From: Busy Person’s Guide to Matthew 1 to 14 Return to Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2018
All reproduction of
text in paper, electronic, or computer
form both permitted and encouraged so long as
authorial
credit is given and the text is not altered.
Busy Person’s Guide to the
New Testament:
Quickly Understanding
Matthew
(Volume 1: Chapters 13-14)
Chapter Thirteen
Parable of the Sower
of Seed (Matthew 13:1-9): 1 On that day after Jesus went
out of the house, he sat by the lake. 2 And such a large crowd
gathered around him that he got into a boat to sit while the whole crowd stood
on the shore. 3 He told them many things in
parables, saying:
“Listen! A sower went out to sow.
4 And as he sowed, some seeds fell along the path, and
the birds came and devoured them. 5 Other seeds fell on rocky
ground where they did not have much soil.
They sprang up quickly because the soil was not deep. 6 But when the sun came up, they were scorched, and
because they did not have sufficient root, they withered. 7 Other seeds fell among the
thorns, and they grew up and choked them.
8 But other seeds fell on good soil and produced grain,
some a hundred times as much, some sixty, and some thirty. 9 The one who has ears had better listen!” --New English Translation (for comparison)
13:1 On the
same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the sea. “On the same day:” Often this time relationship is merely
implied--or at least read as if implied--based upon one incident being
immediately narrated after another, but it is unusual for it to be made
explicit in this manner. Left
tantalizingly out of the picture is whether Jesus had yet spoken at all with
His family (
13:2 And
great multitudes were gathered together to Him, so that He got into a boat and
sat; and the whole multitude stood on the shore. In a mountain setting Jesus could be
seated a bit above His listeners so they could look up and see and hear
Him better (as in Matthew 5:1). On the
13:3 Then He spoke many things to them in parables, saying: “Behold, a sower went out to sow. The fact that He spoke “many things” in that manner warns the reader that on that day (1) the instruction was either exclusively or dominated by teaching in the parable format and (2) that there were a significant number of them--it was not a single passing story used to convey a point.
He begins with an example that any adult of that age had surely seen time and again, a sower who goes out to sow the seed for a new crop. No sowing = no reaping = no food = starvation. It was essential to physical survival. They all knew it and were well acquainted with the reality.
Sidebar
on the nature of parables: “This is the first occurrence of the word in Matthew’s
Gospel, and it is clear from the question of the disciples in verse 10 [‘Why do you speak to them in parables?’] that
it was in some sense a new form of teaching to them. There had been illustrations and similitudes before, as in that of the houses built on the
sand and on the rock in Matthew 7:24-27, and that of the unclean spirit
in Matthew 12:43-45, but now for the first time He speaks to the multitude
in a parable, without an explanation.
“The word, which has passed through its use in the
Gospels into most modern European languages (palabras, parôle, parabel),means literally, a comparison. It had been employed by the Greek
translators of the Old Testament for the Hebrew word mashed, which
we commonly render by ‘proverb,’ and which, like the Greek parabole, has
the sense of similitude. Of many,
perhaps of most, Eastern proverbs it was true that they were condensed
parables, just as many parables are expanded proverbs. (Compare John 16:25, 29.) In the later and New Testament use of the
word, however, the parable takes the fuller form of a narrative embracing facts
natural and probable in themselves, and in this respect differs from the fable
which (as in those of Æsop and Phædrus,
or that of the trees choosing a king in Judges 9:8-15) does not keep
within the limits even of possibility.
“The mode of teaching by parables was familiar enough in
the schools of the Rabbis, and the Talmud contains many of great beauty and
interest. As used by them, however, they
were regarded as belonging to those who were receiving a higher education, and the
son of Sirach was expressing the current feeling of
the schools when he said of the tillers of the soil and the herdsmen of flocks
that they ‘were not found where parables were spoken’ (Ecclesiasticus
38:33). With what purpose our Lord now
used this mode of instruction will appear in His answer to the question of the
disciples. The prominence given in the
first three Gospels to the parable that follows, shows
how deep an impression it made on the minds of men, and so far justified the
choice of this method of teaching by the divine Master.” (Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers)
13:4 And as he sowed, some seed fell by the wayside; and the birds came and devoured them. By the very nature of farmland, the hand-sowed seed would not all land on good ground where it could easily grow. Some, like here, would land on the rough edge of the field or on a walkway through the field and the birds would quickly devour it for their own nourishment.
13:5 Some fell on stony places, where they did not have much earth; and they immediately sprang up because they had no depth of earth. There would be places with an infestation of rocks, hidden by a thin veneer of earth--even large ledges of rock just inches beneath the surface. There the seed would take root but it had nowhere to grow. So it would quickly bud into the light before it had set down the deep roots it needed to survive.
13:6 But when the sun was up they were scorched, and because they had no root they withered away. With mediocre, virtually non-existent roots to provide nourishment from the earth, it had nothing to counter the intense sunlight. Like a man stumbling through a hot desert, the combination of lack of water and vicious sunbeams would cause the grain to wither and perish. The only question was how quickly it would happen.
