56 Introduced by γάρ .
56 Introduced by γάρ.
57 ψυχή (see on 10:28) may refer to the soul or to life in its fullest sense.
Calvin J. Calvin, A Harmony of the Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids, 1980 rpt.)
58 Beare notes that the word is “used in two senses—that of mere physical existence and that of the true and essential self, the ‘soul.’ ” Diétrich comments, “The words of verses 24–25 should be taken literally in the first instance: Jesus is preparing his Apostles for the possibility of martyrdom. They have a secondary meaning which is spiritual: to live life for God it is necessary to consent to the death of the self.”
59 Cf. E. Schweizer, “Life, then, is not just a natural phenomenon. Man lives it. If he is not aware of this, and regards life only as a natural phenomenon, he interprets it in a definite way, namely, in such sort that he misses what ought to be his life. Nor can there be any substitute for it. He has already lost his life” (TDNT, IX, p. 645). Filson comments, “To sacrifice permanent spiritual welfare for temporary physical safety or comfort is a bad bargain (Jesus gave a place to common sense).” The man who does this “has no business sense!”
60 The verb is ἀπόλλυμι, “to destroy utterly, destroy, kill” (AS). It points to a thorough going renunciation.
KJV The King James Version
NIV The Holy Bible, New International Version (Grand Rapids, 1978)
ASV The American Standard Version
IBNTG C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge, 1953)
61 ὠφελέω (3 times in Matthew) is connected with ὄφελος, “advantage.” Jesus’ question means “Where is the advantage?” “What is the profit?”
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, trans. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, 1964-76)
Phillips J. B. Phillips, The Gospels in Modern English (London, 1957)
62 ἀντάλλαγμα means “an exchange, the price received as an equivalent for an article of commerce” (AS). It is found in the New Testament only here and in the Marcan equivalent. The word is also found in Sirach 26:14, “there is no ἀντάλλαγμα for a disciplined soul.”
63 Will come is not a simple future, but μέλλει... ἔρχεσθαι. μέλλω may be used to “denote an action that necessarily follows a divine decree is destined, must, will certainly” (BAGD, 1.c.d) ἔρχομαι is used of “coming” in various ways, among them “appear, make an appearance, come before the public. So esp. of the Messiah” (BAGD, I.1.a.η).
64 ἀποδίδωμι is a favorite word in this Gospel (18 times, next is Luke with 8). It points to paying exactly what is due and is used of wages, debts, oaths, and so on.
65 πρᾶξις (here only in Matthew) means “a deed,” but here it is not any single deed that is in mind, but the sum total of all his deeds.
66 οἵτινες perhaps means “who are of such a kind as to”; but probably the form should not be pressed and we should understand it as “who.”
67 γεύω is used of tasting in the literal sense, but it is not uncommonly used metaphorically as in the present passage. The double negative οὐ μή is emphatic. Schweizer says, “possibly he takes the saying about ‘not tasting death’ in the sense that the disciple of Jesus can die secure in the knowledge that death has been overcome and that he will be raised” (p. 347).
68 “In quick succession the first evangelist has written about the Father of the Son of man, the angels of the Son of man, and the kingdom of the Son of man—a Christological emphasis hard to overestimate” (Gundry, p. 341).
69 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke (Edinburgh, 1928), pp. 249–50.
1 A. M. Ramsey views the transfiguration “as a mirror in which the Christian mystery is seen in its unity. Here we perceive that the living and the dead are one in Christ, that the old covenant and the new are inseparable, that the Cross and the glory are of one, that the age to come is already here, that our human nature has a destiny of glory, that in Christ the final word is uttered and in Him alone the Father is well pleased. Here the diverse elements in the theology of the New Testament meet” (The Glory of God and the Transfiguration of Christ [London, 1949], p. 144). He also says, “the Transfiguration meant the taking of the whole conflict of the Lord’s mission, just as it was, into the glory which gave meaning to it all” (p. 146).
2 He does not see any necessity to argue the case, but lays it down as he begins his discussion of the transfiguration that “It has long since been recognized that this legend was originally a resurrection story” (The History of the Synoptic Tradition [Oxford, 1963], p. 259).
3 There is a very useful discussion of the incident by Walter L. Liefeld in R. N. Longenecker and M. C. Tenney, eds., New Dimensions in New Testament Study (Grand Rapids, 1974), pp. 162–79. Liefeld argues that the story has typological and eschatological significance, but further, “the transfiguration is not basically either typology or eschatology, but revelation. If the one who receives the divine designation is truly at once Messiah, Son of Man, beloved Son of God, and Servant, whose mission is to suffer, it is not surprising if more than one aspect of his person and work should be seen in his transfiguration” (p. 178).
4 μετά is a favorite word with Matthew; he has it 70 times, which is more than in any other New Testament book.
5 Matthew is fond of παραλαμβάνω, which he has 16 times. It signifies “to take along with one.”
6 χατʼ ἰδίαν, “privately”; “where they could be alone” (JB).
GNB Good News Bible (London and New York, 1976)
7 τὸ εἶδος τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ ἕτερον.
8 When Moses returned from Mt. Sinai with “the two tables of the testimony,” the skin of his face shone (Exod. 34:29–30). Paul points out that this “glory” was fading, and he contrasts it with the glory of the new covenant (2 Cor. 3:7, 11).
9 The word is ἱμάτια, the plural of the word for the outer garment, the “cloak.” In this context it will mean clothing in general and not any particular article (though, of course, the cloak would have been especially prominent). In any case a person wore only one cloak; the plural must refer to other articles of clothing.
10 TDNT, IV, p. 758. Behm sees this in “the context of apocalyptic ideas,” and he says further, “What is promised to the righteous in the new aeon … happens already to Jesus in this world, not as one among many others, but as the bearer of a unique call.”
11 The verb is ὤφθη, used as the aorist passive of ὁράω. This passive means “become visible, appear. … Mostly of beings that make their appearance in a supernatural manner, almost always w. dat. of the pers. to whom they appear” (BAGD, 1.a.δ). The verb is singular, agreeing with the nearest subject.
12 In later Judaism there was the expectation that great ones would return in the end time. For example, God is reported to have said to Moses: “Moses, I swear to you, as you devoted your life to their service in this world, so too in the time to come when I bring Elijah, the prophet, unto them, the two of you shall come together” (Deut. Rab. 3:17). According to J. Jeremias, this is the only reference to the joint coming of Moses and Elijah in all the rabbinic literature (TDNT, IV, p. 855, n. 96). There was, of course, a widespread expectation that Elijah would come (see TDNT, II, pp. 931–34).
13 Cf. McNeile, “The vision thus represents the quintessence of Christian teaching on the relation of the Old Covenant to the New. The glory of the former lies in the fact that it is contained in, and transcended by, the latter” (p. 251).
14 εἰ θέλεις, a conditional of the first class, may hint that Peter thinks that this is in fact Jesus’ will (“if, as appears to be the case…,” BDF 372[1] [a]; they also think that the expression may be equivalent to “please,” 372[2][c]), but more probably it indicates that if it really is Jesus’ will then certain consequences follow.
15 σχηνή (here only in Matthew, 10 times in Hebrews) basically signifies a “tent” (so GNB, JB here), but the term comes to mean other forms of shelter, and on the mountain Peter can scarcely mean “tents” in the ordinary sense of the term. Where would he get the material? He must have in mind some structure of timber and leaves, perhaps “huts.”
Bruce The Expositor’s Greek Testament: A. B. Bruce, The Synoptic Gospels (Grand Rapids, 1979 rpt.)
16 φωτεινός is connected with φῶς, “light,” and indicates that this cloud brought radiance rather than darkness. A. Oepke holds that the term “expresses the kindly nature of the encounter with God in the NT, though against the background of the divine majesty” (TDNT, IV, p. 908). νεφέλη means “a cloud (single and specific as opp. to νέφος, a great indefinite mass of vapour)” (AS).
17 ἐπισχιάζω often means “cast a shadow (σχιά) upon (ἐπί),” but it may be used of the presence of God as in Exodus 40:35.
18 J. Armitage Robinson has made out a convincing case for taking ὁ ἀγαπητός as a distinct title and not simply “a mere epithet of υἱός” (St Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians [London, 1907], pp. 229–33). In Luke the Son is called “My Chosen One.”
19 The aorist εὐδόχησα is unexpected; we might have anticipated the perfect. See the note on the similar expression in 3:17 and the reference there to Burton’s view that it means “I have become well pleased.”
20 προσέρχομαι is a distinctively Matthean word (see on 4:3).
21 ἐνετείλατο signifies “commanded”; Jesus was not making a request. AS says of the various words for commanding, χελεύω means “to command of verbal orders in general; παραγγέλλω to charge, esp. of the transmitted orders of a military commander; ἐντέλλω points rather to the contents of the command.”
22 Moulton lists this use of the aorist imperative preceded by μή as one where the appropriate response would be “I will avoid doing so”; that is, the aorist means “Don’t start” rather than “Stop doing” (M, I, p. 125).
23 This is Matthew’s one use of ἐχ νεχρῶν (though he has ἀπὸ τῶν νεχρῶν, 14:2; 28:7; there appears to be no real difference).
