From: Busy Person’s Guide to Matthew 15 to 28 Return to Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2019
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 2: Chapters 18 to 20)
Chapter Eighteen
The Apostles Ask Jesus to Settle Their
Argument As To Which Is the Greatest of the Disciples
(Matthew 18:1-5): 1 At that time the disciples
came to Jesus saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 He called a child, had him
stand among them, 3 and said, “I tell you the truth, unless you turn
around and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of
heaven! 4 Whoever then humbles
himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever welcomes a child like this in my name
welcomes me.” --New English Translation (for comparison)
18:1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Pride is natural, but it is an instinct that can cause much needless confrontation and conflict. Since there were only twelve apostles chosen, that implied a role of importance and leadership over the disciple movement in general. But within this inner group, which one of them should be considered the greatest or most important?
18:2 Then Jesus called a little child to
Him, set him in the midst of them. Rather than directly and immediately answer
the question, Jesus decides to provide a “visual illustration” to go with His
answer. This way the answer becomes even
more emphatic. As one commentator
suggests, “As the conversation was ‘in the
house’ (Mark
18:3 and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. An adult can never literally become a little child, but one can become “as” one (which is all this verse insists upon) by adopting the virtues and strengths characteristic of the young: vigor, enthusiasm, willingness to accept what they had not previously known. Jesus warns that the absence of desirable child like virtues will keep even the apostles out of the eternal kingdom of heaven--note carefully the “you” in Jesus’ words.
The apostles were already faithful Jews--the standard of religious excellence of the time--so they didn’t need to be told to be “converted” in the sense of undergoing a radical transformation of moral and religious behavior. They did need to do what the term literally meant, “to turn,” i.e., to turn and look back on the virtues of small children and learn from them the proper attitudes that even as adults they needed to re-embrace and make central to their lives. Both now and in the long term as well. Jesus has two particular virtues pre-eminently in His mind (the second is in verse 5). . . .
18:4 Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. The child typically doesn’t feel the need to always be the leader. There is always room for others. (Apostles, take note!) Furthermore, the child feels the need to exclude few if any from the fellowship of their friendship and games. Prejudice will only be learned later. Such are examples of humility that an adult can easily forget when we start concentrating on “appearances” and visible “status” in life. Things which, later, the apostles had to learn in regard to the Gentiles.
18:5 Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me. A second child like virtue is accepting other children. For children to do so is a natural, but adults have the inclination to look upon others as painful nuisances. Something that holds them back from recognizing their own true potential. Or takes too much of their time. Or asks embarrassing questions that they do not want to take time to answer in a constructive manner. Instead of such negativism, those who count themselves worthy of the kingdom will treat others in a constructive and respectful manner.
Although the principle applies to accepting fellow believers in general, the specific application is to youthful/new ones since they best fit the label of an adult “little child” in the kingdom. For them to spiritually grow as they should, we need to set the right examples for them and to be able to provide useful answers to their questions.
Temptations to Sin Will Arise from Both
Outside and Inside of Ourselves (Matthew 18:6-9): 6 “But if anyone causes one of these little ones who
believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung
around his neck and to be drowned in the open sea. 7 Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! It is necessary that stumbling blocks come,
but woe to the person through whom they come.
8 If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it
off and throw it away. It is better for
you to enter life crippled or lame than to have two hands or two feet and be
thrown into eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you
to sin, tear it out and throw it away.
It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than to have two
eyes and be thrown into fiery hell.” --New English
Translation (for comparison)
18:6 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. These youth in the kingdom may be literally young in age, are recent converts, or simply do not yet know a whole lot on spiritual matters. All are characterized by the modest knowledge levels and inexperience expected in the young. It is easy for the “adult” who is knowledgeable and well versed to “roll” over them to get their way. Or to act in such a manner that the less mature stumble into sin (hatred, anger, even apostasy) because of our impatience and mistreatment. If we are responsible for such, the consequence of being dragged by a millstone to a drowning death would be minor punishment in comparison with God’s retribution.
Sidebar
on the use of this punishment: “The word for ‘millstone’ indicates the larger
stone-mill, in working which an ass was commonly employed, as distinguished
from the smaller hand mill of Luke 17:35.
The punishment was not recognized in the Jewish law, but it was in
occasional use among the Greeks (Diod. Sic. xvi. 35), and had been inflicted by Augustus (Suetonius Aug. lxvii.)
in cases of special infamy. Jerome
states (in a note on this passage) that it was practiced in
18:7 Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes! Actions that cause stumbling into sin are inevitably faced in this life. Far too many people are neither concerned with the welfare of others nor with how they conduct themselves--even an unholy number of “Christians” who have allowed their sense of right and wrong to be severely diluted. That does not make them right, however. And “woe” to that person that person who causes a believer to fall into sin since God’s wrath will come back to haunt them for their callousness and blindness.