13:7 And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up and choked them. Heat was not the only danger--thorns, seen and unseen, were always a danger as well. These might even be grown as a kind of “fence” around a field. You wanted to plant every inch of the field you could so some seed was going to be thrown so close to that protective “fence”--protective against external intrusion--that some would “bounce” or “roll” too far and land in its midst.
Alternatively,
the roots of thorns from the previous year might be lying undetected beneath
the surface. (The wording “sprang up”
would more naturally suggest left over roots sprouting up from the previous
growing season, roots missed or not adequately pried out before planting in the
current one.) Either way the grain has
deadly competition for the same space and would perish.
Sidebar: A nineteenth century writer described how
farming conditions in that area continued to reflect the conditions that Jesus
described--“Dean Stanley, approaching the
plain of Gennesareth, says: ‘A slight recess in the hillside, close upon
the plain, disclosed at once, in detail and with a conjunction which I remember
nowhere else in Palestine, every feature of the great parable. There was the undulating cornfield descending
to the water's edge. There was the
trodden pathway running through the midst of it, with no fence or hedge to prevent
the seed from falling here and there on either side of it or upon it; itself
hard with the constant tramp of horse and mule and human feet. There was the ‘good’ rich soil which
distinguishes the whole of that plain and its neighborhood from the bare hills
elsewhere descending into the lake, and which, where there is no interruption,
produces one vast mass of corn. There
was the rocky ground of the hillside protruding here and there through the
cornfields, as elsewhere through the grassy slopes. There were the large bushes
of thorn - the nabk, that kind of which tradition says
that the crown of thorns was woven - springing up, like the fruit-trees of the
more inland parts, in the very midst of the waving wheat’ (Sinai and
Palestine).” (Vincent’s Word
Studies)
13:8 But others fell on good ground and yielded a crop: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. What makes farming practical is that most seed will germinate and avoid the kind of catastrophes Jesus describes. Yet even under the best of conditions the yield varies, from the outsize hundredfold that Isaac once harvested (Genesis 26:12) down through declining numbers. Yet even in each of those cases it is still abundant.
As in every field, every human life has a different potential to produce spiritual good and benefit from the “seed” of God's word. Of both physical seed and spiritual seed planted in our hearts, the fact that the potential is realized is the important part and not how much “greater” the “yield” might be in our case when compared with someone else.
13:9 He who has ears to hear, let him hear!” There is the element of challenge to His listeners in these words: “You think of yourself as perceptive and well meaning in spiritual matters; then hear and understand My point!” Note how “hear” shifts significance from literal hearing capacity to the constructive use of that capacity to produce greater understanding and insight.
The Reason Jesus Spoke in Parables (Matthew
14 “And concerning them the
prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:
‘You will listen carefully yet will never understand, you will
look closely yet will never comprehend. 15 or the heart of this
people has become dull; they are hard of hearing, and they have shut their
eyes, so that they would not see with their eyes
and hear with their earsand
understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’
16 “But your eyes are blessed
because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17 For I tell you the truth,
many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see
it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.” --New English Translation (for comparison)
In chapter 13 Jesus speaks at greater length and provides no explanation at all--either in the story or in the context in which it is spoken. No wonder the apostles want to know why He is teaching in such an indirect manner without providing an explanation of the point He is driving at! Some have suggested quite reasonably that this was such a shock because it differed dramatically from His blunt direct comments on repentance and obeying God in our behavior.
In addition it was easy to be startled by this kind of “covert teaching”--if we may use the expression--because it was the kind you might expect for religious experts and specialists and not for everyday folk like the apostles and others. But Jesus knew that they were fully capable of far greater perception than they realized. They needed to learn to “think things out” and not expect everything to be in overly simplistic form.
This seems a bit odd: Why teach these outsiders anything at all if the intent is not made clear? He could have answered that they needed to be given the opportunity to self-determine which group they most wanted to be in.
Instead Jesus in the following verses chooses to stress prophetic precedent and the warning that some will see and never grasp the truth. In other words, many are so spiritually and ethically blind that no matter how clear you make it, it will always be strange and mysterious to the hearer. (Think of how hard it is to convince many that their behavior is explicitly sinful even though you have the clearest of texts to show it is!)
Hence
teaching on “the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven” is designed to enlightened
genuine disciples about matters outsiders would not--and even could not--accept
or embrace. Mysteries are “the secrets about the establishment and development
of God's realm, which cannot be discovered by human reason, but which are made
known to the initiated. Under the term
‘mystery,’ Paul refers to such revealed secrets as the preaching of the gospel
to the Gentiles (Ephesians 3:3-4, 9; Colossians
Today we
sometimes describe the phenomena as “not being on the same wave length.” Jesus won’t deny them the opportunity to
learn more, but He sees they won’t benefit by it and much prefers to stress
teaching subjects and styles that will benefit those more attuned to
their own spiritual weaknesses and needs.
Nor is He the first to recognize this: He bluntly refers to how it is not without scriptural precedent. He points His disciples to an ancient prophecy of Isaiah (6:9-10) which dealt with similarly unperceptive souls and why they were such. They would “hear” but the “understand[ing]” that should come with it would be lacking; they would “see” but they would not “perceive” the import or importance of what was being seen. It wasn’t a failure of the message but of the listener.
