the life that really matters, the life of the world to come (cf. Cassirer, “where true life is to be found”).24 It is better to make sure of that life, even if it means some impoverishment in this life; he specifies being crippled or maimed. There is not a great deal of difference in the meanings of the two words; both point to a grievous handicap. But better that than having the normal equipment of two good hands and two good feet to be lost eternally. For thrown see on 10:34; it speaks of vigorous action. Eternal fire is, of course, used metaphorically in an expression that brings out the painfulness of the lost in their eternal lostness. Jesus leaves his hearers in no doubt as to the seriousness of the eternal state of sinners.25
9. Jesus repeats the thought, shifting attention from the hand or foot to the eye, a member of the body that we all tend to value very highly (and one in which Matthew is very interested; he uses the word 24 times, which is more than in any other New Testament book). But he has already recorded an example of the way it can lead to sin (5:29) and spoken of the importance of a healthy eye (6:22). Again he speaks of getting rid of the offending member; better to pluck the offending eye out and hurl it away than to retain it as an occasion for sin. As in the preceding verse, we should not take Jesus’ words as advocating literal self-mutilation. He is saying that his followers should take decisive action to be rid of sin. “Throw it away” is another vigorous expression; the offending member is not to be lingered over but to be decisively repudiated. The rest of the verse repeats verse 8 (with the necessary modifications for “eye” over against “hand” or “foot”) until we come to the final expression, where the hell26 of fire replaces “the eternal fire.” There is no essential difference; hell indicates place, whereas “eternal” points to the unendingness.
10. Jesus returns to the subject of the little ones, first calling on his hearers to See,27 where his verb calls for concentrated effort. People are not to despise even one of these little ones (France reminds us that “one individual can conveniently be ignored in one’s care for ‘the church’ ”). Here again it is uncertain whether the little ones are children or lowly disciples (his “common people”).28 Either makes good sense, and the following reference to angels does not clear it up. Perhaps we should understand Jesus to be speaking first of the children that started him on this section of teaching, but now to be using words that have relevance to all his lowly followers. For introduces the reason. Angels (see on 1:20) are heavenly beings, but their poses a problem. Jacob referred to an angel who had had concern for him (Gen. 48:16), while in the book of Daniel it seems that each nation has its angel (Dan. 10:13) and in Revelation we are introduced to the angels of churches (Rev. 1:20). Perhaps we should notice further that angels are said to have carried Lazarus to Abraham’s bosom (Luke 16:22) and to rejoice over one sinner who repents (Luke 15:10). Angels are apparently active in and about the affairs of people. It is possible that here guardian angels are meant (NEB translates “guardian angels”), with a particular angel watching over each little one. But if this were meant, it would point to something so significant that we would expect references to guardian angels elsewhere, and we do not find them.29 Calvin regards the suggestion that guardian angels are in mind as “weak” and prefers the idea that “to the angels is committed the care of the whole Church and that they succour individual members so far as their necessity and situation demands” (II, p. 218). We can say no more than that the passage looks like a reference to guardian angels but comes short of proof, and in any case we have no further information on who such angels are or what they do.30 Certainly the angels to whom Jesus refers are in heaven; he further says that they continually see the face of my Father (for Father see on 5:16). Perhaps our insertion of “guardian” before angel is misleading: the angels of which Jesus speaks do not “guard” the little ones, but bring their situation before God. He is using picturesque language to bring out the truth that God in heaven is aware of the situation here on earth of even the lowliest of his people.31 We should notice my: the relationship of Jesus to the Father is something special. The whole expression is surely a way of saying that these angels have immediate access to God; indeed, some translations concentrate on this (as GNB, “are always in the presence of my Father”); any act to the detriment of the little ones would not go unnoticed in the highest place of all. The little ones matter to God.32
12. “What do you think?” (more literally, “what does it seem to you?”) invites the hearers to reflect. Jesus is now not laying down a firm assertion of his own but calling on those listening to him to work something out for themselves. He refers to a man who owns a flock of a hundred sheep of which one goes astray. Such a man does not reason that 99 percent of his flock are safe and well and that on the whole he has no reason for alarm. Jesus asks whether he does not33 leave the ninety-nine where they are on the hills (and presumably far from shelter) and keep looking (the change of tense from the future to the present points to the continuous effort of seeking) for the one that strayed. Though only one is missing, the shepherd’s whole routine is altered. He concentrates all his energy on recovering that lost one. He is prepared to leave the ninety-nine at some risk in order to ensure the safety of the one that strayed.