18:8 “If your hand or foot causes you to
sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame
or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the
everlasting fire. If it would really
cure the problem (and it won’t) it would be better to cut off a hand or foot
rather than to face the punishment of “everlasting fire” due to our
mistreatment of others (verse 6)--or any other sin for that matter. Jesus had earlier used this kind of
illustration of “self-prevention” of sin in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew
The
principle here is equally logically applied to any area of special skill
and ability that we possess. If we,
through our superb scholarship, needlessly wreck another’s faith, should we be
praised or condemned for the abuse of our talents? If we are superb leaders and use our power to
crush like an ant those “little people” who want a scriptural explanation for
our course, should we take pride of having maintained “face” or recoil in
horror at the damage we have done? We
need repudiate neither our intelligence nor our leadership, but we need to “cut
off and cast from you” their abuse.
18:9 And if
your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you.
It is better for you to enter into life
with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire. In a similar manner to the hands and feet
of the previous verse, if it would really solve the problem (and, again, it
won’t) it would be more constructive to pull out the eye than to retain all our
bodily functions and face the Divine wrath of “hell fire.” “Fire” inevitably implies pain: “hell” is the place and “everlasting” (verse
8) the duration. (John the Baptist had
called it “unquenchable fire,” which conveys the same concept). In other words, indulgence in evil results in
severe consequences that don't end with this life--indeed, does not even begin
in its fullness until this life ends.
Those Who Are Spiritually Lost to God, He
Still Works to Recover (Matthew
The point is not so much whether there are “guardian angels” assigned to every single human being, but the broader fact that they are fully aware of what is happening to all individuals on earth. In other words, that heaven is always attentive and alert as to what is happening here--not just the broad course of events but as to specific individuals as well. No one is too “insignificant” not to be noticed. When we think we have “gotten away” with something, we should seriously ponder this reality.
Sidebar: Essentially the same parable is devoted to a different purpose in Luke 15:4-7. Here the emphasis is on the obligation to search out the lost and the joy that results from the success; in Luke 15:7 the joy over the sinner having repented is explicitly added to the reasons for the joy rather than just strongly implied (verse 14). Here Jesus is addressing the disciples; there He is teaching the Pharisees and their scribal allies. This illustrates the fact that Jesus--like any successful preacher of today--is quite willing to “recycle” and adapt His illustrations to the current audience and what immediately needs to be stressed.
It also warns us that sometimes very similar teaching may reflect a totally different occasion rather than the same one. An obvious place where such should be most carefully considered is found in the similarities and differences between the “Sermon on the Mount” and the “Sermon on the Plain.” Need they really be drastically different variants of the same sermon?
18:13 And if he should find it, assuredly, I say to you, he rejoices more over that sheep than over the ninety-nine that did not go astray. The shepherd has gone through a lot to find the sheep. He’s had to divert time from the rest of the flock. He’s had to go away from where they were into “the mountains” (verse 12). It’s caused him worry and concern. It’s even taken from what free time he may have had. Yet all these negatives do not stop him from “rejoic[ing]” when the sheep is found. He “rejoices” more over this one sheep than all the others--not because it was more important than the others--but because it was the one in immediate need. And the need has been now met.
Treatment of a Non-Repentant Believer Who Has
Done Wrong to a Fellow Believer (Matthew
18 “I tell you the truth,
whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you
release on earth will have been released in heaven. 19 Again, I tell you the
truth, if two of you on earth agree about whatever you ask, my Father in heaven
will do it for you. 20 For where two or three are
assembled in my name, I am there among them.” --New English Translation (for comparison)
The Mosaical command did not require this, but anyone not
wishing to create a public falling out would virtually have to do it in
this manner: do it in private--“You
and him alone,” Jesus tells us. Don’t
let it become a public spectacle where “saving face” in front of others can
easily make one far more stubborn and mule-headed. To admit you are wrong in the presence of one
person is vastly less embarrassing than doing it in the presence of a larger
number!
Alternatively, if we regard this as a continuation of what has just been said, then the idea would be that God would recognize the decision of the church in its disciplinary practices. The assumption, of course, being that the practices had been fairly and justly carried out. The conditions they had set for reconciliation would be fully recognized by God: what the church had “bound” the disputants to do they must do and what it had “loosed” (not required them to do) would not be required by God either.
18:19-20 “Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.” If these two verses be regarded as a description of the church, then the idea is that God will concur in their decisions on church discipline (vs. 18) and, the broadness of the wording would seem to suggest, other relevant matters as well. This is true even if it be but a small group of a handful who constitute the congregation and have had to make that decision: the accused, the aggrieved, the two witnesses, and the few other members. Such decisions had to be made even when the group was small and was not to be avoided due to their size limitations.
If we read this as a reference to the apostles, then the idea would be that apostolic authority could not be imposed arbitrarily. Even though inspired, their decisions had to be concurred in by at least one or more other apostles to assure everyone else that it was not some delusion or misguided decision by one person alone. It was a “fail safe” so the church members could be absolutely assured that the right things were being done.
A Parable:
The Hypocrisy and Consequences of Treating Others Harshly When We
Ourselves Have Been Kindly Treated When We Were in the Wrong (Matthew
18:21-35): 23 “For this reason, the
kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his
slaves. 24 As he began settling his
accounts, a man who owed ten thousand talents was brought to him. 25 Because he was not able to
repay it, the lord ordered him to be sold, along with his wife, children, and
whatever he possessed, and repayment to be made. 26 Then the slave threw
himself to the ground before him, saying, ‘Be patient with me, and I will repay
you everything.’ 27 The lord had compassion on
that slave and released him, and forgave him the debt.