The reason was that they did not want to run the risk of having to change their thinking. They might well “understand with their hearts” and change for the better if they permitted themselves to give the evidence an honest hearing. This way they avoided the discomfort of changing lifestyle or convictions. But the price they paid was high for the desired Divine healing would pass them by.
Perhaps a good commentary on this would be John 3:19: “And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.”
13:17 for assuredly, I say to you that many
prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not
see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it. The disciples’ open-mindedness is
even more praiseworthy for there were many who died without seeing what they
had seen and without hearing the message they had heard. They had wanted to see it and in their
minds they could (John
Notice here the clearly implied picture of Jesus as the culmination of prophetic hopes. And, of course, it was the Messiah that the prophets had spoken of. He doesn’t need to use the term itself for the manner of description makes that the obvious subject to the hearers on that day.
Explanation of the Parable of the Sower (Matthew 13:18-23):
18 “So listen to the parable of the sower: 19 When anyone hears the word
about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches
what was sown in his heart; this is the seed sown along the path.
20 “The seed sown on rocky
ground is the person who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy. 21 But he has no root in
himself and does not endure; when trouble or persecution comes because of the
word, immediately he falls away.
22 “The seed sown among
thorns is the person who hears the word, but worldly cares and the
seductiveness of wealth choke the word, so it produces nothing.
23 “But as for the seed sown
on good soil, this is the person who hears the word and understands. He bears
fruit, yielding a hundred, sixty, or thirty times what was sown.” --New English Translation (for comparison)
13:19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside. The seed is not physical seed, of course. Physical seed is necessary to raise the crops to eat and survive. But He is concerned with the spiritual seed that can provide moral and religious insight and development. Physical and spiritual are supposed to go hand-in-hand, neither to the exclusion of the other.
Hence the “seed” represents the message of the kingdom that Jesus has preached and the central purpose of this parable is to stress that the failure to accept it does not indicate any weakness in the message or the speaker (Jesus) but within those who hear the teaching. To begin with, there are some who won’t give the seed message a moment’s careful consideration. In such cases the person is so under the influence of “the wicked one” that he is able to grab it away before it can have any impact at all. (Although Satan is surely in mind as the thief, any earthly foe of Christ that successfully steers a potential convert away from the gospel would fit quite snuggly into the label of “wicked” as well.)
Sidebar: Vincent’s Word Studies makes the quite
valid point that the teaching and the snatching go on simultaneously: “The rendering
would be made even more graphic by preserving the continuous force of the
present tense, as exhibiting action in progress, and the simultaneousness of
Satan's work with that of the gospel instructor: ‘While any one is hearing, the evil one is
coming and snatching away, just as the birds do not wait for the sower to be out of the way, but are at work while he is
sowing.’ ”
Sidebar: Consider the warning of Jesus about the
dangers and horrors that would occur in the years leading up to the destruction
of the
Parable of the Wheat and the Tares: How the Righteous and the Rebel Against God
Live Together in the Same World but Have a Different Destiny (Matthew
13:24-30): 24 He presented them with
another parable: “The kingdom of heaven
is like a person who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was
sleeping, an enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. 26 When the plants sprouted
and bore grain, then the weeds also appeared.
27 “So the slaves of the
owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Then where did the weeds come from?’ 28 He said, ‘An enemy has
done this.’ So the slaves replied, ‘Do
you want us to go and gather them?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, since in
gathering the weeds you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together
until the harvest. At harvest time I
will tell the reapers, “First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be
burned, but then gather the wheat into my barn.” ’ ” --New English Translation (for comparison)
But the
parable was subject to an easy misunderstanding: if the failures fall away (as in the sower parable) then all those who remain in the “visible”
kingdom (= church) must be spiritual successes.
The parable of the treacherous neighbor (
He begins this point by speaking of the hard work of the sower who has carefully spread quality product--“good seed”--in the field. Whatever failures that arise, therefore, can't come from some inadequacy of the “seed” itself, it must come from other sources instead.
Sidebar: What are “tares?”--“The tares, known to botanists as the Lolium temulentum, or
darnel, grew up at first with stalk and blade like the wheat; and it was not
till fructification began [= the time that stalks budded into corn] that the
difference was easily detected. It adds
to the point of the parable to remember that the seeds of the tares were not
merely useless as food, but were positively noxious.” (Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers)
Consumption can “produce violent nausea, convulsions, and
diarrhea” and, not uncommonly, outright death.
(Pulpit Commentary) In
other words we are talking far beyond mere hostility but outright malice
to carry out such an extreme act. Its
“virtue” to an enemy was that, done discretely, the chance of detection was
modest and the damage inflicted vastly greater than the effort to carry it out.
The spiritual point is often explained as: You will never have a perfect church in the here and now and one must wait until the judgment day for the hindrances to be purged out when they are fully developed. Though some problems and imperfections can be taken care of now, there are others that must be left for the judgment day for One wiser than the rest of us to resolve.