24 “For why should He deprive others of this same remedy? More, why should He expressly forbid them to say what they had seen before His resurrection, save because the fruit of the vision would come after His death? I have no doubt that Christ wanted to testify that He was not dragged unwillingly to death but went to it of His own free will, to offer the sacrifice of obedience to His Father. The disciples did not think of this until after Christ had risen” (Calvin, II, p. 197).
25 Plummer conjectures that the scribes may have used the absence of Elijah as an argument against Jesus’ messiahship; they may have asked, “How can He be the Messiah, when Elijah, who is to precede the Messiah, is not yet come?” (p. 240).
26 δεῖ.
27 The sentences are linked with ὁ δέ.
28 μέν (20 times in Matthew) relates to a following δέ and is used to distinguish “the word or clause with which it stands from that which follows” (AS).
BDF F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, trans. and rev. by R. W. Funk (Chicago, 1961)
29 Tasker comments, “The words of Jesus in verse 11 are best understood as a recognition by Him that what the disciples have said is a true statement of what the scribes were teaching. They are not an indication that He agrees with it. On the contrary, in verse 12 He implies that the scribal tradition is wrong” (p. 165).
30 ἀλλά.
31 οὕτως is a Matthean word (32 times, which is more than in any other New Testament book; 1 Corinthians has it 31 times). It indicates that Jesus’ treatment will be just like that of Elijah.
32 The expression is μέλλει πάσχειν, where μέλλω is used to denote “an action that necessarily follows a divine decree is destined, must, will certainly … he is destined to suffer” (BAGD, 1.c.d).
33 J. Wilkinson has an interesting discussion of the incident (ET, LXXIX [1967–68], pp. 39–42). He examines the boy’s symptoms and accepts the view that he suffered from epilepsy, but he does not find this incompatible with his being demon possessed.
34 Actually ἐλθόντων has no subject, but the context shows that it refers to Jesus and his three disciples. It is a genitive absolute without the subject being expressed, a construction that Robertson says is “a very frequent idiom in the papyri” (Robertson, p. 513). Moulton also finds the construction frequent in the papyri, though rare in the New Testament (M, I, p. 74).
35 προσέρχομαι is a favorite verb of Matthew’s; see on 4:3.
36 He employs the verb σεληνιάζω, which is connected with σελήνη, “moon,” and is thus etymologically equivalent to our “lunatic.” It occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only in 4:24 (where see note). Most scholars take it to refer to epilepsy, on the ground that in antiquity epileptics were understood to be “moonstruck.”
NRSV The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville, 1990)
37 χαχῶς πάσχει. Matthew often has χαχῶς ἔχω (see on 4:24), but this expression occurs here only in the New Testament. It indicates not only that the ailment was severe but that the boy suffered a good deal.
Morgan G. C. Morgan, The Gospel according to Matthew (London, n.d.)
38 Horsley cites J. A. L. Lee for the view that ὦ is “primarily a feature of higher style. Its chief effect in all places [in the NT] is to give a formal and elevated tone” (New Documents, 5, p. 57).
39 ἄπιστος, here only in Matthew, occurs 23 times in the New Testament. It can denote what is incredible (Acts 26:8), and when used of people signifies “without faith,” “unbelieving.” It may be used of unbelievers as opposed to Christians (1 Cor. 6:6).
40 Jesus uses the perfect passive participle of the verb διαστρέφω, which means “to distort, twist.” L. Hartman sees a reminiscence of Deuteronomy 32:5 (LXX) with its reference to “a crooked and perverse generation” and comments: “it seems to me that this allusion is an instructive example of how something is implicitly communicated by an allusion which can be understood only by someone aware of the original context and its interpretation” (L’ÉSM, p. 147).
41 ἔως πότε = “until when?” and thus “how long?”
42 ἀνέχω, here only in Matthew, has the meaning “hold up,” but in the New Testament it is always used in the middle with the meaning “endure, bear with.”
43 ἐπιτιμάω can mean “to honor” or “to admonish,” but in the New Testament it more commonly has the meaning “to rebuke,” as here.
44 αὐτῷ is ambiguous; it could be masculine or neuter, but there seems to be no doubt that here it is neuter. There appears to be no reason for Jesus to rebuke the boy or the father; it is the spirit that is the object of his displeasure.
45 Earlier he was called υἱός (v. 15), but here he is παῖς. The former term denotes a male offspring, whereas the latter may be used of either sex. AS says that the former term is used “with emphasis on the privileged position of heirship; π. refers to both age and parentage, but with emphasis on the former” (sub παῖς). There will be no significant difference here; the change is stylistic.
46 χατʼ ἰδίαν.
47 οὐχ ἠδυνήθημεν.
48 ὁ δέ.
49 Matthew has πίστις 8 times and πιστεύω 11 times. He connects faith with healing (8:10; 9:2; 15:28, etc.) and with the miracle of the fig tree (21:21), and he says that it is a quality that the Pharisees lacked (23:23).
50 Hamann thinks that the comparison of true faith to a mustard seed indicates “both the apparent insignificance of faith in itself and yet also its great potential. The power of life in the seed and the power of faith both come from God himself.”
Ber. Berakot
Sanh. Sanhedrin
51 Ridderbos points out that “it is not the task of faith literally to move mountains. That is irrelevant, however. Jesus was not speaking of the task of faith, nor of the direction in which it must be exercised, but only of its power. This power is unlimited because it is based on God’s omnipotence.”
52 M. Green points out that the story was both embarrassing and encouraging for Matthew’s church, “For Jesus had permanently ascended up a mountain, and had left them to carry on his work. Were they powerless? It was attributable to lack of faith … the more settled and established a church becomes, the more it needs to learn afresh that it can achieve precisely nothing without sincere dependence on the Lord.”
53 Cf. Calvin, “He does not mean that God will give us whatever comes heedlessly into our minds or mouths. In fact, since there is nothing more contradictory to faith than the foolish and unconsidered wishes of our flesh, it follows that where faith reigns there is no asking for anything indiscriminately” (II, p. 210).
54 Some MSS include verse 21 (rendered in KJV as “Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer [and fasting]”). But it is omitted by א B Θ 33 syrc.s etc., and there seems to be no good reason for holding it to be part of the true text. It seems to have been imported into Matthew’s text from Mark 9:29.
55 Tasker thinks that συστρεφομένων means “that the disciples of Jesus, including others in addition to the Twelve, were beginning to assemble in groups in preparation for the journey to Jerusalem” (p. 169), that is, for the Passover. Zahn sees rather a meaning like “they crowded around him” (p. 569, n. 17; Metzger is similar), Ridderbos that “Jesus continued to seclude Himself with His disciples,” and Hendriksen that “they were moving about together.”
56 For παραδίδωμι see on 4:12.
57 BAGD, sub μέλλω, 1.b.δ.
58 δίδραχμος (only in this passage in the New Testament) is an adjective meaning “worth two drachmas”; the neuter is used in the sense “a double drachma.” This was roughly equivalent to the Jewish half shekel and amounted to approximately two days’ pay for an ordinary workman. H. Hamburger conveys the information that when half shekels were not in circulation the tax was paid in didrachmas, but by New Testament times these, too, had gone out of circulation, so that the Jew would pay two Roman denars or else use one tetradrachma or one Tyrian shekel for two people (IBD, III, p. 810). Josephus attests the paying of the didrachma (Ant. 18.312).
59 There is a useful account in R. Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge, 1975), pp. 92–94. Banks brings out the diversity in attitudes to it: “The Sadducees took exception to it, probably because of its recent origin, while the Qumran covenanters felt bound to pay the levy only once, thus more correctly interpreting its alleged biblical precedent” (p. 92). He points out that most Jews of the time paid the tax.
Patte D. Patte, The Gospel according to Matthew (Philadelphia, 1987)
60 The reference to those who collected the didrachmas is intelligible, relating to the continuing collection of these coins. It is not so easy to understand why the plural is used in the question about Jesus, for he would have paid only one didrachma. Perhaps the word is simply repeated from the beginning of the verse. Or there may be the thought of the coins paid year after year. Perhaps more probably people may have referred to the tax generally as “paying the didrachmas” (so Lenski, p. 673).
61 See further NIDNTT, III, pp. 752–54; Derrett, pp. 247–65.
REB The Revised English Bible (Oxford and Cambridge, 1989)
62 προφθάνω is found only here in the New Testament (φθάνω with much the same sense is more frequent); it means “to anticipate.”
GNB Good News Bible (London and New York, 1976)
63 Gundry well remarks that the incident hardly implies “that Matthew is teaching Christians to pay civil taxes to the Romans as well as the religious tax for the Jewish Temple; for he brings in payers and nonpayers of civil taxes only as an analogy for the religious tax in question. The contrast between the king’s sons and those belonging to others is not a contrast between citizens and noncitizens. Citizens paid taxes, too. It is a contrast between members of royal households and all other subjects and implies that Jesus’ disciples belong to God’s household, but unbelieving Jews do not” (p. 357).
64 ἀλλότριος signifies “other” (cf. ἄλλος); AS points out that it is opposed to οἰχεῖος. MM cites a papyrus that says “know then that a strange woman is made his heir.” This clearly shows its use for those outside the family. It is, of course, used in other senses, but the contrast here is surely between family and nonfamily.