28 “After he went out, that
same slave found one of his fellow slaves who owed him one hundred silver
coins. So he grabbed him by the throat
and started to choke him, saying, ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ 29 Then his fellow slave
threw himself down and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will repay
you.’ 30 But he refused. Instead, he went out and threw him in prison
until he repaid the debt. 31 When his fellow slaves saw
what had happened, they were very upset and went and told their lord everything
that had taken place.
32 Then his lord called the
first slave and said to him, ‘Evil slave!
I forgave you all that debt because you begged me! 33 Should you not have shown
mercy to your fellow slave, just as I showed it to you?’ 34 And in anger his lord
turned him over to the prison guards to torture him until he repaid all he
owed. 35 So also my heavenly Father
will do to you, if each of you does not forgive your brother from your heart.” --New English Translation (for comparison)
Although
we sometimes may look back at the passage and wonder how he could have been so
limited in his thinking, we do the man an injustice. Forgiveness can be hard--especially
when we have been scarred emotionally rather than just superficially
annoyed. How many find it within themselves to forgive the same person even seven times? For that matter one
time?
Sidebar: In Genesis 4:23-24 Lamech boasts that his revenge will be seventy times seven!
In the
context of the first century setting the meaning very probably shifts to
those collecting revenues for the government and who discover that the amount
they have pledged to pay is not available.
They have not only spent their own expected yield from the
business but have also spent so much they have, in effect, stolen from the king
what is rightly due him.
Everyone
in the western world dealt heavily with cash until about the late 1990s with
the amounts now being conveyed primarily electronically through credit and
debit cards. However the ancients were,
in comparison, cash poor. “Even if silver talents are meant, the sum is
enormous. . . . It was probably more
than the whole annual revenue of
The ESV has an interesting footnote on this: “A talent was a monetary unit worth about
twenty years’ wages for a laborer.” 20
times 10,000 equals 200,000 years in debt!
This
would come nowhere near earning enough to pay off the debt, of course. Even after all the sales were made, the debt
would be essentially “written off” the king’s books as a total loss. But the king was determined to get
“everything” he could out of the man and this was “everything.”
In fact he goes far beyond the man's request--promptly “writing it off” his books by “forgiving him the debt.” Not that he'd be unwilling to get the money back, but that he no longer will consider it of importance whether he does or not.
First of
all this was a debt that he had a reasonable chance to get back. “The denarius was a day’s wages (Matthew 20:2). The sum therefore is about three months’
wages for an ordinary laborer, by no means a hopeless debt as the other was.” (
Furthermore
this callous soul immediately “took him by the throat:” “began to choke him” (ESV, NASB, NIV);
“seizing him by the throat and nearly strangling him” (
(Speculation,
but not unreasonable: Did the man so
hate having had to beg the ruler that he took physical vengeance on the first
available target? Was there part of him
that resented having to ask forgiveness of anyone, no matter how much he
had been in the wrong? One “master” harbored
the ability to have mercy; the lesser “master” lacks the trait that had saved
his own hide.)
An obvious modern parallel is one who has so fouled up his or her life that the only option to utter despair is to beg God for forgiveness. But the extent of that forgiveness only need go so far as what is done to benefit me rather than what I might do to benefit others.
Legally what he did was quite proper and justified. Ethically and morally was a totally different matter.
We have irony here. In any large enterprise “word gets around.” But in this case a number actually “saw” with their own eyes what had happened and were shocked (“grieved”). It was such brazen hypocrisy, not only was it appropriate to go to “their master” on its inherent merits, how could they properly avoid doing so? It was not (if it figured in at all) a desire that the man be punished but a sense of the despicable inconsistency that had been inflicted by someone who had escaped so much.
Jesus had
earlier taught His disciples to pray, “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive
our debtors” (Matthew
But if you really want to be sure that every last penny has been yielded, even more secure measures are called for. Such a rich debtor as this could have “salted away” some money; with the appropriate “convincing” he could be made to reveal it. The punishment, however, is strictly a personal one. Only he was consigned to it. Unlike the earlier near sale for debt, his family is not threatened at all with bearing the results of his folly.
The
threat is dire: It is to last until they
have gotten every penny owed out of him.
The amount owed precludes that ever happening. They may get some, but not that
much. What he is effectively sentenced
to by his own behavior is unending anguish. It is not something forced upon him
arbitrarily or without reason.
How strictly parallel is God’s vengeance for unforgiveness and that of the human interrogators in the previous verse is not developed. The fact that there was a meaningful parallel was quite adequate to convey the warning of coming pain and hurt. What sane man or woman really wants to find out just how “literal” this turns out to be . . . or how many “actual” years it will last . . . or the actual nature of the suffering?
Chapter Nineteen
The Pharisees Challenge Jesus on When It Is
Moral to Divorce and Remarry (Matthew 19:1-9):
1
Now
when Jesus finished these sayings, he left
3 Then some Pharisees came to him in order to test him.
They asked, “Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that from the
beginning the Creator made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this
reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be united with his wife,
and the two will become one flesh’?