13. The opening words are equivalent to “if in fact he finds it.”34 Another “truly I tell you” introduces a statement that is very important. The joy that results from finding the lost exceeds the joy of knowing that ninety-nine are safe. The shepherd rejoices (“is more delighted,” REB) over this one, Matthew reports, more than35 over the ninety-nine that did not go astray. Jesus is not saying that the shepherd does not rejoice over those who are safe, nor does he say that the heavenly Father is less than delighted over disciples who are safe in the fold. But he points out that there is a peculiar joy over bringing one that is lost safely into the fold. The flock then has not lost one of its members.36
14. “Just so,”37 Jesus goes on, God does not will that any of the little ones should perish. The expression about the will is more literally “it is not will before your Father,” which is a reverent way of referring to what God does. Sometimes the expression is used also of what great men, and especially kings, do. Dalman says, “it comes to pass that in Egypt men spoke only ‘in the presence of the king,’ not ‘to’ him”; he cites a similar form of expression in Esther and Daniel.38 The expression is thus equivalent to “God does not will.” Jesus goes on to use words that put all these little ones under God’s care. He does not will the perishing of any one of them.39
15. Jesus moves from the brother who offends to the brother who is sinned against.40 Again he raises the topic with a hypothetical if;41 Jesus gives no indication of the probability of this occurring. He simply raises the possibility and tells his followers what they are to do if it happens. There is a difficult textual problem as to whether we should read against you or omit the words.42 If we accept them, Jesus is referring to what to do when another believer (a brother; see on 1:2) does something that we can only regard as sin against us, as wronging us in some way. If not, he is speaking of what we are to do when another believer sins in any way. In either case we are first to take the matter up with the sinner. “Go” means taking the initiative; the person in the clear is not to wait for the sinner to come to him. The next part of the Greek is not easy to translate, as is shown by the variety of renderings that have been accepted; for example, NIV reads, “go and show him his fault”; REB, “take the matter up with him”; and JB, “have it out with him.” I have translated reprove him, for that is what the verb often means.43 Jesus seems to be saying that the first thing the believer should do is try to get the offender to see his sin for what it is. He is not advocating the harsh attitude his people sometimes take up nor the very light attitude that is also common. Jesus specifies that this should be done “between you and him alone.” There should be no attempt to bring all this out into the open. It is a matter between the offender, the offended, and God, and if the sinner can be persuaded to repent and seek forgiveness, the whole affair is over. “If he listens to you,44 you have won your brother.” The brotherly relationship was disrupted by the sin; now it is restored. Instead of a lost brother there is a restored brotherhood.45
16. But this technique is not infallible. There is the possibility that the offender will not alter his ways.46 He may refuse to take any notice when the brother sinned against points out his fault. The sinned against is to try again; it is important to win the brother back if that can be done. So he is to take with him47 a small number of others (one or two does not specify the number, but clearly a small group is meant; the matter is to be kept as quiet as possible). It would seem that after he has resisted the quiet approach of one brother it is unlikely that he will respond to others. The purpose48 of the one or two more is that the situation should be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses. There is a reference to Deuteronomy 19:15, which regulates evidence in a court of law. Nobody is to be convicted on the evidence of a single person; everything must be attested by two or, better, three witnesses. Where it is important to have the exact words attested, there must be two or three people who can vouch for what was said. Jesus is not, of course, talking about a trial, and in any case the one or two more are not witnesses of the offense; they can testify only that they have tried to help the offender. Jesus is saying that the church must not apply less stringent tests than the courts. It must not be slipshod.