65 τέλος means “end,” but it is also used, mostly in the plural, for customs duties, tolls levied for the passage of goods. χῆνσος is a loanword from the Latin census and refers to a poll tax, the payment of tribute.
66 εἰπόντος δέ is a genitive absolute minus its subject (see on v. 14 above); variants supply τοῦ Πέτρου or change the word to λέγει.
67 ἄρα, which Matthew uses 7 times, is an “illative particle, expressing a more subjective or informal inference than οὖν” (AS). γε is an enclitic particle that puts emphasis on the word to which it is added.
68 H. Montefiore says that to refuse to pay the temple tax “would give the impression that Jesus disapproved of all Temple worship. What the Pharisees demanded as a legal due, Jesus gave as a free-will offering of the heart” (NTS, XI [1964–65], p. 71).
69 The verb is σχανδαλίζω; most translations render it in some such way as “lest we give offense to them.” But this verb has the idea of entrapment (see on 5:29). The thought is not that the tax collectors be offended, but that they be tripped up, entrapped, led into conduct that was sinful. Knox renders, “we will not hurt their consciences.”
Green H. B. Green, The Gospel according to Matthew (Oxford, 1975)
70 N. J. McEleney says that Derrett’s explanation “—Jesus saves the tax collectors from the sin of forcing him to pay when he need not—is an unsupported supposition and does not convince” (CBQ, XXXVIII [1976], p. 186, n. 51). There is, of course, no specific information on the point, but perhaps it is unwise to dismiss Derrett so hastily.
71 A στατήρ was worth four drachmas and was thus equivalent to the temple tax for two men. “It was minted at Antioch, Caesarea in Cappadocia and in Tyre” (IBD, II, p. 1022). It is mentioned in the New Testament only here. Gutzwiller comments: “God needs no one and nothing. If he gives, the giving is his right and his free choice. The tax-money in the fish’s mouth, rather than in the hand of man, shows God’s sovereign freedom: he takes where he will and gives to whom he will” (p. 202).
Derrett J. D. M. Derrett, Law in the New Testament (London, 1970)
72 “The clarias macracanthus, or ‘St. Peter’s fish,’ common in the Sea of Galilee, is certainly able to accommodate coins in its ample mouth” (AB).
73 Chrysostom comments: “See how He neither declines the tribute, nor simply commands to pay it, but having first proved Himself not liable to it, then He gives it: the one to save the people, the other, those around Him, from offense” (p. 359). “The collectors were doubtless as well satisfied with this coin as they would have been by a coin obtained from a patron: but charity money had not been used, and the important admission had not been made” (Derrett, Law, p. 258). As to the other disciples, Derrett thinks that since God had showed the way for his Son and for Peter those who gave money to the little band would now give for their temple tax; alternatively the collectors may have been glad to escape from an embarrassing situation and would not have pressed the matter further.
74 The preposition rendered for is ἀντί, which is normally the preposition for substitution, “in place of.” Turner points out that the half shekel was a redemption tax (Exod. 30:11); thus he refuses to accept “on behalf of” as a separate meaning for ἀντί: “the sole significance of the preposition in each New Testament context is that of substitution and exchange” (Grammatical Insights, p. 173).
1 Davies is impressed by the didactic tone of the passage and says that the chapter as a whole “constitutes what may be described as an incipient manual of discipline” (SM, p. 292). G. Bornkamm similarly regards it as a “Rule for the Congregation” (Stanton, p. 86).
2 ἐχεῖνος is a favorite Matthean word (see on 3:1).
3 Strictly Matthew says “hour” (ὥρα), but this word may be used for almost any period of time. Here it surely tells us that what follows took place at about the same time as the events narrated at the end of the last chapter. Carr supposes that Jesus and Peter “were alone when the last incident happened, they had entered the house (probably Peter’s) and were now joined by the other apostles who had been disputing on the way.” Filson sees the connection this way: “if sons of the Kingdom are free and the full Kingdom will be so great a privilege, who will have top rank in it?” (p. 198).
4 It is introduced naturally enough by τίς, but ἄρα is perhaps not so much to be expected. It perhaps arises out of Peter’s role in the immediately preceding incident. That showed Peter in a prominent position. Would that be reflected in the kingdom?
Barclay William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1958)
5 παιδίον is strictly a diminutive, but the word is used of children generally. Here, however, the child must have been a small one; a big child would have obscured the point Jesus is making.
6 “The child is weak, small, basically helpless, and unimportant in comparison with grown-ups. It is dependent on others; the younger it is the more dependent. This objective insignificance of the child, not any particular characteristic of children, is set forth as the way in which disciples are to think of themselves” (Hamann).
7 Patte comments, “people—that is, would-be disciples—are not spontaneously like children. They must become like children by turning away from what they are, by humbling themselves. Self-denial, giving up what one is, is a prerequisite for participating and being great in the kingdom” (p. 248).
8 G. Bertram draws attention to the use of the verb in the classics for “the moral walk and inner turnings” (TDNT, VII, p. 714). Tasker objects to the translation “turn,” maintaining that it is best to take the verb στραφῆτε “as a strict passive, for the change that is necessary before a man becomes as a little child is not something that he can bring about by himself. It is in fact a new birth, which we are told in John iii.3–6 is supernatural” (p. 175).
9 Fenton remarks that the child is the symbol of humility “not because a child is humble (most of them are not), but because a child has no status in society.” He cites Galatians 4:1.
10 Melinsky speaks of “unselfregarding trust in God, like that so shatteringly displayed by young children towards their elders.”
11 Cf. Robinson, “It is not merely the simplicity of the child that Jesus has in view, it is even more the fact that he is starting life afresh, with no preconceived notions; the saying means much the same as the Johannine ‘Ye must be born again’ ” (p. 152).
12 Cf. W. Grundmann, “Jesus is speaking to adults. He is conscious of their lost childlikeness before God. He thus gives humility a special nuance. It is to become a child again before God, i.e., to trust Him utterly, to expect everything from Him and nothing from self” (TDNT, VIII, p. 17).
13 ὃς ἐάν here will have much the same meaning as ὅστις in verse 4; both signify “whoever.”
14 δέχομαι (which Matthew uses 10 times; Luke has it 16 times) means “receive hospitably,” “welcome.”
15 ἐπί means “on the ground of,” “on the basis of.”
AS G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh, 1954)
16 The verb is σχανδαλίζω (see on 5:29), which speaks of setting off the bait stick of a trap and thus ensnaring.
17 μύλος ὀνιχός, where the adjective means “pertaining to an ass.” Grain was often ground in a small mill worked by hand, but Jesus is referring to a stone too heavy to be manipulated by the human hand and thus requiring the service of an animal like an ass. It would be very weighty and would ensure that the person around whose neck it hung went to the bottom of the water.
18 χαταποντίζω signifies “to throw into the sea” and thus to sink or drown in the sea. πέλαγος (again in the New Testament only in Acts 27:5) means “the deep sea”; when combined with θάλασσα it points to the depths of the sea (“far out in the open sea,” McNeile), not shallow water where the person might possibly escape. Josephus tells us that the Galileans on occasion used drowning as a method of execution (Ant. 14.450).
19 This is the one place in the Synoptic Gospels in which there is an explicit reference to believing in Christ (it also occurs in some MSS of Mark 9:42). It is, of course, implied in many places, but it comes to expression only here.
20 οὐαί occurs 12 times in Matthew, 15 times in Luke, 14 times in Revelation, and only 4 times elsewhere in the New Testament. It is a strong expression of regret, usually for the punishment that sinners are inevitably drawing down on themselves. Here it is followed by ἀπό, which introduces the reason.
21 τὰ σχάνδαλα (see on 5:29) are the things that entrap; there is always something of deceit about sin. People would not want to commit sin if they realized just what sin is and what its inevitable consequences are. Thus those who sin are entrapped.
22 The conditional clause is introduced by εἰ; this does not tell us whether or not the condition is fulfilled, but it puts the condition strongly enough that we can see what should be the consequence if the event were to take place.
23 χαλόν is an example of the positive used in the sense of the comparative (cf. M, III, p. 31).
Cassirer H. W. Cassirer, God’s New Covenant: A New Testament Translation (Grand Rapids, 1989)
24 Cf. AS, “ζωή, is life intensive, ‘vita quâ vivimus,’ the vital principle; βίος, life extensive, ‘vita quam vivimus,’ … in cl., ζ., being confined to the physical life common to men and animals, is the inferior word (cf. zoology, biography). In NT, ζωή is elevated into the ethical and spiritual sphere” (sub βίος).
25 Matthew uses πῦρ 12 times, which is more than in any other New Testament book apart from Revelation (26 times). Mostly he employs it to bring out the thought of the eternal destiny of the wicked. Thus here it is eternal fire.
26 Hell translates γέεννα, for which see the note on 5:32.
27 ὁράω may be used of bodily vision (Mark 8:24) or of perception with the mind (9:2). Here it is rather in the sense “take heed, beware.”
28 Hillel was a great and good teacher, but he could say of the people of the land, the common people, that one of them “cannot be saintly” (’Abot 2:6). Jesus’ attitude is a long way from this.