6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore
what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then
did Moses command us to give
a certificate of dismissal and to
divorce her?” 8 Jesus said to them, “Moses
permitted you to divorce your wives because of your hard hearts, but from the
beginning it was not this way. 9 Now I say to you that
whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery.” --New English Translation (for comparison)
19:1 Now it
came to pass, when Jesus had finished these sayings, that He departed
from
19:2 And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there. The wording is that they “followed” rather than “traveled with” the Lord. When it was time to “move on,” He did so and those who wished to hear more of Him or seek healing for loved ones naturally followed on the roads in the direction He had gone, confident that they would catch up with Him.
19:3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing
Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any
reason?” This is a controversy that
contemporary religious opinion was divided over: the
For one to whom truth matters far less than victory over the opponent, this challenge had a two-fold appeal. At the least it had the potential for driving away from discipleship those aligned with the opposite opinion and the fewer disciples, well, what foe of Jesus could look upon that result unkindly?
Then if “luck” were really with them . . . Jesus was currently in the region where Herod Antipas had had John the Baptist arrested and executed for his teachings on the subject. Might not they be thinking how “pleasant” it would be if they could provoke this to happen again?
Sidebar on divorce practice of the time: “The easiness with which divorce was obtained may be seen in Josephus, who thus writes: ‘He who for any reason whatsoever (and many such causes happen to men) wishes to be separated from a wife who lives with him, must give it to her in writing that he will cohabit with her no longer, and by this means she shall have liberty to marry another man; but before this is done it is not permitted her to do so’ (Antiquities, 4:08, 23). Josephus himself repudiated his own wife because he was not pleased with her behavior (Vita, § 76). And Ben-Sira gives the curt injunction, ‘If she go not as thou wouldest have her (κατὰ χεῖρά σου), cut her off from thy flesh, . . . and let her go’ (Ecclus. 25:26).” (Pulpit Commentary)
19:4-5 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? What God wants and what God puts up with are two different things and the example of divorce is as perfect an example of this as you are likely to find: No matter what people land up doing (even divorcing over adultery) the Divine intent at creation was for the relationship to be a permanent one . . . for a man to eventually leave his parents and become married and stay that way.
To do this, the Lord does not appeal to what God had revealed through Moses as acceptable, but to what God Himself had intended as the role model at creation itself. Hence what even Moses had allowed was still just that--an allowance rather than the ideal.
Sidebar: Note that Jesus emphasizes that the intended
pattern from creation itself was only for male-female marriage. It was not societal prejudice, but the
Creator’s will, that locked it permanently within those boundaries. Calling substitutes “marriage” can not
truly make them such in God’s eyes--or that of Jesus for that matter for He is
the One who makes the argument!
19:6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” Since the husband and wife are now “one” in God's eyes, no person should ever separate them. Like modern “super glue” that, when applied to objects is intended to keep the parts permanently together, when God joins “two in holy matrimony,” He does so with the same intent.
19:7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” They misstate the Torah: Moses had not commanded divorce but, rather, what to do if divorce is to occur. In that circumstance the husband had to give a written “certificate of divorce.” This would provide the woman proof that she was now free to marry someone else. In other words, there is a subtle misstatement of fact in their argument: Moses did not “command” anyone to divorce. He had commanded that if divorce was to occur at all, this was the way to handle it. Their wording makes it sound as if there was a Divine smile upon divorcing; the proper (and Jesus’) way of wording it shows that if divorce had been decided upon that this was the just, fair, and honorable manner of handling it.
19:8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. Jesus chooses not to deal with their misstatement of the Mosaical system. Instead He points out the reason that a divorce right was provided at all: “the hardness of your hearts” caused there to be a waiver from the original and desired pattern. No longer was the heart of one (or both) sensitive and concerned about the other. Alienation had developed and divorce was the result. Yet this had not been the intended goal at creation--or afterwards for that matter.
The text does not tell us whose heart has been “hardened”--the husband or the wife. The wife may have been guilty and out of spite cheated on her husband . . . or the husband may have been guilty and, to use the modern idiom, “wanted to trade in his wife for a younger and newer model.” Or both may have irresponsibly been at fault.
Or the
splintering may not have had anything to do with sexual behavior at all. Some people can become so obnoxious that
living with them becomes an “experiment in living agony” until one or the other
can not take it any longer.
19:9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” Divorce is such a serious matter that only sexual misconduct should cause its destruction--radical teaching for His age . . . and ours for that matter. The person who divorces and remarries for any other reason treats marriage with as little concern as a partner in adultery--indeed, worse than that for it is contaminated by that sin from the very beginning. Of some value and temporary interest to the individuals involved, but not necessarily anything more. The heart of the message is that divorce is serious business and not to be treated as a mere easy escape from an inconvenient or displeasing situation.
(When discussing being divorced by an unbeliever--a much narrower situation and quite different from what Jesus has in mind here--the apostle gives every indication that the moral taint does not occur: When divorced by such an individual he stresses that the believer is “not under bondage in such cases” [1 Corinthians 7:15; context: verses 10-16].)
The Apostolic Shock at Jesus’ Doctrine of
Divorce and Remarriage (Matthew
If these were children arguing about things, the term “spoiled brat” would surely come to the lips: “How dare you keep us from doing whatever we want to do!” We might also see here more than a touch of male arrogance.