Certainly
indirect and partial applications to the church of today can
reasonably be made: if one can identify
the “tare” in the church through his or her evil behaving characteristics, we
need to avoid imitating their ill behavior while trying to educate them better
(2 Thessalonians 3:6-15). In extreme cases even purging from membership if repentance does
not occur (such as in Matthew
In either
case this is far more restrained behavior than when the predicted events
of
Now as to applications to the world we should also consider this: Evil can never be fully removed from the it lest in our efforts to do so we harm the people of God in our excess zeal. Both the “tares” (those rejecting the truth) and the “good crop” (those accepting the truth) are intended to inhabit the same world until the time of ultimate judgment occurs. And the separation of the two are by hands uncontaminated by any human preference or bias. (A very useful lesson when one is tempted to blend Christianity into one pillar of any political movement.)
Though God’s Kingdom Begins Tiny, It Grows to
Huge Size: The Parables of the Mustard
Seed (Matthew
33 He told them another
parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed with
three measures of flour until all the dough had risen.” --New English Translation (for comparison)
Sidebar: Jesus does not say all mustard seeds
produce something this large, but that it happened commonly enough that
everyone recognized the potential. An encouragement for the apostles for those occasions when the
growth of the church was slow rather than great.
Sidebar: A goodly number of people interpret this to
mean that a small amount of evil ultimately corrupts the entire church. Although leaven is normally used in a
negative sense, there is nothing in the current context to indicate that
such is in mind. He has just attempted
to build up their hopes for the future of their work (verses 32-33), is
He really going to immediately throw in “but what you do is actually
going to rot anyway”? It doesn’t seem
very probable, does it?
Prophetic Precedent for Using Earthly
Realities to Present Spiritual Truths in Disguise (Matthew
Jesus does not
say that the Psalms predicted that He would teach in parables but that He intended
to meet the precedent of what the Psalmist himself had done . . . do
the same thing as the Palmist . . . speak of things the world ignored or had
forgotten. In other words, He had divine
precedent on His side.
Explaining the Parable of the Tares: Moral Evil Will Ultimately Be Purged Out of
the World in the Triumph of God’s Kingdom (Matthew 13:36-43): 36 Then he left the crowds
and went into the house. And his disciples came to him saying, “Explain to us
the parable of the weeds in the field.” 37 He answered, “The one who
sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world and
the good seed are the people of the kingdom.
The weeds are the people of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sows
them is the devil. The harvest is the
end of the age, and the reapers are angels.
40 “As the weeds are
collected and burned with fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send
his angels, and they will gather from his kingdom everything that causes sin as
well as all lawbreakers. 42 They will throw them
into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of
teeth. 43 Then the
righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. The
one who has ears had better listen!” --New English
Translation (for comparison)
The tares share that world with us but we are of two fundamentally different natures. The ones responsible for our existence are different and those who each group owes ultimate loyalty to is different.
Sidebar: Heresy within the church is not the subject
of the parable. We can not overstress
the fact that “the field is the world”--not the church. The scriptures provide clear-cut admonitions
against false teaching and practice within the believing community, however,
but this is not one of them. Go
to the relevant passages, not this one. (For the other side of the case as to the
identity of the field, see verse 41.)
Whatever loyalties the “tares” think they may have, when all the illusions are stripped aside their “kinship” is unfortunately with evil and not with good. Since this harvest scene is transposed from the current earth into the time of ultimate Divine evaluation of good and evil, it is not surprising that the reapers turn out to be angels sent out at “the end of the age.”
Sidebar on the role of angels at the conclusion of the current world: “What will be the actual work of the ministry of angels in the final judgment it is not easy to define, but their presence is implied in all our Lord’s greater prophetic utterances about it (Matthew 25:31). That ministry had been brought prominently before men in the apocalyptic visions of the Book of Daniel, in which for the first time the name of the Son of Man is identified with the future Christ (Daniel 7:13 [cf. the two terms used interchangeably in Luke 9:20-22], and the Messianic kingdom itself brought into new distinctness in connection with a final judgment. Our Lord’s teaching does but expand the hints of the ‘thousand times ten thousand’ that ministered before the Ancient of Days when the books were opened (Daniel 7:9-10), and of Michael the prince as connected with the resurrection of ‘many that sleep in the dust of the earth’ (Daniel 12:1-2).” (Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers)
On the other hand if we see this as a description of sinners in general rather than just failed Christians in particular, then the allusion is to the fact that this entire world is rightly part of God's kingdom. He created the earth and the human species; He “owns” it by virtue of creation and the abuser of it ultimately answers to Him.
In favor of this broader reading is that it fits better with the Jesus' self-interpretation that “the field is the world” (verse 38). Against this approach, however, is the fact that the assumption of the parable is that the bulk of “the field” is of good grain and only a minority bad tares. This hardly fits with the proportion that exists in today's world--or the first century--does it?
Perhaps the most satisfactory solution is that Jesus is asserting here that just as the world is doing wrong, so are certain Christians. Since they have become tare-like, they also will suffer the same destiny as the tares. They will not escape simply because they claim to be part of the “good grain.”