17. “But if 49 he refuses50 them.” Jesus is speaking of someone who is set in his ways: he will take notice neither of his brother nor of the small delegation from the brotherhood. The fact that he is said to refuse them shows that the small delegation is not intended only as witnesses; its members will be trying to win over the offender. In the event of obduracy they will indeed function as witnesses, but Jesus is speaking of the possibility that the sinner may hear them. It sometimes happens that a wrongdoer will take more notice of two or three (especially if they are people worthy of respect) than he will of one, especially if the one is a person with whom he has had a difference of opinion.
In the event of continuing obduracy they are to tell it to the church.51 The use of this term (again in the Gospels only in 16:18) appears to many scholars to be an indication that the passage is late and that it reflects Matthew’s interest in the church rather than the actual teaching of Jesus. Those who are convinced that Jesus could not have used the term must, of course, construct some such hypothesis, but why should he not? The term is met with often in the Greek Old Testament, where it is used for the people of God, assembled or not assembled. It can mean any group of people, and we should not be misled by later ecclesiastical uses (AB translates here with “community”). If Jesus meant his followers to be a continuing group, then there seems to be no reason why he should not occasionally refer to them with the word “church.”
This appears to be another attempt to win the offender over. The imperative “tell it to the church” is singular (“say to the church” with something implied like “the whole story”); Jesus envisages the brother who initiated the process as telling the local church as a whole what had happened. “Church” can mean the whole body of Christians, but it can also refer to a local group, and that is surely what is meant here. Yet this is still by way of appeal, for Jesus goes on to what is to be done if he does not heed the church. The implication is that the church will try to bring him to his senses. When the offender sees that the whole group of believers opposes his behavior, surely he will repent? But the possibility remains that he will not. In that case he has cut himself off from the group of people who have eschewed the kind of conduct that he has followed and from which he refuses to depart. “Let him be to you” indicates that in the end the believer must accept the reality of the situation. The person has done what he should not have done. He has remained obdurate against the pleadings of a brother, of two or three brothers, and now of the church as a whole. He has taken the role of the pagan and the tax collector.52 Both these expressions stand for people outside the people of God, people who have sinned and not repented, and that is the position of the sinning brother. He has made his choice, and the brother sinned against must respect his decision. It is usually said that the passage speaks of excommunication from the church, but that is not what the text says; to you is very personal. Whatever be the case vis-à-vis the church, to the brother against whom he has sinned he is as an outsider.
18. Another solemn introduction (for which see on 5:18) brings us to a solemn and significant saying. The words are very similar to those in 16:19, except that there the verbs are in the singular since they are addressed to one individual, Peter, while here they are in the plural, embracing believers as a whole, the entire church. As we observed in the earlier passage, the probability is that we should understand the “binding” and “loosing” as declaring forbidden or permitted. That would certainly fit this context, where the church in the last resort has to say whether what the offender has done is forbidden to the Christian or whether it is permitted. To the church as a whole there is committed the responsibility of declaring what conduct is forbidden to the believer and what is permitted. This was very necessary in a situation where the Jewish Scriptures were accepted as the Scriptures of the believers, but where the Jewish interpretation was rejected, as were many Jewish practices that those who performed them alleged were based on Scripture. The church as a whole should decide such matters, Jesus is saying. And again we must bear in mind that the verbs are future perfect: “shall have been bound” and “shall have been loosed.” Jesus is not giving the church the right to make decisions that will then become binding on God. Such a thought is alien from anything in his teaching. He is saying that as the church is responsive to the guidance of God it will come to the decisions that have already been made in heaven. In John 20:22–23 it is made clear that this is because of the gift of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is not saying that the church will be full of natural, human wisdom. He is referring to decisions made in the light of the guidance of the Spirit of God.