29 Some point to Peter’s “angel” in Acts 12:15, but this is not very convincing; it refers to some being that could be mistaken for Peter, and there is no reason to think that a guardian angel would look like those he guards. Others draw attention to Tobit 5:6, 21, but it is not said that this angel is “his” angel; and in any case the angel is no more than a being who looks after him on one particular journey.
Calvin J. Calvin, A Harmony of the Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids, 1980 rpt.)
30 Carson endorses Warfield’s suggestion that what is meant is the spirits of the “little ones” after their death, but there is a problem with the present tense. Jesus appears to be speaking about heavenly representatives now. Jesus may well be saying that the “little ones” are not to be despised, for they will in due course enjoy the glory of being with the Father in heaven. This would be an unusual meaning for angels, but Carson thinks that it would not be an impossible one. But it is more likely that Jesus is saying that little ones should not be despised because right now their plight is drawn to the attention of God himself.
31 G. Kittel comments, “recollection of the angels τῶν μιχρῶν τούτων who constantly behold the face of God serves to describe the all-embracing love of God to which these μιχροί are important, and thus to drive home our human responsibility to regard them as important too” (TDNT, I, p. 86).
32 Some MSS read verse 11 (as D K W X and many later MSS). But this cannot outweigh its omission from א B L* Θ etc. and the likelihood that it was borrowed from Luke 19:10 to make a good connection between verse 10 and verses 12–14 (so Metzger).
33 οὐχί, the emphatic negative, makes it clear that a positive answer is expected for the question.
34 γίνομαι is used with the infinitive following “to emphasize the actual occurrence of the action denoted by the verb”; here “= if he actually finds it” (BAGD, I.3.e). Palestinian shepherds did not always find lost sheep; a sheep might be killed by wild animals or fall over a precipice or wander too far away to be found.
35 μᾶλλον is the comparative of μάλα; it may be used of increase, when it means “more,” or of preference, with the meaning “rather.”
36 The second-century Gnostic Gospel of Thomas has the story of a shepherd who left ninety-nine sheep in the wilderness and tired himself out looking for the hundredth that was lost. But that sheep was “the largest” and was loved more than the others (107). Schweizer comments, “This change totally perverts the meaning of the parable; that a single particularly devout person is worth more than ninety-nine average Christians is precisely the position Jesus attacks” (p. 368).
37 οὕτως is used often in Matthew (32 times); it may refer to what precedes or to what follows. It indicates that the joy of the heavenly Father is like that of the successful shepherd.
38 G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus (Edinburgh, 1902), p. 212.
39 ἀπόλλυμι means “ruin,” “destroy,” and covers all sorts of destruction. Here it is eternal loss that is in question.
40 The passage is often said to reflect later church discipline, but Filson remarks: “The passage is Jewish and early in character; the only basis for assigning it a late origin is the use of the word church, which here means not the later hierarchical Church of Gentile Christianity, but the local group of believers in which two disciples are at variance. Nothing justifies the view that Jesus could not have spoken the words” (p. 201).
41 ἐάν with the subjunctive raises the possibility but gives no indication of the likelihood. Matthew has ἐάν 66 times.
42 εἰς σέ is read by MSS like D K L X Δ Θ etc., but is omitted by א B f1 etc. The words may have been omitted by scribes who wanted to make the passage apply to all sin, or they may have dropped out accidentally. But it is also possible that they were not originally in the text and were put in by scribes who wanted something parallel to verse 21. Metzger’s committee enclosed the words within square brackets, and most students would think that fair enough. It is impossible to be sure of the original reading.
NIV The Holy Bible, New International Version (Grand Rapids, 1978)
JB The Jerusalem Bible (London, 1966)
43 ἐλέγχω is assigned four meanings by AS: “1. in Hom. to treat with contempt 2. to convict 3. to reprove, rebuke 4. to expose.” MM cites examples to show that in the papyri it can have the meaning “to convict,” but also “expose, set forth.” The usage of the verb allows for more than one translation.
44 Again the conditional is introduced with ἐάν; there is no indication of the likely outcome.
45 Bruce asks, “gained as a friend, as a fellow-member of the Kingdom of God, or as a man = saved him from moral ruin?” and answers, “All three alternatives find support. Is it necessary or possible to decide peremptorily between them?”
46 Yet another ἐάν introduces the possibility with no indication of probability.
47 Matthew has παραλαμβάνω 16 times, whereas it occurs more than 6 times in no other New Testament book; it signifies “take along with.” Similarly he has μετά, “with,” more than in any other book (70 times; Acts has it 65 times).
48 ἵνα introduces a clause expressing purpose.
49 Another ἐάν with the subjunctive leaves all the possibilities open. This time it is accompanied by δέ, which has adversative force; the sinner should repent, but. …
50 παραχούω (in the New Testament only here and in Mark 5:36) has the meaning “to overhear,” “to hear amiss” or “imperfectly,” and then to hear without heeding (see AS). This last is the meaning here.
51 The Qumran community had a similar threefold procedure: “let him rebuke him on the very same day lest he incur guilt because of him. And furthermore, let no man accuse his companion before the Congregation without having first admonished him in the presence of witnesses” (The Community Rule V–VI; Vermes, p. 80).
AB The Anchor Bible: W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew (New York, 1971)
52 These are terms that Jewish people would use rather than those in the church in which Matthew was writing. They point to a Palestinian origin of the saying.
53 Turner sees it as an Aramaism giving the meaning “then verily I say to you” (M, IV, p. 32).
54 This is disputed by J. D. M. Derrett in an article in ET, 91 (1979–80), pp. 83–86. He points out that the context deals with offenses, not prayer, and argues that the “two or three” are arbitrators, one from each of the opponents in the dispute and the third from the church if the two could not resolve the dispute. To him the passage “means that unofficial dispute-settlers, peacemakers, perform a divine function. The Christian, submitting to Christian discipline, has faith that the arbitrators whom he has partly chosen for himself, supplemented perhaps by one chosen by the Church, will act as colleagues of Christ himself, and therefore he will believe that their solution is his will” (p. 86). But there is nothing to indicate that the passage refers to a judicial dispute. The verb “ask” is often used of asking in prayer (7:7–11; 21:22, etc.).
55 Ridderbos notes that this “does not mean that any two people who agree will have their prayer answered, even if they disagree with all the other members of the church. It means rather that if for some reason no more than two believers are present at some time or place, they still can be certain that they will receive God’s special help” (p. 340).
56 οὗ ἐάν is very general, “whatsoever”; it means that there is a great variety of things that may legitimately be prayed for.
57 Introduced by γάρ. Turner notices this as one of only four places in the New Testament where the clause introduced by οὗ precedes the main clause (M, III, p. 344).
58 εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα may reflect the Hebrew לְשֵׁם.
’Abot ’Abot
59 ποσάχις = “how often?” is found again in the New Testament only in 23:37 and Luke 13:34.
60 “Against” is εἰς; the sin is directed “to” the brother (cf. Luke 17:4; 1 Cor. 6:18).
61 The question about forgiveness is cited as an example of “Parataxis in interrogative sentences under the influence of Semitic usage” (BDF 471[2]).
62 ἕως is used here “of degree and measure, denoting the upper limit … as many as seven times” (BAGD, II.4).
Yoma Yoma
63 Many commentators regard Peter as having too great a readiness to be unforgiving, but Calvin remarks, “the number seven is to be taken as meaning a great number, and the adverb ‘seven times’ is equivalent to saying, ‘How frequently, Lord, do you want us to be reconciled to sinners? For it is absurd and useless for them to find us reconcilable repeatedly’ ” (II, p. 234).
64 ἀλλά.
65 Chamberlain says the ending -χις is “a multiplicative and answers the question ‘how often’ ”; here “seventy times seven” (p. 111). Moulton, by contrast, sees an allusion to Genesis 4:24 and holds that that means “seventy-seven times” (M, I, p. 98). Turner accepts this and explains the meaning as “70 times (and) seven” (M, III, pp. 187–88). Argyle asserts, however, that “the Greek cannot bear that meaning.” The decisive argument for seventy-seven times is that the expression reproduces Genesis 4:24 (LXX), where it is the translation of a Hebrew expression that means “seventy-seven times.” If Jesus had that passage in mind he is opposing to the limitless vengeance of Lamech a demand for limitless forgiveness in his followers.
66 ὁμοιόω occurs 8 times in Matthew out of 15 in the New Testament. It means “liken” in the sense “declared to be like” rather than “made like” (as a context like this makes clear).
67 Actually Matthew says “to a man a king”; he is fond of ἄνθρωπος, which he uses 112 times (Luke has it 95 times). He follows it here with ὅς, while in an identical construction in 22:2 he has ὅστις; clearly he makes no distinction betwen the two pronouns. And equally clearly ἄνθρωπος is here equivalent to an indefinite adjective.
68 Wanted renders ἠθέλησεν; “he set his will” or “he made up his mind”; it points to a settled decision.
Law J. D. M. Derrett, Law in the New Testament (London, 1970)
69 Josephus tells of a certain Joseph who heard that 8,000 talents was bid for certain taxing rights and who countered by bidding twice that (Ant. 12.175–76). He immediately made himself liable for the huge amount of 16,000 talents. The man in the parable may possibly have found himself in a similar situation.