But for everyone else, Jesus readily concedes that the teaching is challenging and difficult to accept and urges, “He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.” (A recognition that not even all disciples will be able to live by it? But, whether easy or not, they should.)
It is common to interpret verses 11 and 12 as Jesus commenting on the difficulty of living a sexually moral life without marriage and how an unmarried lifestyle is appropriate only for some. In which case the point would be that to be able to do so requires a special capacity that not every one has, making marriage a practical (though not theoretical) essential.
However what these disciples are doing is offering a vehement objection to Jesus’ teaching rather than actually advocating in behalf of such an alternative. It was “unthinkable;” therefore it couldn’t possibly be right. Hence Jesus can be read as actually responding to what they are really objecting. In effect, He says, “your scenario of not marrying at all is at least equally difficult to live by because of the limitations of human sexual nature!” Not being able to divorce indiscriminately may seem a hardship, but living a morally pure single life is as well.
Jesus’ Concern for the Spiritual Well Being of
Small Children (Matthew
19:13 Then little children were brought to
Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples
rebuked them. Not all cases of those
dealing with Jesus involved those seeking either healing or religious instruction. Looking upon Jesus as an authoritative
teacher (because of His excellence in both of these areas) it is not unexpected
that very young children were brought to Him so that He might both touch and
pray for them. In Luke's account they
are not only called “little children” (Luke
The apostles considered this an inappropriate interference with Jesus’ time and criticized the parents for doing so. They had confused the ideas of something distracting from teaching and healing time with something that is a waste of time. Something did not have to be the top priority to still be both useful and appropriate.
Sidebar: Note the “then” at the beginning of verse 13,
which suggests that this happened immediately after His teaching on
divorce. In this kind of context,
it seems hard to avoid the conclusion that--in addition to His main point that
even the “small ones” are of great importance--that He
is also symbolically reminding them of the joy that usually happens in a
successful marriage: having children
that one takes joy and pride in. They
wish to wallow in the potential “problems and horrors” of marriage and the
resulting “need” for divorce; He wishes to remind them of the accompanying
happiness. We might well call this the
“sub-text” of what is happening.
An Important Young Man Wonders What He Must Do
To Be Saved (Matthew
20 The young man said to him,
“I have wholeheartedly obeyed all these laws.
What do I still lack?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you
wish to be perfect, go sell your possessions and give the money to the poor,
and you will have treasure in heaven.
Then come, follow me.” 22 But when the young man
heard this he went away sorrowful, for he was very rich.
--New English Translation (for comparison)
Jesus had repeatedly proven Himself as one who could turn conventional religion upside down by insisting upon scriptural insights religious leaders either ignored or misunderstood. By asking Jesus this, he does not deny that he himself had done everything right that he knows about, but reflects the concern that there is something different or additional that he has overlooked. He is smart enough to know that he doesn’t know everything.
Today, similarly, we have people who “throw around words” without paying attention to what they are saying: It is the custom to say “such and such” in certain situations and the words or phrases are repeated so much that they easily become mere “idle words” (cf. Matthew 12:36-37)--language that means nothing beyond the superficial. Yes, Jesus is rightly described as a “good teacher,” but does he have the slightest idea just how good?
Then, instead of giving anything that might be considered “new” or “innovative” in His own teaching, He calls for strict adherence to what the person already knew: Since they were living under the Jewish Torah, they must keep its commandments in order to “enter into life.”
Sidebar: Most translations follow a different Greek
textual tradition and translate the verse along the lines of “And he said to him, ‘Why do you ask me about what
is good? [Rather than “call Me good.”] There is
only One who is absolutely the embodiment of “good.” If you would enter life, keep the
commandments.” Here also the emphasis is
on how we must define what is good in terms of the Holy One who is uniquely
good and in terms of what such a Being inherently can only give . . . “good
commandments.”
Whatever may be going through
his brain, Jesus is content to quote several of the well know prohibitions of
the Ten Commandments. The multiple
commands convey the message that there is not simply one single thing
involved in faithfulness to Jehovah. One
must not seek out a single “good thing” (verse 16)--which he has
inquired about--but all “good things” and these can be found within
God’s moral code.
Sidebar: This should also serve as a vivid reminder to those who insist today that acceptable morality is defined by the Ten Commandments standing alone. It’s a good starting point, but Jesus makes clear that there are other important things as well—love in particular, which is conspicuously not mentioned in that list!
Some attempt to make the commandment against covetousness equivalent to the love commandment, but love surely involves something far, far broader than this--does it not? Nor does lumping together the final six commandments as “summarized” in the command to “love your neighbor as yourself” do better. You can obey most of these by simply not doing evil, but abstinence from doing evil is surely a tremendous distance from the positive mind frame of actually loving them--is it not?
The irony in this is that Jesus would not have made such an extravagant demand if he had not kept insisting upon yet greater tests of faithfulness to meet. A lesson for later generations in this: pray for strength to do what you should; never pray for “greater tests” to prove or show your faith and obedience. Life is going to give you quite enough.
Not Wealth But Loyal
Service to God—Whether You Are Prosperous or Not—Assures Salvation (Matthew
25 The disciples were greatly
astonished when they heard this and said, “Then who can be saved?” 26 Jesus looked at them and
replied, “This is impossible for mere humans, but for God all things are
possible.”