19. Next Matthew has a little section on prayer (which is not paralleled in the other Gospels). Again links this on as a fresh start;53 it is not a continuation of the teaching he has just been giving. Yet once more we have the emphatic introduction “I truly say to you” (not all MSS include the truly, but the meaning will be much the same even if we omit it); we are at the end of Jesus’ teaching in Galilee, and there are some very important statements yet to come. This one has to do with the practice of prayer.54 Jesus envisages two or three of his followers here on earth as agreeing on some matter that they may ask. There are some matters that an individual follower of Jesus will think it important to pray about, but occasions arise when a small group are agreed on the importance of some petition and offer it together.55 Matter is a very general word and opens up a wide scope for prayer; it is reinforced by that they may ask.56 Jesus is saying that the agreement of even two of his followers to pray will bring great results. Of course there is a problem in that we do not always receive the answers we expect to our prayers, corporate or individual. We must bear in mind that there are other conditions, such as praying in faith, praying in the name, praying in accordance with the divine will, and so on. Jesus is not putting in all the qualifications that apply to praying, but simply making it clear that God is always ready to hear the united prayers of even two of his little ones. Prayer is effective, not because of the power or the number of the praying people, but because the answer is given by “my Father who is in heaven.” Prayer is offered to a mighty God, one who commonly does his greatest work on earth in response to the prayers of his humble people.
20. Something of the reason follows.57 Two or three once again brings before the reader the smallest possible group; the apparently insignificant matter to God. In my name58 may mean “calling on my name” or “with me as their reason for assembling.” The “name” will stand for the person; it is not simply pronouncing the name of Jesus, but in order to worship Jesus, to be with Jesus, or the like. There, Jesus says, in that very place, he is in the middle of them. The rabbis could say, “if two sit together and words of the Law (are spoken) between them, the Divine Presence rests between them” (’Abot 3:2). For Christians, coming together in the name of Jesus replaces coming to study the law, and the presence of Jesus is “the Divine Presence.”
21. For Matthew’s Then see on 2:7. Peter, as often, is the leader in approaching Jesus and on this occasion in putting a question to him, and the incident is recorded only here. He uses the respectful form of address, “Lord,” and inquires about the frequency of forgiveness required in a disciple.59 Peter has learned that it is important to forgive, so he has made some progress. But surely, he apparently reasons, there must be a limit? How long must one keep on forgiving? He talks about a brother (see on 1:2 for Matthew’s interest in brotherhood) sinning against him,60 so he is thinking primarily about what happens within the circle of Jesus’ followers (brother can mean “brother-man,” but that does not seem to be the meaning here). This accords with the fact that a few verses back Jesus has been talking about one brother sinning against another (v. 15). Peter asks whether forgiving61 such offenses seven times is sufficient.62 There was a rabbinic view that one need forgive only three times: “If a man commits a transgression, the first, second and third time he is forgiven, the fourth time he is not forgiven” (Yoma 86b). Peter more than doubled this quota of forgivenesses. Peter has clearly learned something from Jesus. He understands now that retaliation is not the right path for a disciple; rather, forgiveness is a quality to be prized. But he sees this as something that should be practiced in moderation. Surely forgiving the same person seven times would be enough?63
22. There is no conjunction linking this verse on to the preceding, and the asyndeton adds force to the abrupt reply. Jesus is not concerned with a petty forgiveness that calculates how many offenses can be disregarded before retaliation becomes acceptable. For him forgiveness is wholehearted and constant. He rejects Peter’s seven times with decision. But is the strong adversative,64 “far from that”; no satisfactory line of conduct for the believer is to be found along the path of calculating numbers of offenses. For Peter’s seven times Jesus substitutes seventy-seven times (or “seventy times seven,” as REB, GNB, etc.; either way a lot of forgiving is meant).65 This, of course, is not counseling an essay in arithmetic so that the seventy-eighth offense need not be forgiven. It is a way of saying that for Jesus’ followers forgiveness is to be unlimited. For them forgiveness is a way of life. Bearing in mind what they have been forgiven, they cannot withhold forgiveness from any who sin against them.