Through the centuries people have had passionate debates about how “literal” such words are intended and for how “long” such punishment actually lasts. Such matters are worthy of study, but no matter what interpretation one wishes to put on the language it implies--at an absolute minimum--discomfort, pain, and anguish. Define its cause and duration however one wishes.
Albert Barnes rightly stresses that Jesus never makes empty or non-existent promises and threats. They will all come true in a fashion that will make full sense when compared with the words He has spoken: “We have no idea of more acute suffering than to be thrown into the fire, and to have our bodies made capable of bearing the burning heat, and living on in this burning heat forever and forever. It is not certain that our Savior meant to teach here that hell is made up of ‘material’ fire; but it is certain that He meant to teach that this would be a proper ‘representation’ of the sufferings of the lost. We may be further assured that the Redeemer would not deceive us, or use words to torment and tantalize us. He would not talk of hell-fire which had no existence, nor would the Savior of people hold out frightful images merely to terrify mankind. If He has spoken of hell, then there is a hell. If He meant to say that the wicked shall suffer, then they will suffer.”
Next we once again have Jesus’ admonition to listen and to heed--if you have ears to hear, hear!--again playing on the multiple meanings that the word “hear” can have (i.e., not only hear the mere words, but also to embrace, adopt, and make them part of your spiritual essence and lifestyle). So the words about condemnation aren’t spoken merely to warn the outsider who might happen to hear these words repeated by the apostles that change for the better is essential. They are, rather, targeting those who claim to be “faithful” lest--when all is said and done--their destiny is to be among those to be punished as well. Freedom of choice exists until we die.
Sidebar: “In verse 38
they were spoken of as ‘the sons of the kingdom;’ here their Father is expressly mentioned, not
‘the Son of man’ (verses 37, 41). The
same reference to His Father rather than to Himself is found in Matthew
26:29. Did our Lord wish already to hint
that ‘then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even
the Father’ (1 Corinthians
The Huge Value of God’s Kingdom: The Parable of the Hidden Treasure (Matthew
45 “Again, the kingdom of
heaven is like a merchant searching for fine pearls. 46 When he found a pearl of
great value, he went out and sold everything he had and bought it.” --New English Translation (for comparison)
13:44 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid; and for joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. Now come the mini-parable of the kingdom being as valuable as a newly discovered treasure. In this world, the finder immediately rushes out and sells all his current possessions so that he can obtain this even more valuable object. In other words, the kingdom is so precious that it is worth sacrificing everything we have. Furthermore in that age of first generation believers, it was “hidden:” most people stumbled across it by accident--or with the help of acquaintances--rather than because they were of families raised within it.
Sidebar: Treasures might be hidden in such an extreme manner due to the desire to always have a portion where no one could possibly find it. Literally a “hidden reserve” that would not be tapped except in times of crisis. In other cases it would be a crisis like turmoil or war that would cause it to be secreted where no one could recover it except by accident. But if unexpected death or flight occurred, one would have abandoned valuables and left them to the good fortune of some later finder.
Sidebar: The only mention of pearls in the Old Testament may be found in Job 28:18--but the meaning of the word found there is uncertain. By the first century they had the status that is now ascribed to diamonds. If a woman wished to be on an ego trip she would be sure to wear “gold or pearls or costly clothing”--or all three (1 Timothy 2:9).
God’s Kingdom in This World Draws Into It Both
the Worthy and the Unworthy (Matthew
Sidebar
on the type of net that is used: “The reference is to the large drag-net or seine (Greek σαγήνη—the word in
the text . . . ).
One end of the seine is held on
the shore, the other is hauled off by a boat and then
returned to the land. In this way a
large number of fishes of all kinds is enclosed. Seine-fishing is still practiced on the coasts
of
Although it is easy to apply this to non-Christians we should never forget that Jesus is actually targeting believers like you and me: “The kingdom of heaven is like a dragnet that was cast into the sea and gathered some of every kind” (verse 47). We may have the veneer of faith . . . we may even go to church regularly . . . but unless we have the inner substance of developed and practicing faith it is all ultimately futile.
The Importance of Understanding Jesus’
Parables (Matthew
The
immediate message to the disciples, though, was that there were going to be
elements of continuity and discontinuity with their religion as they had
previously understood it. Some elements
(such as the full acceptance of Gentiles as equals) would not come for
years--and that by Divine revelation--but the key precedents in manner of
thinking and behavior had already begun to be set by Jesus’ action and teaching
during His personal ministry. And that
had been based upon the proper interpretation of the moral principles of the
Old Testament stripped of the interpretive scribal and Pharisaic glosses that
allowed people guilt free violation of its ethical demands.
Jesus Rejected at Nazareth Because They Think
It Is Impossible for Such a Spiritually Astute Person to Have Come Out of Such
Humble Family Roots (Matthew 13:53-58): 53 Now when Jesus finished
these parables, he moved on from there. 54 Then he came to his
hometown and began to teach the people in their synagogue. They were astonished and said, “Where did
this man get such wisdom and miraculous powers?
55 Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother named Mary? A nd aren’t his brothers James,
Joseph, Simon, and Judas? 56 And aren’t all his sisters
here with us? Where did he get all this?”
57 And so they took offense
at him. But Jesus said to them, “A
prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own house.” 58 And he did not do many
miracles there because of their unbelief.