27 Then Peter said to him,
“Look, we have left everything to follow you!
What then will there be for us?” 28 Jesus said to them, “I
tell you the truth: In the age when all things are renewed, when the Son of Man
sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve
thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
29 “And whoever has left
houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my
sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are first
will be last, and the last first.” --New English
Translation (for comparison)
What happened--Jesus now explicitly drives home--illustrates a truth far above and beyond that individual’s own immediate situation. Indeed it shows that the very joy and love of what one has can easily cause one to rebel at the thought of giving up any part of it. He never again suggested to any person of wealth such a requirement and even here only when pushed for “yet more” to be done.
Although it can only be speculation, it could easily be that the individual had been motivated in his repeated queries by the barely unconscious recognition that he was essentially greedy and needed to do something to compensate for it. Though, even then, he would not have been anticipating this extreme a solution to his distorted priorities!
(As to the reference to the “kingdom of heaven,” that refers not only to the eternal, heavenly kingdom that lies in our future, but the earthly manifestation in the form of the church. Both require such a drastic re-evaluation of the role of earthly wealth that it is a serious challenge: however note that Jesus only says it will be “hard” for the rich to enter the kingdom--not impossible.)
Sidebar: That the image of a camel was then used as an exaggeration of large size can be demonstrated in Jesus’ invoking of the same image in a very different context: “Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!” (Matthew 23:24). If the image was in any sense literal, both would have been strained out.
Sidebar
on non-Biblical invoking of the needle/camel comparison: “Compare the
Jewish proverb, that a man did not even in his dreams
see an elephant pass through the eye of a needle. The reason why the camel was substituted for
the elephant was because the proverb was from the Babylonian Talmud, and in
19:28 So Jesus said to them, “Assuredly
I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne
of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging
the twelve tribes of Israel. Their
reward is not wealth or glory or fame; it is to function as judges over the
spiritual “tribes of
However
“regeneration” is used of those who have been baptized (Titus 3:5) and the
apostles’ active role in “judging” (= ruling, steering, advising, teaching,
correcting, rebuking) those in the earthly manifestation of the kingdom--the
church--is quite adequate to fit what is being promised. Jesus is in heaven on His throne while He
guides them through inspiration on earth (John
Chapter Twenty
A Parable:
Regardless of How Long or Short a Period That a Person Serves God, an
Appropriate Reward Will Be Given (Matthew 20:1-16): “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who
went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 And after agreeing with the workers for the standard
wage, he sent them into his vineyard.
3 “When it was about
“When he went out again about
8 “When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said
to his manager, ‘Call the workers and give the pay starting with the last hired
until the first.’ 9 When those hired about
11 “When they received it,
they began to complain against the landowner, 12 saying, ‘These last
fellows worked one hour, and you have made them equal to us who bore the
hardship and burning heat of the day.’ 13 And the landowner replied
to one of them, ‘Friend, I am not treating you unfairly. Didn’t you agree with me to work for the
standard wage? 14 Take what is yours and go.
I want to give to this last man the same as I gave to you. 15 Am I not permitted to do
what I want with what belongs to me? Or
are you envious because I am generous?’ 16 So the last will be first,
and the first last.” --New English
Translation (for comparison)
20:1 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. At certain times of the year a landowner would be in heavy need of temporary hired labor. This would especially be true at harvest time. Whether then or at any other season, it would be natural to start as early in the day as possible to get as much done before the heat of the day slowed down productivity. Hence the parable speaks of how the landowner seeks these laborers “early in the morning.” (This parable is only found in Matthew.)
20:2 Now when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. The pay scale was agreeable to both the workers and the owner, arguing that both accepted that a denarius was a decent wage for a day’s work of the kind they would be performing. A full work day was taken as twelve hours; as Jesus remarked in passing, “Are there not twelve hours in the day?” (John 11:9).
The amount offered was the de facto standard of pay among both Romans and Jews. Among the Romans, the denarius was the daily wage for their soldiers as well. The Dead Sea Scrolls--collectively dated at somewhere between 100 B.C. and 25 A.D.--include fragments of the apocryphal book of Tobit, which argues that this had been the criteria for a long time: “But tell me, what wages am I to pay you--a drachma a day, and expenses for yourself and my son?” (RSV). This was for accompanying the son on a journey.
20:3 And he
went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the marketplace. A few hours later (c.
The “marketplace” was apparently the place to pick up casual labor and it was a very logical one: Due to people visiting the market for other purposes as well, there would be foot traffic throughout the day.
20:4 and said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.’ So they went. These he also offered the opportunity to work in the vineyard. Their pay, however, was left vague and indeterminate: “whatever is right I will give you.” Willing to trust his good will, they departed for the fields to begin work. They have nothing to lose. Whatever they gain will be more than if they had remained behind doing nothing. (The story may also presuppose the owner’s reputation for fair treatment of all that were employed.) They begin their labor about a quarter of the way through the workday and the individuals mentioned in the next verse enter it when it is half over and three-quarters over.