23. Jesus underlines his teaching with a parable, found only in this Gospel. For this reason brings out an implication of the preceding. Forgiveness is important in a sinful world where all people are sinners, in the first place because we are all in need of being forgiven, and in the second, because people keep on sinning against us so that we ourselves are constantly confronted with situations in which the followers of Jesus are required to forgive. Because of his teaching on forgiveness (and to bring out something of its basis), the kingdom may be likened66 to a king67 who decided to have a day of reckoning.68 A king would have many officials who handled money in the various departments of state. This king decided it was time to see how they had managed the money that had been entrusted to them. The word rendered servants is the ordinary word for “slaves,” but in accordance with the usage of the time it was commonly applied to those who served the king. These people would not have been slaves in our sense of the term, but responsible officials in high office.
24. As he initiated the process, there was brought to him a debtor owing ten thousand talents. That he was brought may indicate a certain unwillingness on the part of the man in question (he certainly had good reason for avoiding the reckoning!), or even that he had already been arrested. That he was a debtor indicates that he was legally obliged to pay the money to the king. It is possible, as Derrett holds, that the practice of tax farming is in mind (Law, pp. 32–47), in which case the man had bid a large sum for taxing rights and had not been able to produce the money.69 A talent represented a large sum of money. It was actually a measure of weight, the largest weight in use among the Jews (though its precise size is not known).70 When used, as here, for amounts of money, it was gold or silver or copper that was weighed. In the parable it is not specified which metal the talent comprised of gold or silver, but either way ten thousand71 of them represented a huge sum of money (his debt “ran into millions,” NEB). Jesus is speaking of a vast sum; the man must have been a high official on special service to have been entrusted with such an amount (or perhaps the tax farmer over an especially rich province; Josephus speaks of the taxes from Palestine as amounting to 8,000 talents, Ant. 12.175; he also says that Antipas received 200 talents as taxes from Perea and Galilee and that Archelaus got 600 talents from his area, Ant. 17.318–20).
25. Evidently the venture on which the man had been engaged had failed dismally, and on the day of reckoning he did not have the money to repay.72 There is no information about the enterprise in which he had been engaged and on which he had had such spectacular losses (if he was a tax farmer such factors as drought or a financial depression might make it impossible to raise the amount of money for which he had contracted). There is no indication as to whether the failure had been due to incompetence or dishonesty. The point of the parable lies elsewhere: it is the absence of the money and not the reason for its absence that matters for this story. The king (from this point on called the lord, a title that emphasizes that he had full rights; it is the natural correlative of “slave,” which is used for the subjects of the king) took seriously the man’s inability to pay what he owed. So he issued a command that the defaulter be sold into slavery, and for good measure his wife and his children too (cf. Exod. 22:1 [RSV]; 2 Kings 4:1; Neh. 5:5; Isa. 50:1). Even when we add the proceeds from all he had, it is unlikely that the proceeds of the sale would come anywhere near meeting the liability involved in the ten thousand talents that were missing. The point is that the man was being punished for his offense, not that he was fully reimbursing the king for what he had lost. The sale was a gesture, not a settlement. To us it seems unfair that the wife and the children should be sold, too; but in the thinking of the time they belonged to the man, and if he was to be sold it was natural that they should be sold as well. The man had run up a huge debt; he must pay a huge penalty. Imprisonment for debt was apparently well known in the Greco-Roman world. It prevented the defaulter making his escape and, of course, it encouraged his relatives and friends to raise the money to free him. But in this story the amount is so huge that raising it in order to free him does not come into consideration. His being sold is no more than punishment.