70 E. M. Cook says, “The weight of the Greco-Roman talent … ranged from 26.4 kg. (58 lbs.) to 37.8 kg. (83 lbs.) in different periods. It is not known what standards prevailed in NT Palestine” (ISBE, IV, p. 1055). E. R. Sellers adds, “In NT times as money the talent was equal to six thousand drachmas” (IDB, IV, p. 511).
71 μυρίος is an adjective used in the sense “numberless” (1 Cor. 4:15; 14:19). The plural here is usually taken to mean ten thousand, but obviously no precise figure is being given. Jesus is simply speaking of a very large sum of money. “The sum is made up of the highest number used in arithmetic and the largest monetary unit employed in the ancient Near East” (Schweizer, p. 377). Several commentators suggest that “a billion” would give the thrust of it.
72 The verb is ἀποδίδωμι; it is used of rendering what is due in a variety of circumstances. It runs through this story, being used twice in this verse and again in verses 26, 28, 29, 30, and 34.
RSV The Revised Standard Version
NRSV The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville, 1990)
73 μαχροθυμέω strictly = “be long tempered”; it is the opposite of being short tempered. It can be used in the active sense of “persevere,” but also passively, as here, “be patient,” “long-suffering.” In the present case there was certainly scope for long-suffering.
74 σπλαγχνίζομαι; see on 9:36.
75 δάνειον is found here only in the New Testament; strictly it means a loan. It is perhaps worth noticing that the verb ἀφίημι (again in vv. 32 and 35) is used 47 times in Matthew, which is more often than in any other New Testament book.
76 This was not unknown among the Jews: “If a man seized a debtor by the throat in the street …” (B. Bat. 10:8). Was this standard practice in dealing with defaulting debtors?
77 εἴ τι ὀφείλεις, where εἴ τι is equivalent to ὅ τι (see BDF 376).
78 τὰ γενόμενα, an expression found twice in this verse and rarely elsewhere in the New Testament.
NASB New American Standard Bible (La Habra, 1972)
79 διασαφέω, elsewhere in the New Testament only in 13:36, means “to make clear, explain fully” (AS).
80 “The king denounces the servant as wicked—not because he has mishandled the money given to him but because he has mishandled the forgiveness given to him” (Meier).
81 This is the one occurrence of ὀφειλή in Matthew, but it is the sixth occurrence of words from the ὀφειλ- stem in this passage.
82 It is introduced by οὐ.
83 ἔδει.
84 The placing of χἀγώ immediately alongside σέ places the two in strong contrast.
IBNTG C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge, 1953)
1 Patte cites Schweizer and Bonnard for the meaning “for any reason a man wishes,” and accepts it himself (p. 279, n. 4). Turner understands the question as “Is there any ground on which it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He goes on, “Jesus’s strict ideas on the indissolubility of marriage were well known. The Pharisees were not attempting to inveigle him into taking sides in a rabbinical dispute so much as betraying surprise that he was stricter even than the school of Shammai” (Grammatical Insights, p. 61). The Pharisaic practice may be illustrated from Josephus. He was a Pharisee who divorced his wife, apparently for no great cause: “I divorced my wife, being displeased at her behaviour” (Life 426). He could write, “He who desires to be divorced from the wife who is living with him for whatsoever cause—and with mortals many such may arise …” (Ant. 4.253).
Giṭ. Giṭṭin
2 With divorce so easy for a man it might have been expected that there would be a great deal of it, but according to I. Abrahams this was not the case (Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, 1st ser. [New York, 1967], pp. 66–78). He says that most Jews married young and that “Jewish sentiment was strongly opposed to the divorce of the wife of a man’s youth” (p. 68). In the Talmud we read, “If a man divorces his first wife, even the altar sheds tears” (Giṭ. 90b).
Chrysostom John Chrysostom, Homilies on St. Matthew (NPNF, 1st ser., vol. X)
3 Leave is the translation of χαταλείπω, which can mean “abandon”; it is certainly no half-hearted action. χολλάω means “to glue, cement” (LSJ), and points to no half-hearted union.
4 ὥστε, which Matthew has 15 times, more than in any other New Testament writing, indicates the logical consequence, “for this reason,” “it follows that —.” Here it is followed by the indicative rather than the infinitive, which puts some emphasis on the actuality of the result.
5 “One flesh vividly expresses a view of marriage as something much deeper than either human convenience or social convention, and this is drawn out by Jesus’ ringing pronouncement (rightly and magnificently emphasized in the marriage service), What God has joined together, let not put man asunder. To see divorce as man undoing the work of God puts the whole issue in a radically new perspective” (France).
6 It is perhaps surprising that little notice appears to have been taken of God’s words “I hate divorce” (Mal. 2:16). The index to Danby’s translation of the Mishnah does not include a reference to the verse and that to the seventeen-volume Soncino translation of the Talmud refers to only one passage.
7 πρός with the accusative can take this meaning; BDF 239(8) notes it as a classical usage.
8 JB has “because you were so unteachable.” But it is not their failure to understand that is in question, but their failure to do what they should have done. Phillips paraphrases with “because you knew so little of the meaning of love.” This is scarcely a translation, but it is a suggestive thought.
9 There is a complicated textual problem with μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ read by א C3 K L etc., and παρεχτὸς λόγου πορνείας by B f1 boh etc., a reading that Metzger thinks has probably been assimilated to that in 5:32. There are other problems, but the important point is that there is no real doubt that the words about fornication are to be accepted.
† “The penalty for proven adultery, when the capital punishment was abolished, was mitigated into the divorce of the woman (the husband having no option)” (Israel Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, 1st ser. [rpt. New York, 1967], p. 74). So also Moore, Judaism, II [Cambridge, 1958], p. 125). The Mishnah provides that if a woman “was found unchaste … he may not continue [his union] with her” (Ketub. 3.5). Markus Bockmuehl cites Qumran and other evidence that “adultery (and rape) requires divorce” (NTS, 35 [1989], p. 295). See also Mishnah, Soṭa 5:1.
10 Carson has a full and helpful discussion of the problems in this verse (pp. 413–18). Tasker makes some good points about the place of divorce in the modern church (pp. 181–83).
11 αἰτία, which Matthew uses 3 times, has a variety of meanings including the technical sense of an accusation, a reason for a judicial verdict (e.g., 27:37; John 18:38). It is suggested that here it might be taken in the sense “the relationship of a man with his wife.” BDF takes it as a Latinism = causa (5[3b]).
12 οὐ συμφέρει. The verb is often used of what is profitable or expedient.
13 χωρέω is used of literal, physical capacity, as, for example, of the house where people were listening to Jesus and there was no more room for more (Mark 2:2). Here, of course, it refers to spiritual capacity.
14 Lenski sees the words as referring to all believers: “As they have done with regard to other natural desires, so thay have put also the desire of sex under complete subjection because of their spiritual life in the kingdom” (p. 739). But, while it is true that believers subject sex as everything else to the lordship of Christ, that scarcely fits the words used here. Jesus is speaking of total abstinence from sex.
15 Gundry understands the last injunction to mean that “Jesus’ true disciples live as eunuchs after they have had to divorce their wives for immorality” (p. 382). But there is no reason for thinking that these words refer to divorced people only. Moreover, the position scarcely does justice to the words for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. Jesus is surely speaking of a voluntary effort with a view to setting forward the kingdom rather than to a rule regulating the conduct of all divorced males, whether they have the capacity to live the single life or not.
16 J. Jeremias cites rabbinic sources that tell of the “beautiful custom in Jerusalem” on the Day of Atonement of bringing children from one to twelve years old to the scribes for them to lay their hands on them and pray for them (Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries [London, 1960], p. 49).
17 Hill comments on the disciples’ “lack of understanding of Jesus’ ministry; they were annoyed that he was being stopped on his way to Jerusalem. Were they hastening him onwards to the city in the hope that he would make a triumphant messianic display there?”
18 Moffatt translates, “The disciples checked the people,” but ἐπιτιμάω means more than “checked.” The word signifies “rebuked.”
19 Green says that “the Jewish practice of taking children to a rabbi to have his hands laid on them” was one that “was interpreted not as conferring a blessing, but as asking one from God.”
20 Such a view may be found within Judaism. We read, for example, of a man speaking of the giving of alms “in order that through it I may merit the future world” (Rosh. Hash. 4a). More generally we read, “All is foreseen, but freedom of choice is given; and the world is judged by grace, yet all is according to the excess of works (that be good or evil)” (’Abot 3:16). See also SBk I, pp. 808–10.
21 Hamann points out that in Amos 5 we read “Seek good, and not evil, that you may live” (v. 14), but also “Seek me and live” and “Seek the LORD and live” (vv. 4, 6). He suggests that “life is related to good and God … interchangeably.” Really to seek good is to seek God. The young man may not have been aware of this.