20:5 Again he went out about the sixth and
the ninth hour, and did likewise. Three
hours later and then again after three more hours (=
20:6 And about the eleventh hour he went out
and found others standing idle, and said to them, ‘Why have you been
standing here idle all day?’ Very
late in the work day (c.
20:7 They said to him, ‘Because no one hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right you will receive.’ In essence, they explain that it was through no fault of their own. Their explanation can be taken two ways: (1) for whatever reason there simply had not been adequate demand to use all the available labor or (2) for some reason no one thought they in particular would be good picks. This landowner is of a different opinion.
In spite
of how little time they would actually have to work, the owner viewed some
work as still far better than none and agreed to take them on for what
little remained of the day. Again they receive the same
vague promise of an appropriate compensation.
Indeed, at this late an hour they would probably have been happy
to get anything at all.
20:8 “So when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, ‘Call the laborers and give them their wages, beginning with the last to the first.’ This was according to the custom of the day: pay was on a daily basis and distributed after the workday was over. It was mandated by the Jewish Law itself (Leviticus 19:13; Deuteronomy 24:14-15). This was a responsibility the owner delegated to his manager (“steward”) of the property and carried out as evening began and the work ended.
For whatever reason, the owner instructed the manager to pay those who worked the least hours first. From the standpoint of the story, this puts in center place the owner’s generosity of mind. From the standpoint of those who did not receive the increased wage they thought they deserved, this provided the opportunity to gripe now--and to the owner himself--rather than harbor resentment and anger within themselves.
From the
standpoint of the reader of the text, it is hard to avoid the suspicion
that it is intended to remind us of the last two verses of the previous
chapter, “And everyone who
has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children
or lands, for My name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal
life.
But many who
are first will be last, and the last first” (verses 29-30). This is a point Jesus Himself makes in verse
16 of this chapter as well. The teaching in both chapters make a similar point.
20:9 And when those came who were
hired about the eleventh hour, they each received a denarius. This
“full day wage” was a generous blessing--neither obligated nor required by
anything the property owner had promised.
It was unbounded generosity.
Although the parable does not explicitly say it, the wording leaves the
necessary implication that those who came at
Some have reasonably suggested that we see here much of the same mindframe of the elder brother in Luke 15 . . . he who had been so upset that the repentant elder brother had been received back with joy and celebration. Shouldn’t he himself be appreciated and rewarded even more?
On a
spiritual level, those who have gone through much turmoil in an extended discipleship
will receive the same salvation promised to those whose discipleship was short
and relatively uneventful--but even those in the former case will fully receive
what they were promised. And that
promised reward is inherently a satisfying and abundant one, far above and
beyond anything this earth can ever offer.
From the criticizer's viewpoint, they must examine their own attitude as well. Isn't there a real possibility that the problem is their own envy? Has their way of thinking . . . their viewpoint . . . their “eye” on the world . . . become twisted and “evil” by concluding that someone doing good is in the wrong because it doesn't benefit them personally?
Then Jesus moves on to a different topic: Numerous individuals would receive no reward at all for many would be “called” to work (= called to be disciples) yet few would become such. They would turn down the opportunity entirely; they are not “chosen” to be rewarded because they never answered the “call” to go to work for the Lord in the first place. In contrast, in the parable everyone is both “called” to work and “chosen” to work. Hence the closing words are applicable to a much broader array of individuals than those directly touched on in the parable itself.
This explanation assumes the textual genuineness of the words. Without such an interpretive gloss on the wording, there seems no reason for their inclusion; they have no obvious application to the narrative itself. Many take a different approach: On the basis of inadequate manuscript evidence for including it, it is omitted by the large bulk of modern translations--exceptions being the ISV, NKJV, WEB. This would remove the question of how the words are relevant to the parable.
A Third Prediction of the Certainty of Jesus’
Death and Resurrection (Matthew 20:17-19):
17 As Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the
twelve aside privately and said to them on the way, 18 “Look, we are going up to
Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the
experts in the law. They will condemn
him to death, 19 and will turn him over to
the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged severely and crucified. Yet on the third day, he will be raised.” --New English Translation (for comparison)
They were
emotionally unprepared for what was actually going to happen. Hence He felt it necessary to temporarily
separate the apostles from the traveling crowd and remind them of a dire
prediction He had made previously (Matthew
A Lesson on Religious “Superiority” Being
“Purchased” by Service to Each Other and Not by Appointment to a Post (Matthew
20:20-28): 20 Then the mother of the
sons of Zebedee came to him with her sons, and
kneeling down she asked him for a favor.
21 He said to her, “What do you want?” She replied, “Permit these two sons of mine
to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” 22 Jesus answered, “You don’t
know what you are asking! Are you able
to drink the cup I am about to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” 23 He told them, “You will
drink my cup, but to sit at my right and at my left is not mine to give.
Rather, it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”
24 Now when the other ten
heard this, they were angry with the two brothers. 25 But Jesus called them and
said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in
high positions use their authority over them.
26 It must not be this way among you! Instead whoever wants to be great among you
must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be
first among you must be your slave—
28 just as the Son of Man did not
come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” --New
English Translation (for comparison)
Now she made her power play: Let my two sons be your number two and number three men (= in ancient parlance, sit on His left and right) in the triumph of the kingdom. If Jesus survived, that would place them in the key secondary positions; if He did, indeed, die they would have the leadership of the movement.