26. All this spelled disaster for the unfortunate debtor. With such a huge debt hanging over his head and with all his assets lost to him there was no chance of his ever being free again. Everything was lost. Justice was of no use to him, so he wholeheartedly went for mercy. He fell down and prostrated himself, where either verb would have given the information but the combination emphasizes that he took up a lowly position. It is not quite certain what his lowly posture was, for some translate “fell on his knees” (NIV, NRSV, GNB). The second verb is often used for the posture of worship (though also for homage paid to human superiors), and in view of the customs of the day it seems that prostration is perhaps more likely than kneeling. After all, the man’s case was desperate, and he would certainly exercise all the diplomacy of which he was capable. The imperfect tense indicates that he kept pleading; his was no half-hearted plea. He entreated his lord, “Have patience with me.”73 All comes first in its clause, thus acquiring some emphasis. It is, of course, the wrong term and the wrong emphasis for the realities of the debt. One who was bankrupt would never succeed in repaying a debt of the magnitude of that with which the man was faced (repay is the same verb as the one the king used, v. 25). But his plight was desperate; he was ready to promise anything.
27. The king was a compassionate man, and Jesus employs a verb that indicates that he was deeply moved in his pity.74 The king is here called “the lord of that slave,” a title that brings out the fact that he had the right to dispose of the defaulter as he chose. But as his initial anger drove him to harshness, so now his compassion led him to act forgivingly. He did more than the man asked. The debtor had requested no more than time to pay, but the king gave him complete freedom. He released the man; prison no longer hung over his head. And he forgave him the debt.75 The king set no conditions. The man had asked for forbearance and volunteered to repay the debt (even though it was so large that there was no possibility of his ever doing so). But the king ignored all this. He freely forgave. That was all. There were no conditions and no hesitation. It was an act of pure grace.
28. But just as the defaulter had owed money, so money was owed to him. When he went out, that is, from the presence of the king, that servant, the one whose huge debt had been remitted, found one of his fellow servants, one who was on the same level as he, one who shared with him in serving the king. Jesus does not say whether the man happened to encounter the fellow servant or whether he went looking for him; found could be used in either sense, but it seems more likely that he sought the man out. This man owed him money, but whereas the debt he had just been forgiven was so large that its extent could scarcely be computed, this debt was certainly small enough to be understood, a hundred denarii (a denarius was a Roman silver coin; it was the wage an ordinary laborer was paid for a day’s work; there were 6,000 denarii to a talent). The wages for a hundred days’ work cannot be said to be insignificant, but clearly, compared to the first man’s debt, this man’s was a mere trifle. But the man to whom the money was owed was most anxious to get his money back; he was greedy and grasping as well as extravagant. He laid hands on the debtor and indeed began to choke him; clearly he took him by the throat,76 a hostile and threatening act, to enforce his demand for repayment.77 He uses the same verb toward his fellow servant as the king had used toward him.
29. The resemblance continues. Therefore is used as in verse 26, and so is the verb for fell down, while fellow servant corresponds to “servant” in the earlier verse. Besought is the word of one taking a lowly place and asking for a favor, while the words of the request are identical with the words of the man to whom they are addressed with the solitary exception that whereas this man promised no more than to repay (which may mean that he would repay some or repay what he could), the other had specifically said that he would repay “all.” There is this difference that, whereas the first man’s undertaking was one that he could not possibly have fulfilled, this man’s was more realistic. It was not impossible that in due course he would be able to raise the money.
30. But whereas the petition was to all intents and purposes identical with the earlier request, the response is diametrically opposite. But is adversative; it introduces matter contrary to what we might expect. He would not, where the verb refers to the action of the will; the imperfect tense points to continuing action: he continued in his opposition to the petition; his will was set against clemency. The second but is the strong adversative (as in v. 22); far from forgiving, he did the very opposite. He went off and threw (the verb indicates vigorous action) his fellow servant into prison. Since the unfortunate man was to be there until he repaid the debt and since in prison he had no opportunity to earn the necessary money, his outlook was bleak. Jesus is depicting for us a horrible example of an unforgiving, though forgiven, man. It is the height of ingratitude and injustice.