--New English Translation (for comparison)
Yet the
listeners were still faced with two phenomena that they should have
tried to resolve: How could Jesus
possibly have such spiritual insight (“wisdom”) and how could He possibly be
performing such “mighty works” of healing?
Rather than honestly face their problem, they remove their difficulty
with what amounts to, “It can’t happen” even when it was happening in front of
them! Hence they don’t have to
find a solution!
For that matter, did they not know His family? They weren't anything special where one expected wondrous accomplishments from this brother of their’s. Note the implicit reasoning blindness: “They aren’t anything special--so Jesus can’t be either.”
Sidebar on Jesus’ trade: “Although the word, ο τεκτων, rendered carpenter, may mean one that works either in wood, iron, or stone, yet it is probable that carpenter, properly so called, is here intended. Accordingly Justin Martyr tells us that Jesus, before he entered on his public ministry, was employed in this occupation: and the ancient Christians were all of the same opinion. The Jewish canons required that all parents should teach their children some trade; and, probably, the poverty of the family engaged Christ, while he was at home with Joseph, to work at his.” (Benson Commentary)
To admit
that some one had succeeded so brilliantly beyond their own limitations was
psychologically unacceptable. Since it
“shouldn't” have happened, it “hadn't” and “couldn’t” happen--and their minds
are closed in automatic disbelief and rejection, refusing to even consider the
possibility that the problem might be in them rather than the Teacher.
Sidebar: If Luke 4:16-30’s description of a visit to
Nazareth is, contrary to our analysis, the same as this one, then one
can only say that Matthew was extremely restrained concerning a city where he
could have painted the locals in far darker and more dangerous colors. Luke was from a different
country--literally--and perhaps felt for that reason more willing to detail
just how much greater a hostility had been present.
Chapter Fourteen
John the Baptist’s Moral Teaching Results in
His Being Beheaded (Matthew 14:1-12): 1 At that time Herod the
tetrarch heard reports about Jesus, 2 and he said to his servants, “This is John the
Baptist. He has been raised from the
dead! And because of this, miraculous powers are at work in him.” 3 For Herod had arrested John, bound him, and put him
in prison on account of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, 4 because John had repeatedly
told him, “It is not lawful for you to have her.” 5 Although Herod wanted to kill John, he feared the
crowd because they accepted John as a prophet.
6 But on Herod’s birthday, the daughter of Herodias danced before them and pleased Herod, 7 so much that he promised
with an oath to give her whatever she asked.
8 Instructed by her mother, she said, “Give me the head
of John the Baptist here on a platter.” 9 Although it grieved the
king, because of his oath and the dinner guests he commanded it to be given.
10 So he sent and had John
beheaded in the prison. 11 His head was brought on a
platter and given to the girl, and she brought it to her mother. 12 Then John’s disciples came
and took the body and buried it and went and told Jesus. --New English Translation (for comparison)
14:1 At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the report about Jesus. Although Herod may have had the courtesy title of “king” applied to him, he was technically only a “tetrarch” in official standing. This did not affect his authority within his boundaries, however. Being a ruler who wished to remain such, he was naturally careful to keep track of events. Hence it was no surprise that the reports about Jesus’ teaching, healings, and clashes with the Pharisees would come to his attention. Not only because a capable ruler wanted to know what was happening within his borders, but also because he had killed John the Baptist, the other popular and charismatic champion of moral reform of the time.
Sidebar: The setting of this Herod in his historical
context: “The
son of Herod the Great by Malthace. Under his
father’s will he succeeded to the government of
“The marriage, at once adulterous and by the Mosaic law doubly incestuous, shocked the conscience of all the
stricter Jews. It involved Antipas in a
war with the father of the wife whom he had divorced and dismissed, and it was
probably in connection with this war that we read of soldiers on actual duty as
coming under the teaching of the Baptist in Luke 3:14.” (Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers)
14:2 and said to his servants, “This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead, and therefore these powers are at work in him.” The underlying reaction to the equating of the two, however, was surely not one of joy (as with disciples) nor of anger (as with many Pharisees). Instead it must have been one of horror and apprehension motivated by his own personal guilt: Having put John the Baptist to death without just cause, he would be less than human if he did not fear that the great power manifested in Jesus’ acts was made possible by his really being the Baptist resurrected from the dead (verse 3).
This was certainly a better explanation than that of the Pharisees: if Jesus’ powers had been demonically based one would have expected them to be exercised in a solely destructive and hurtful manner. At least Herod recognized that Jesus was using them for good and therefore God must somehow be behind them.
14:3 For Herod had laid hold of John and
bound him, and put him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s
wife. The causes
of Herod’s justified guilt is now explained. Herod had not merely opposed John. He had actually chained him and thrown him in
jail because of John’s criticism of his marriage to Herodias. This was not an abstract question of
"what is truth" but of knowing defiance of truth.