22 “It was not a simple question, as the ruler thought: two points are raised: (1) What is ‘the good?’ (2) How to enter life eternal. Then again the answer to the first is partly left to inference, and the answer to the second lies deeper than the young ruler’s thought had gone. (1) There is one only who is good, therefore (the inference is) ‘the good’ can only be the will of God. (2) Then the way to enter into life eternal is to keep God’s will as expressed in the commandments. Jesus shows that here too the questioner had not thought deeply enough. Keeping the commandments is not external observance of them, but being in heart what the commandments mean, and what the will of God is” (Carr).
23 The verb is in the present tense, though Jesus’ response is in the aorist, a phenomenon that is repeated in verses 20–21.
24 His word is ποίας. Strictly this interrogative signifies “of what quality or sort” (AS); Barclay translates, “What kind of commandments?” The questioner may be thinking that for life eternal there must be some special commandments, and he was not aware which they were. But the word is used widely (cf. 22:36), and we cannot insist on this.
25 The omission of any reference to the commandments about God is explained by Hendriksen thus: “It was not necessary for Jesus to include the commandments relating to man’s duty with respect to God; for, failure to observe the second table implies failure to observe the first: ‘He who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen’ (1 John 4:20).”
26 The verb is φυλάσσω, which has the basic meaning of “guard.” But it can have the idea of keeping a law or the like from being broken and thus of “observing” it.
27 εἰ with the indicative seems to imply that this is what he does want. θέλεις points to the action of the will, while τέλειος (3 times only in this Gospel) means that which has reached its aim. When used of people it mostly signifies the attainment of full physical development, but it can be used of ethical development, as when it conveys the idea of “complete, perfect (expressing the simple idea of complete goodness, without reference either to maturity or to the philosophical idea of a τέλος)” (AS). In AB it is translated “true,” and this is explained as “true to God, true to the Covenant.”
Gutzwiller R. Gutzwiller, Day by Day with Saint Matthew’s Gospel (London, 1964)
28 In the early church people sometimes sold their goods to give to others (Acts 2:44–45; 4:32). But this was an optional thing, not a requirement laid on all (Acts 5:4).
29 “The kingdom demands man’s first allegiance, and a rich man’s first allegiance is usually given to the acquisition or maintenance of his wealth. Loyalty to the kingdom cannot take second place” (Melinsky).
30 The word for grieved is λυπούμενος, “being distressed” or “grieved.”
Ryle J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: Matthew (London, 1965)
31 δυσχόλως derives from δυς-, which gives the idea of difficulty, and χόλον, “food.” It thus has a meaning connected with difficulty in satisfying with food, and thus generally “with difficulty.”
32 Cf. Robinson, “It is sometimes supposed that he (i.e. Jesus) condemned riches on economic grounds; it was a bad thing for property to be concentrated in the hands of a few, and would lead to oppression of the less privileged people. But that is not his real objection. He considers far less the harm that a man’s money may do to others than the fatal injury which it inflicts on himself. To be rich is an appalling peril. …”
33 Some MSS read χάμιλος, “a heavy rope, a cable,” rather than χάμηλος, “camel,” but there seems to be no doubt that “camel” is correct. “Cable” is apparently an attempt to make the proposition a little more possible (Howard remarks, “we may preserve for the museum of exegetical curiosities the Byzantine invention of a χάμιλος ‘cable’ to be an improvement on χάμηλος,” M, II, p. 72). But we should understand Jesus to be speaking of the largest animal found in Palestine in that day and the smallest opening in common use; he is referring to sheer impossibility.
34 There are textual difficulties, but it seems that Matthew uses τρύπημα, Mark τρυμαλιά, and Luke τρῆμα for the “hole” in the needle (in each case the word appears only here in the New Testament). Matthew and Mark have ῥαφίς for needle, while Luke uses βελόνη, but there does not appear to be a significant difference.
35 “It is noticeable that Christ’s tone is much more severe in reference to wealth than to wedlock. Eunuchism for the kingdom is optional; possession of wealth on the other hand seems to be viewed as all but incompatible with citizenship in the kingdom” (Bruce).
36 ἐχπλήσσω signifies “to strike out of one’s senses,” and it is reinforced here by σφόδρα, “exceedingly,” a term that Matthew uses 7 times (nobody else in the New Testament has it more than once). The imperfect here points to a continuing state.
37 ἐμβλέπω has a meaning like “fix one’s gaze upon” (BAGD).
38 δέ marks the antithesis between men (who cannot) and God (who can).
39 “The rich man who owns a lot and the poor man who wants a lot are two peas in a pod and fall under the same condemnation” (Hamann).
40 McNeile finds here “Another mistake of the chief apostle, a self-complacency which the Petrine tradition in Mk. faithfully records: ‘we at any rate have thrown off the fetters of wealth.’ ” He goes on to suggest that Peter’s question “heightens the self-centredness.” Diétrich comments, “The question of Peter is somewhat naïve. He thinks that he has ‘left everything’ (vs. 27). His denial some weeks later will show that he also is not free from human attachments. He has not measured the cross which awaits him.”
Ridderbos H. N. Ridderbos, Matthew (Grand Rapids, 1987)
41 We should also bear in mind Michael Green’s comment: “It is easy for us to sneer at the question, but which of us has given up what the disciples had? Perhaps that is why Jesus gives no rebuke but rather encouragement to the twelve” (p. 188).
42 ἄρα is inferential, “consequently.” Peter is looking for what the Twelve could reasonably expect as the consequence of what they had given up for Jesus.
43 παλιγγενεσία, which signifies “rebirth,” “new birth,” “regeneration.” Philo uses it for the renewal of the world after the Flood (Vit. Mos. 2.65), and Josephus for the return of the nation from exile (Ant. 11.66), but mostly it is used for something more radical than that. T. W. Manson shows that the term is used by the Stoics for “the beginning of a new cycle in the cosmic process,” that is, a new cycle in an endless series of repetitions. The Jews used it for the end of the universe as we know it and the beginning of a new era, “a new era that is really new, a new creation” (T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus [London, 1949], p. 216). In the New Testament it is used only here and in Titus 3:5 (where it refers to personal regeneration). Here it refers to cosmic renewal, “the world that is to be” (NEB).
44 Kenneth E. Bailey comments, “It is nearly impossible to communicate what all of this means in our Middle Eastern context. The two unassailable loyalties that any Middle Easterner is almost required to consider more important than life itself are family and the village home. … Surely the shock of the passage cuts deeply into the presuppositions of any culture” (Through Peasant Eyes [Grand Rapids, 1983], p. 169).
45 Lenski points out that we have here “both a markedly different verb and an object so great that it cannot be classed with any blessing bestowed in this life. This alone is enough to indicate that life eternal is not a reward for forsaking relatives, property, or for enduring other afflictions for Christ’s sake” (p. 761).
46 Allen points out that the connection of these words with the preceding is obscure. He takes them as “a rebuke to the self-complacent spirit implied in S. Peter’s words: ‘It may be difficult for the rich to enter into the Kingdom, but we who have left all are in no danger of exclusion.’ Christ’s words are a warrant for this confidence, and at the same time a rebuke and a warning.”
1 Cf. Carr, “Not only will the disciples not be the only called, but they may not reach a higher place or a higher reward than some who follow them at an apparent disadvantage. … But they must beware of a spirit very prevalent among hard workers, and not think too much of their own labours, or be displeased because others are equally rewarded.”
2 γάρ.
3 The word is οἰχοδεσπότῃ, “the master of the house.” It is here preceded by ἀνθρώπῳ, which like the usage in 18:23 is equivalent to the indefinite pronoun, and which KJV renders as “a man that is an householder.”
Phillips J. B. Phillips, The Gospels in Modern English (London, 1957)
4 Moule remarks that ἅμα πρωΐ “makes ἅμα practically equivalent to a preposition and πρωΐ practically equivalent to a noun.” He understands the meaning to be “at dawn” (IBNTG, p. 82), that is, “with the early morning.”
5 The Talmud says that the workman’s day lasted from the rising of the sun until the rising of the stars; the laborer would go to the field during his employer’s time, but come home in his own time (B. Meṣ. 83b). This means that his time of work began when he was hired in the marketplace and ended in the field when the stars appeared.
6 Horsley cites G. E. M. de Ste. Croix for the view that “the hired labourer was despised in antiquity and that his status ‘was as low as it could well be—only a little above that of a slave, in fact’ ” (New Documents, 4, p. 97).
7 χαὶ ὑμεῖς puts some emphasis on you in addition to others.
8 There is no suggestion that they haggled; they apparently simply wanted a job and agreed to work for whatever was right. Barclay remarks, “A man is not a Christian, if his first concern is pay. That is what Peter asked: ‘What do we get out of it?’ The Christian works for the joy of working and the joy of serving God and his fellow-men. That is why the first will be last and the last will be first” (II, p. 226).
9 The Greek says simply τὴν ἑνδεχάτην, but clearly ὥραν must be understood.
10 χαὶ ὑμεῖς puts some emphasis on you; in addition to those others, you, too.
11 Owner renders χύριος, mostly rendered “Lord” in the New Testament, but here used in the sense of the owner of property. ἐπίτροπος is not the owner but someone who looks after property or the like on behalf of the owner. It may signify a manager, a foreman, a steward, or looking a little higher, a guardian, or higher still, a governor. Here it is the man who had the responsibility of looking after the day-to-day business of running the vineyard (and possibly other affairs of the owner). NIV has “foreman,” and JB “bailiff,” but this latter conveys the wrong nuance.