31. Attention moves to the other servants of the king, here described as the fellow servants of the man just thrown into jail. When they saw what had happened,78 they were very sorry, an expression that evokes a variety of translations (e.g., “very upset,” GNB; “greatly distressed,” NIV; “deeply grieved,” NASB). However we translate it, it clearly points to a deep feeling of grief. The imprisoned man may or may not have been popular, but there was no doubting that he had been treated very shabbily. So these servants went to the king (still spoken of as lord; that was his relation to all the other people concerned in this story). They explained79 to him all that had happened; they left him in no doubt but made a clear and full explanation of the whole situation.
32. Then is a frequent Matthean word (see on 2:7); it indicates that what follows came next in sequence. His lord is another reminder of the relationship in which the king stood to him; says is present for greater vividness, and “You wicked servant” leaves no doubt as to the king’s opinion of his conduct. Wicked is very much a Matthean word (see on 6:23, where it is translated “evil”); with its connotation of evil it is a very fitting term to apply to this harsh and unforgiving man (REB renders “you scoundrel”).80 The word order in the Greek is “all that debt81 I forgave you,” which puts the emphasis on all: all that immense amount! And the man had done no more than appeal to his lord! He had said he would repay, but he had in fact repaid nothing, and everyone knew that it was impossible for him to repay everything as he had said he would. He had been the recipient of extraordinary grace.
33. And those who receive extraordinary grace should act in accordance with the grace they receive. The king asks whether the servant ought not to have had mercy on his fellow (the form in which the question is put looks for an affirmative answer).82 Most translations have something like “ought you not—?” which makes for better English, but the king says something stronger than that. He sees it as necessary83 that the forgiven man act like a forgiven man, namely in forgiving others. You also underlines the point: “you, you who have been forgiven, you who have received such striking generosity, ‘you too’ should have been generous.” The king says that the man should have had mercy. We might have expected him to say something like “you should have cancelled the debt,” but he refers to mercy as the attitude that should have guided the thinking and the actions of a man who had been the recipient of such signal mercy. The king speaks of mercy on your fellow servant, putting the emphasis on his relationship to the man he had condemned rather than on that to his sovereign. I also does not mean “I, in addition to others” but “even I,” “I, for my part.”84 And the king goes on to remind the man that he had received mercy (rather than strict justice).
34. Not surprisingly the king was angry, and equally unsurprisingly he took action against the man who refused to forgive. He handed him over to the torturers (a word found only here in the New Testament). This certainly means that he was put in jail, and some interpreters hold that “jailor” is all that the word means. But the root is connected with torture, and an angry king would not hesitate to employ torture to punish someone with whom he was very angry (we should not, of course, reason that God tortures sinners; this is simply part of the detail of the story). Whichever way we understand it, the man was to remain there until his entire debt was discharged. He would not be freed if a token amount was paid. This means that he would never get out.
35. Jesus does not always make an application of the truth taught in his parables, but on this occasion he does. So does not mean “exactly like this,” but it does mean that the severity we discern in the punishment of the man in the parable is all that unforgiving sinners can look for from the hand of God. God might, of course, be more merciful than the king, but that is not the point. The point is that the man deserved no more; any unforgiving sinner, by the fact that he refuses to forgive, is inviting God to withhold forgiveness from him. Jesus refers to God here as “my heavenly Father,” stressing his special relationship to God and at the same time something of the majesty of God. The certainty that God will be our final Judge underlies the statement that he will do to the unforgiving as they have done to others. The lesson that is driven home is that the followers of Jesus must each (the word is important; there are no exceptions) forgive. And the final expression brings home the truth that we must forgive wholeheartedly, not grudgingly. It is easy to skimp on forgiveness, refraining from outward evidence of an unforgiving heart but nursing up a grudge against one who has offended us. “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us” is a prayer that we must pray with due searching of heart.
Matthew 19