14:4 Because
John had said to him, “It is not lawful for you to have her.” Herod was a divorced man and John’s
objection was not based upon a claim that he had no right to remarry. It was, instead, based upon a very specific
prohibition of the Torah of Moses: you
could not marry your brother’s wife as he had done (cf. verse 3). We often speak of how the Torah permitted
remarriage for any reason--actually Deuteronomy 24:1-4 limits it to the
specific cause of moral uncleanness, but the text typically was and is
read in the broader manner. Yet even in
the most permissive reading of the passage, there still remained a few
situations in which remarriage to a specific type of person was
prohibited. This near a kin was a good
example (Leviticus
14:5 And although he wanted to put him to death, he feared the multitude, because they counted him as a prophet. At times he wanted to remove the problem by removing the “problem causer”--which he deluded himself into believing was the one who rebuked the sin rather than the one doing it. He avoided doing this both because John was generally considered a “prophet” and that the execution risked provoking a revolt.
There are two options available to us since other New Testament accounts speak of Herod having a more mellow attitude toward John: (1) the imprisonment began with a wish for the man’s death and then moderated into a less passionate reaction or (2) the personal conversations they had (Mark 6:17-20) bred an even more severe hostility since John refused to budge on the matter. Herod was now in a no win situation: (1) because of popular opinion it was not practical to execute him without major risk. (2) He would naturally fear a fatal split with his wife by releasing him.
14:6 But when Herod’s birthday was celebrated, the daughter of Herodias danced before them and pleased Herod. Jewish customs did not include the observance of birthdays. Herod, as a Romanified ruler, embraced the practice, however. His step daughter, the daughter of Herodias (i.e. Salome), was permitted to dance before the varied guests of the king. Perhaps Herod was already well drunk in order to be convinced to allow his own kin (if only by marriage) to perform in such a manner. It certainly blatantly violated the social norms one would have expected for the time.
Sidebar
on the future of the dancer: “She was afterwards married to her uncle Herod-Philip,
the tetrarch, and on his death to Aristobulus,
grandson of Herod the Great.” (
14:7 Therefore he promised with an oath to give her whatever she might ask. It was such a sexually arousing and pleasing performance that Herod promised, with a formal oath, to give her whatever reward she sought. In fairness to him, he surely thought in term of some expensive jewelry or rare beauty ointment or something else that would cater to her vanity. That there could ever be anything more “serious” than items like this would not have entered his mind.
14:8 So she, having been prompted by her mother, said, “Give me John the Baptist’s head here on a platter.” Having discussed the matter with her mother she provided the last request Herod would have imagined: the head of the Baptist. He might well have hesitated at the death of anyone, but this one was as intensely “personal” as one could get: The people knew full well that the imprisonment was a matter of his personal (and not regal) grievances and he feared the popular backlash from a popular revolt (verse 5).
Sidebar: The possibility that he might offer “whatever
she might ask” (verse 7) rather than something more modest clearly had not
occurred to her: She had to go get her
mother’s opinion before answering (Mark
14:9 And the king was sorry; nevertheless, because of the oaths and because of those who sat with him, he commanded it to be given to her. The king naturally regretted the situation he had placed himself in. Because he had made the promise with oaths he felt obligated to fulfill it, but the text immediately adds cynically and realistically “and because of those who sat with him.”
In other words, if he backed down he would lose face in front of his subordinates. It was better that an innocent man die than that the ruler be embarrassed. Not to mention have an outraged spouse. He was willing to feel guilty--“the king was sorry”--rather than back down from an absurdly broad (and probably drunken) promise he had made.
If the
prison was in the same complex as the celebratory chambers, they would immediately
know of the betrayal of the pledge. If
elsewhere, word would still come to their ears by word of mouth. In a king’s mansion “the walls listen--and
talk to others.” Things like this could
not be kept a secret.
Sidebar
on what history and later church writers speak of coming down on Herod and his
wife: “St.
Jerome tells us that Herodias treated the head in a
very disdainful manner, pulling out the tongue, which she imagined had injured
her, and piercing it with a needle. Thus
they gratified themselves in the indulgence of their lusts, and triumphed in
the murder of this holy prophet, till the righteous judgment of God overtook
them all. For, as Dr. Whitby, with many others, observes,
Sidebar: “It was
customary for princes to require the heads of persons ordered for execution to
be brought to them. For this there were
two reasons: (1) To gratify their resentment - to feast
their eyes on the proof that their enemy was dead; and, (2) To ascertain the
fact that the sentence had been executed.
There is a similar instance in Roman history of a woman requiring the
head of an enemy to be brought to her. Agrippina, the mother of Nero, who was afterward emperor,
sent an officer to put to death Lollia Paulina, who had been her rival for the imperial
dignity. When Lollia's
head was brought to her, not knowing it at first, she examined it with her own
hands until she perceived some particular feature by which the lady was
distinguished.” (Barnes Notes)
We read
of two times that Jesus wept: over the
coming destruction of
Jesus Miraculously Feeds Over Five Thousand
Who Sought Him While He Was in the Countryside (Matthew 14:13-21): 13 Now when Jesus heard this
he went away from there privately in a boat to an isolated place. But when the crowd heard about it, they
followed him on foot from the towns. 14 As he got out he saw the
large crowd, and he had compassion on them and healed their sick. 1
5 When evening arrived, his
disciples came to him saying, “This is an isolated place and the hour is
already late. Send the crowds away so
that they can go into the villages and buy food for themselves.” 16 But he replied, “They
don’t need to go. You give them
something to eat.” 17 They said to him, “We have
here only five loaves and two fish.” 18 “Bring them here to me,”
he replied.