Sidebar: The underlying logic of her request--“The favor which had already been bestowed might, in
some degree, seem to warrant the petition.
John was known emphatically as ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ (John
20:23 So He said to them, “You will indeed drink My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with; but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father.” It looks like they responded aloud in the affirmative that they were, indeed, willing to die: the statement “so He said to them” makes more sense as a response. On the other hand it could simply be that Jesus answers His own question: He affirms that they would indeed go through similarly painful suffering. They would drink of that “cup” and be “baptized” in that agony. On the other hand, He firmly insists that it is up to the Father alone to decide primacy issues among the apostles. Even as their Teacher and Leader, this is one decision beyond His own to make.
Sidebar: “A cup is
an ordinary metaphor in holy writ, by which a man’s portion in this life is
expressed, whether it be a portion of good things or evil: Psalms 11:6; Isaiah 51:17; Jeremiah 25:15;
Lamentations 4:21; Matthew 26:39; John 18:11.
Drinking of a cup is usually put for suffering: Jeremiah 49:12; Ezekiel 23:32; Obadiah 1:16.” (Matthew Poole’s Commentary) Just as drinking a cup was used of being
overwhelmed by suffering, since “baptism” means a burial or overwhelming that
was also a highly appropriate image to convey the same idea.
It was a characteristic of Gentile rulers to “lord” it over others and to utilize “great . . . authority” over their social and political inferiors. Note that it is "Gentile" lords: an incarnation of badness in the conceptual shorthand of popular Jewish opinion. And usually a well deserved evaluation. That itself should warn them that their attitude rests on dangerous ground.
Two Blind Men Cured Outside of
32 Jesus stopped, called
them, and said, “What do you want me to do for you?” 33 They said to him, “Lord,
let our eyes be opened.” 34 Moved with compassion,
Jesus touched their eyes. Immediately
they received their sight and followed him.
--New English Translation (for comparison)
Sidebar: This is the only mention of Jericho in the gospel of Matthew and since our memories of the city are usually shaped by our reading of its destruction during the conquest of the land under Joshua (it being the first city to fall), it may be useful to stress how important the community was in the first century:
“The upland pastures of Peraea
were now behind them and the road led down to the sunken channel of the
“Rising like an amphitheatre from amidst this luxuriant
scene, lay Jericho, the chief place east of Jerusalem, at seven or eight miles
distant from the Jordan, on swelling slopes, seven hundred feet above the bed
of the river, from which its gardens and groves, thickly interspersed with
mansions, and covering seventy furlongs from north to south, and twenty from
east to west, were divided by a strip of wilderness. The town had had an eventful history. Once the stronghold of the Canaanites, it was
still, in the days of Christ, surrounded by towers and castles. A great stone aqueduct of eleven arches brought
a copious supply of water to the city, and the Roman military road ran through
it. The houses themselves, however,
though showy, were not substantial, but were built mostly of sun-dried bricks,
like those of
20:30 And behold, two blind men sitting by the road, when they heard that Jesus was passing by, cried out, saying, “Have mercy on us, O Lord, Son of David!” In a different context, “mercy” might mean nothing more than the request for financial help. “Son of David” was obvious; in a setting of a crowd heading for the Passover, the chance of the man being such was nearly an absolute. “Lord” would be a respectful courtesy title, an erring on the safe side by those who could not physically tell whom they were addressing.
But more is clearly present because they knew it was Jesus passing by--note “they heard Jesus was passing by:” They couldn’t see who it was, but they gathered the identification from what was being said. Hence they wanted healing (verse 33) since it was no secret that He had performed such.
Did their hopes go even further? Many find in “Son of David” intended Messianic overtones as well. “Lord” could reinforce that idea but yet also be regarded as the well deserved verbal honor and respect due to someone who could make even the blind see again. They would certainly not be repelled by the Messianic idea, but so far as solving their physical problems, His ability to heal would be even more important.
Chance had presented them with an opportunity to be rid of their curse and they were going to take advantage of it. A useful lesson for our own daily lives as well.
20:31 Then the multitude warned them that
they should be quiet; but they cried out all the more, saying, “Have mercy on
us, O Lord, Son of David!” The
accompanying crowd clearly regarded them as a nuisance and “warned” them to
shut up. This did not work for they
persisted even more emphatically in their repeated requests for help. Indeed, why should they shut up? This was as ideal an opportunity as they
would ever have for being cured so it would be irrational not to use it to the
fullest.
They were clearly grateful for they continued in the
crowd of followers that accompanied Jesus.
Above and beyond that, this was also Passover season and the crowd was
heading to
Sidebar: Explaining differences in the account found
here when compared with that of Mark (
“The miracle narrated in this passage is common to
the three Synoptists, but with some remarkable
differences, not one of them agreeing altogether in details. St. Matthew speaks of two blind men, St. Luke
and St. Mark of one only, and the latter mentions this one by name as Bartimaeus. St.
Matthew and St. Mark make the miracle performed as Jesus quitted
“It is an easy solution to say, with
“As to the number of the blind men, we have seen the same
discrepancy in the case of the demoniacs at
“Another hypothesis is that a single blind man first
addressed Christ as he entered