12 In indirect speech the future λήψονται retains the tense of the original speakers.
13 χαὶ αὐτοί is the use of the emphatic pronoun, which puts some emphasis on they, they as well as those who were paid ahead of them.
14 γογγύζω is the muttering that goes through a group of discontented people; it indicates displeasure, or complaint. Here it is followed by χατά, which denotes the object of the complaint.
15 Glover comments: “There are, perhaps, as many murmuring elder brothers as there are repenting prodigals” and goes on, “whenever complacency, disparagement, discontent, enter the soul, then it begins to decline; and the first are becoming last, till they fall below the level of those they despise, and the publican and the harlot enter the kingdom of heaven ‘before,’ i.e. in front of them.”
16 ποιέω is used here in the general sense of doing whatever had to be done; I have translated it “worked.” The same verb is used later in the verse with the double accusative (made them equal).
17 βαστάζω is used of carrying literal burdens, for example, a water jar (Mark 14:13). It comes to be used for enduring hardship and difficulty of various kinds, here the burden of the day’s work (that done by the latecomers being no more than a tiny fraction of what had to be done). βάρος may be used of a literal burden, but in the New Testament it is used metaphorically of a variety of hardships.
18 χαύσων is connected with χαίω, “to burn.” It signifies the burning part of the day, the time when the sun was at its hottest. It was also used for the hot east wind, the sirocco, and some accept this meaning here.
19 France reminds us that our natural sympathy with this position is revealing; he quotes R. H. Stein: “It is frightening to realize that our identification with the first workers, and hence with the opponents of Jesus, reveals how loveless and unmerciful we basically are. We may be more ‘under law’ in our thinking and less ‘under grace’ than we realize. God is good and compassionate far beyond his children’s understanding!”
20 The question “Did you not agree…?” is introduced with οὐχί, which looks for a positive answer. What other answer could be given? Here it is said that they agreed δηναρίου, but the meaning appears to be the same as in verse 2, where it is preceded by ἐχ.
21 θέλω points to the action of the will; this is what the man has set himself to do. And he says he wants to give (δοῦναι), not “to pay”; the same verb was used in verse 4 of the payment to those taken on at the third hour and “likewise” (v. 5) may imply that the same was done for those who came at the sixth and ninth hours. But in all these cases there is an element of gift, even if not quite as much as with the last comers. They all differed from those who had come first and worked all day.
22 Buttrick points out that this “does not mean that God is a God of capricious whim and fiat mind. It means that he has his own criteria which we, in mortal sight and selfish aim, cannot comprehend.”
Fenton J. C. Fenton, The Gospel of St Matthew (Harmondsworth, 1963)
23 “The parable, as originally spoken, can hardly have had any other object than that of warning Christ’s first disciples, that others who should become His disciples at a later date would also be partakers of privileges equal to theirs who had first joined Him” (Allen). Cf. Argyle, “For Matthew the vineyard is the Christian community and those who join it late will be treated as equal in privilege with those who join it early. In the intention of Jesus the parable simply illustrated the teaching that the gift of eternal life is not the reward of human merit but the free gift of divine grace.” Hill similarly says, “its main concern is to declare the sovereign grace and good-will of God. … It is addressed to those who resembled the grumblers, those who (like the Pharisees) criticized the acceptance of the despised, the outcasts and sinners, into the Kingdom of God.”
Ber. Berakot
24 T. W. Manson has a worthwhile comment: “God’s love cannot be portioned out in quantities nicely adjusted to the merits of individuals. There is such a thing as the twelfth part of a denar. It was called a pondion. But there is no such thing as a twelfth part of the love of God.” The Sayings of Jesus (London, 1949), p. 220.
25 ἔσχατοι has the article and thus is the subject in the first clause.
26 Many MSS add “for many are called, but few chosen,” but the words are omitted by א B L Z sah boh etc. It seems probable, as Metzger says, that copyists inserted them from 22:14, where they conclude another parable.
Plummer A. Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Matthew (London, 1910)
27 ἀναβαίνω (9 times in Matthew) is often used of going up to the capital. Jerusalem was, of course, on high ground.
28 All three Synoptists have the verb παραλαμβάνω (which Matthew uses 16 times) with the meaning “take along with oneself,” but only Matthew has χατʼ ἰδίαν.
29 παραδίδωμι (31 times in Matthew; no other book has it more than Mark’s 21 times) means “to hand over, deliver up” and is often employed as a technical term for handing over into custody (e.g., Acts 8:3). It is used in a variety of ways for the “delivering up” of Jesus for his atoning death. Thus Judas handed him over (26:25), as did the chief priests and elders (27:2), and the people of Jerusalem (Acts 3:13). From another angle it was Pilate who delivered him up (27:26). We are quite ready to condemn these evil and weak people, but we had our part in it too, for he was delivered up for our sins (Rom. 4:25). In a little glimpse of what happened from the heavenly point of view we find that the Father did this (Rom. 8:32), while according to one of the most moving passages in Scripture, the Son gave himself up (Gal. 2:20).
30 εἰς τό seems here to indicate purpose (cf. Turner, M, III, p. 143).
31 Crucifixion was widely used by the Romans (and other nations) as a method of inflicting the death penalty. The Jews officially accepted burning, stoning, strangling, and beheading as methods of execution (Sanh. 7:1), but under the Romans they were not permitted to put anyone to death (John 18:31). Jesus’ words thus indicate that it will be the Romans who will be his executioners.
32 Many commentators say that Matthew is altering what Mark says in order to minimize criticism of the brothers, but “The suggestion is interesting solely as an example of ignorance of the ways and manners of mothers anxious for their sons” (AB).
33 At the crucifixion Matthew mentions Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons (27:56). Mark has Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and Salome (Mark 15:40). John has the mother of Jesus, her sister, Mary the wife of Cleopas, and Mary Magdalene (John 19:25). A comparison of Matthew and Mark makes it likely that the mother of Zebedee’s sons was called Salome, and John’s account makes it seem that this lady was the sister of Jesus’ mother. If this is the way the passages should be understood, James and John would be cousins of Jesus. J. A. T. Robinson says, “This cannot be more than a hypothesis,” but that it is supported by the fact that on the cross Jesus committed Mary to the care of the Beloved Disciple (The Priority of John [London, 1985], pp. 119–20).
34 προσχυνέω is often used in the sense “worship,” and it is employed for the worship of God (4:10). But it is also used for actions conveying deep respect for humans (18:26), and this seems to be in mind here. Bengel remarks, “From the adoration and discourse of this woman, it is evident that she entertained a high idea of our Lord’s majesty, but possessed very little knowledge.”
35 αἰτοῦσά τι ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ, “asking something from him.”
36 She says εἰπέ; the kingdom was not yet a reality, but she looks forward to its coming and asks Jesus to speak now the command that would give the Zebedees what they doubtless saw as their rightful places when the kingdom came.
37 εὐώνυμος strictly means “of good name or omen, well-named”; it was used as a euphemism “to avoid the ill-omen attaching to the left” (AS). There is, of course, no suggestion that its use in the New Testament is influenced in any way by omens; it is interesting that a term with such an origin had passed into general speech. ἀριστερός, which is also a euphemism (meaning “better”; see LSJ), is used for “left” in Matthew only in 6:3.
38 In verse 20 the verb for “asking” is in the active but here it is in the middle. The general rule is that the middle αἰτέω is used “of requests in commerce and so as a rule in the NT; the active is usually used for requests addressed to God” (BDF 316[2]). Lenski thinks that the mother here “asks devoutly as one asks of God,” while Jesus uses the middle, “for this asking was really in the nature of a business transaction” (p. 787).
39 The verb is not the simple future, but μέλλω πίνειν; there is a sense of inevitability about Jesus drinking the cup.
40 ἀγαναχτέω is connected by AS with the ideas of “much” and “grieve,” but the strong grieving is linked with reproach and thus signifies “be indignant.” MM cites the word from the papyri with this meaning.
41 χατεξουσιάζω occurs only here and in Mark 10:42 in the New Testament. The verb is rare; “scarcely to be found in secular Gk” (BAGD). It is not cited in MM or New Documents.
M, J. H. Moulton, III, Syntax, by Nigel Turner (Edinburgh, 1963)
42 Chrysostom comments: “Nothing is higher than lowliness of mind, and nothing lower than boastfulness” (p. 402).
43 McNeile considers the choice of words significant: “as πρῶτος is higher than μέγας, so is δοῦλος lower than διάχονος.”
Robinson T. H. Robinson, The Gospel of Matthew (London, 1928)
44 The verb διαχονέω was used of waiting on someone at table, and from that came to denote lowly service in general. Jesus is using an interesting term to state quite firmly that he sought no great place for himself, but chose to serve in a humble capacity.
45 αὐτοῦ is to be seen here as a “strengthening of the reflexive” (BDF 283[4]).
46 λύτρον was a well-known concept, often used of the sacral manumission of slaves (see MM and LAE, pp. 319–30). It occurs only here (and in the parallel in Mark 10:45) in the New Testament, but the corresponding verb λυτρόω is found 3 times, as is the noun λύτρωσις. More frequent is ἀπολύτρωσις (10 times).