19 Then he instructed the
crowds to sit down on the grass. He took
the five loaves and two fish, and looking up to heaven he gave thanks and broke
the loaves. He gave them to the
disciples, who in turn gave them to the crowds.
20 They all ate and were satisfied, and they picked up
the broken pieces left over, twelve baskets full. 21 Not counting women and
children, there were about five thousand men who ate. --New English Translation (for comparison)
Sidebar
on the time of day “when it was evening:”
“In the Jewish division of the day
there were two evenings. According to
the most probable view the space of time called ‘between the evenings’ (Exodus
12:6 [in the Hebrew]) was from the ninth to the eleventh hour. Hence the first evening ended at
The bread was of barley and both it and the fish were in the hands of a young boy accompanying either the apostles or the crowd (John 6:9). “Barley was a cheap kind of food, scarcely one-third the value of wheat, and was much used by poor people. A considerable part of the food of the people in that region was probably fish, as they lived on the borders of a lake that abounded in fish.” (Barnes Notes)
Ancient
Jewish blessings of this time appear to be short and to the point like
ours: “May
God, the ever-blessed One, bless what He has given us.” And: “Blessed
be thou, O Lord our God, the King of the world, who
hast produced this food and this drink from the earth and the vine.”
This miracle has often been explained away as the crowd becoming willing to share their food when placed in a situation where they were to be feed communally. This interpretation assumes that the apostles were incredibly ill informed as to how much food was actually available. That a few might be selfishly hoarding their resources was certainly possible. But for this explanation to be true, virtually everyone would have had to be doing so. How could so many have successfully kept their resources hidden from observation? It's not going to happen. (And that is laying aside the inspiration that guided the gospel writers. Even without that, this is mere common sense.)
After Staying Behind to Pray, Jesus Walks
Across the Sea to Rejoin His Apostles (Matthew 14:22-33): 22 Immediately Jesus made the
disciples get into the boat and go ahead of him to the other side, while he
dispersed the crowds. 23 And after he sent the
crowds away, he went up the mountain by himself to pray. When evening came, he
was there alone. 24 Meanwhile the boat,
already far from land, was taking a beating from the waves because the wind was
against it.
25 As the night was ending,
Jesus came to them walking on the sea. 26 When the disciples saw him
walking on the water they were terrified and said, “It’s a ghost!” and cried
out with fear. 27 But immediately Jesus
spoke to them: “Have courage! It is I.
Do not be afraid.”
28 Peter said to him, “Lord,
if it is you, order me to come to you on the water.” 29 So he said, “Come.” Peter got out of the boat, walked on the
water, and came toward Jesus. 30 But when he saw the strong
wind he became afraid. And starting to sink, he cried out, “Lord, save me!”
31 Immediately Jesus reached
out his hand and caught him, saying to him, “You of little faith, why did you
doubt?” 32 When they went up into the
boat, the wind ceased. 33 Then those who were in the
boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” --New English Translation (for comparison)
Jesus had no intention of allowing that to happen, thereby protecting both His own agenda of peaceful moral reform and gutting their agenda of using Him as an excuse for political/military revolt. With them asleep, He discretely and quietly departed by a method they could hardly have anticipated.
Furthermore
since He “no longer had the means to cross the Sea” (i.e., have a boat
available), He had to be somewhere near where they were. This would cause a delay as they fruitlessly
sought Him out and their passions cooled down.
Meanwhile things were not going well with the apostles and their boat was being beset by heavy waves and a wind blowing them away from the shore they were trying to reach. This would have required them to use all the muscle they could put into the rowing to make any advance at all. Since this clearly took a number of hours they must have been near exhaustion from the effort by the time of what happened next.
Sidebar: We don’t know exactly how they were defining “ghost,” but they clearly regarded it as something terrifying rather than uplifting or encouraging. Does not that kind of reaction argue that they feared that Jesus was now dead and that this was only an after death apparition? Making their current distress that much more horrifying! Whatever negative connotations the term had, Jesus promptly tried to set them right. . . .
If minimal (or no) past acquaintance with Jesus might argue for a modest and restricted interpretation of the expressions when used in some other contexts, the current one argues strongly for a maximization of the meaning of both. There is simply no dodging room whether one likes the conclusion or not.
On the Gennesaret Side
of the Sea, Many Are Brought To Be Healed (Matthew
The
emphasis on “the
Sidebar: The size of the “land of Gennesaret”--“By this is meant the plain of Gennesaret,
two miles and a half in length and about one mile in breadth. Modern travelers [in the late 19th century]
speak of ‘its charming bays and its fertile soil rich with the scourings of the basaltic hills.’ Josephus describes the district in glowing
terms (B.J. iii. 10. 8).” (
Sidebar: This desire to touch “the hem of His garment” probably implies that word of the healing in Matthew 9:20-22 had become widely known.