47 ἀντὶ πολλῶν, “in the place of many”; ἀντί is the normal preposition for substitution (cf. Moule, IBNTG, p. 71). F. Büchsel says that here “ἀντί means ‘for’ in the sense of ‘in place of’ rather than ‘to the advantage of’ ” (TDNT, IV, p. 342). Robertson says that this passage and Mark 10:45 “teach the substitutionary conception of Christ’s death, not because ἀντί of itself means ‘instead,’ which is not true, but because the context renders any other resultant idea out of the question” (p. 573). Many commentators assert that “many” here is equivalent to “all,” but the absence of the article is perhaps against this.
48 Deissmann documents this (LAE, pp. 319–30).
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, trans. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, 1964-76)
49 See further my The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross3 (London and Grand Rapids, 1965), pp. 11–64; The Atonement (Leicester and Downers Grove, 1983), pp. 106–31. Hamann says, “The sentence makes three assertions about the ransoming death: it was a voluntary death, it was a vicarious death (a substitutionary death, a death by proxy—see Rom. 3:24; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 1:4), and it has a universal character” (p. 206). Mounce remarks, “It would be difficult to express the substitutionary nature of Jesus’ death in clearer language.”
50 Tasker holds it “equally probable that two men were in fact given back their sight, but that the Petrine tradition of the story known to Mark concentrated attention solely upon one of the beneficiaries, who may have been personally known to Peter” (p. 196). It might support this that the name Bar-Timaeus is given only in Mark.
51 It is read by p45vid C K W X etc., but there are many variants. Evidently copyists bore in mind the similar passage, 9:27, and the accounts in Mark and Luke. It is impossible to be sure of the true text here, but on the whole it seems that χύριε should be read.
52 Grosheide says that “ ‘Son of David’ is never used elsewhere as a mere title of honor. To conceive it as such therefore is pure speculation”; he argues that the view that “Son of David” is not a messianic title is “untenable” (pp. 374, 375).
53 ἐπιτιμάω is mostly used in the New Testament in the sense “rebuke.” AS points out that it expresses “simply rebuke, which may be undeserved (Mt 16:22) or ineffectual (Lk 23:40)” over against ἐλέγχω, “which brings conviction” (sub ἐλέγχω). Here the rebuke has no effect.
54 ἵνα indicates purpose.
55 According to Howard, this is the only place in the New Testament where μεῖζον has the meaning “more” (M, II, p. 165).
REB The Revised English Bible (Oxford and Cambridge, 1989)
56 ἵστημι is used in the aorist with the meaning “stand still,” “halt.”
57 This may well be an example of imperatival ἵνα.
58 The word here is ὄμμα (again in the New Testament only in Mark 8:23). It is usually regarded as a poetic word, but MM cites it from the papyri.
59 ἀναβλέπω means “to look up”; it is also utilized in that sense in 14:19. But it is also used often, as here, for the recovery of sight of the blind (so in 11:5).
Schweizer E. Schweizer, The Good News according to Matthew (London, 1976)
60 Michael Green has an apt comment: “The request of the disciples (for top places in the Kingdom) shows their blindness: the request of the blind men shows their vision—of who Jesus is and what he can do” (p. 196). Diétrich also links the two: “It is easier for Jesus to give sight to the blind who believe in him than to make the scales fall from the eyes of his disciples who do not know to what degree they are still blind.”
1 Some scholars have held that the triumphal entry took place at the Feast of Tabernacles (so Hill, following T. W. Manson), or the Feast of the Dedication (B. A. Mastin, NTS, 16 [1969–70], pp. 76–82). Such views remain possible, for Matthew does not specifically identify the feast, but it is more likely to be Passover, as John clearly indicates (cf. John 12:1).
2 Josephus tells of the people of Antioch going out to meet Titus and welcome him into their city (War 7.100–103). Going out to welcome an eminent person was thus not unknown.
3 “Jesus’ reaction was a prompt repudiation of the crowd’s acclamations. … He could not escape, as he had done after feeding the crowd in Galilee, and so, to show that he was not accepting the rôle of a military Messiah, but coming in peace, he sat on an ass…” (J. N. Sanders, A Commentary on the Gospel according to St John, ed. and completed by B. A. Mastin [London, 1968], p. 288).
Menaḥ. Menaḥot
Pes. Pesaḥim
4 πῶλος signifies “a foal, colt,” initially used of a horse, but later of other animals as well (AS). Here clearly it refers to the colt of an ass.
GNB Good News Bible (London and New York, 1976)
5 Mark has, “and he will send it back here again immediately.”
6 Zion was a Jebusite stronghold that David captured and that he made the royal residence (2 Sam. 5:7, 9). The “city of David” in time was known as Zion (1 Kings 8:1), and eventually the term became indistinguishable from Jerusalem (e.g., Isa. 4:3–4). The expression “daughter of Zion” came to mean the population of the city (e.g., Isa. 1:8), the meaning it has here.
7 Our translation would perhaps lead us to think that Zechariah was talking of two animals, but his Hebrew parallelism means that he was speaking of one animal that he first describes as “an ass” and then as “a colt, the foal of a beast of burden” (“Only one animal is intended,” Joyce G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi [London, 1972], p. 166). Nixon comments, “it may be assumed that he mentions the mother because she would be needed to calm the colt in the crowd.” “The sight of an unridden donkey colt accompanying its mother has remained common in Palestine up to modern times” (Gundry, p. 409). Ridderbos holds that Matthew did not add this touch to make his story agree with Zechariah 9:9, “Rather the colt apparently could only be taken if its mother went with it” (p. 380).
8 As indicated in n. 4† above, the word πῶλος means “a foal, colt.” ὑποζύγιος literally means “under a yoke”; it signified a beast of burden of any sort, here obviously an ass.
9 Gundry discusses the passage in Use of the OT, pp. 197–99.
10 ἱμάτιον is often used, especially in the plural for clothes in general, but there is no reasonable doubt that in this passage it is used in the strict sense of the outer garment, the cloak.
Plummer A. Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Matthew (London, 1910)
Tasker R. V. G. Tasker, The Gospel according to St. Matthew (London, 1961)
11 ὁ πλεῖστος ὄχλος. Strictly πλεῖστος is the superlative of πολύς and means “most.” It signifies a very large crowd. In employing the unusual expression perhaps Matthew wants to indicate that it was the largest crowd.
12 John tells us that palm branches were used (John 12:13), and these seem to have been associated with celebrations of victory (1 Macc. 13:51; 2 Macc. 10:7). The people may well have been greeting Jesus as a national liberator.
13 This appears to be a transliteration of the Hebrew הוֹשִׁיעַנָּא or perhaps of its Aramaic equivalent, both of which are strong appeals to hear. The expression occurs in Psalm 118:25, where it is usually translated “Save now” or the like. Because we do not find the Greek form ὡσαννά in LXX, some interpreters suggest that it was coined by the Christians (e.g., Edwin D. Freed, Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John [Leiden, 1965], pp. 71–72). Our problem is that here it is clearly an acclamation, whereas the form of the word (and its use in the Old Testament) would lead us to expect it to be a petition (AB has “O Son of David” and comments, “a cry to the anointed king for deliverance”). Of course we might understand it as a prayer addressed to Jesus, asking him to save the people; but this would face the difficulty of the addition in the highest. It could be a prayer asking God to save Jesus (cf. “God save the King”), but the same objection could be raised. It is not unlikely that the term had come to be used conventionally, as an acclamation, and that people who used it had no clear meaning in mind other than that of generally giving honor. Augustine thought it indicated “rather a state of mind than having any positive significance” (Homilies on the Gospel of John 51.2 [NPNF, 1st ser., VII], p. 283). Or, as J. A. Fitzmyer says, it is “a spontaneous cry of greeting or a cry of homage” (G. F. Hawthorne and O. Betz, eds., Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament [Grand Rapids, 1987], p. 115).
14 Turner cites χυρίου here as an example of the omission of the article with what comes near to being a proper noun (M, III, p. 174).
15 ὕψιστος is a superlative that lacks a positive. Matthew uses it only here (Luke has it 7 times). It is a somewhat poetic word and may be used of heaven or of God himself (Mark 5:7).
16 σείω is a strong and vivid word; it may be used of earthquakes (cf. 27:51; Heb. 12:26; we get our word “seismic” from it). Matthew is the only one of the Gospel writers to use the verb.
17 For money changers Matthew has χολλυβιστής (from χόλλυβος, a small coin charged as a fee for exchanging money) while John has χερματιστής (John has Matthew’s word in v. 15) from χερματίζω, “to cut small”; it strictly means someone who changes large money into small. Matthew’s word for overturned is χατέστρεψεν, John’s is ἀνέτρεψεν.
18 Diétrich comments, “The violence of this scene often shocks gentle spirits,” but she also says, “Let us be thankful that the Gospels have preserved this story for us. Gentleness does not exclude firmness, and love sometimes demands the most unyielding severity.”
Bek. Bekorot
19 One article covers both πωλοῦντας and ἀγοράζοντας; Matthew is not making a distinction between them, but regarding them as one company of traders.