Author. The Gospel of Matthew is an anonymous work, but ancient church tradition universally supports Matthean authorship of this Gospel. Papias (early second-century church leader from what is now Turkey, though he is dependent upon an earlier source), Pantaenus (c. AD 200, theologian who taught in Alexandria), Tertullian (c. AD 160–220, apologist from northeast Africa), Irenaeus (c. AD 202, church leader from Western Europe), Origen (c. AD 185–254, a scholar who died in Caesarea by the Sea), Eusebius (c. AD 263–339, a church leader and “father of church history” from Caesarea by the Sea), Jerome (c. AD 347–420, a priest and scholar from southeastern Europe), and Augustine (AD 354–430, a scholar from North Africa who also lived in Rome and Milan) say so. A major concern is the “Papias Fragment” in which he made the cryptic statement, “Matthew put together the oracles of the Lord in the Hebrew language.” (Similar statements are made by Pantaenus, Irenaeus, and Origen, but they may depend upon Papias’s comments). No consensus exists regarding what this statement means, but Matthew gives little evidence of being translated from a Semitic language into Greek. It may mean that Matthew wrote sayings of Jesus in Hebrew or Aramaic and later incorporated them into the Greek Gospel of Matthew (for the details on this view, cf. Daniel B. Wallace, “Matthew: Introduction, Argument, and Outline,” at http://bible.org/seriespage/matthew-introduction-argument-and-outline, accessed September 8, 2009). It is also possible that Papias was wrong regarding an initial Semitic work by Matthew, and that Matthew wrote in Greek the gospel extant today. The key is to recognize that these ancient writers ascribe to Matthew some sort of work about Jesus’ life.
Recipients. Nothing is known of the recipients of the gospel. The best suggestions range from Jewish believers still engaged with, or who had broken from, the synagogue system in Capernaum, Caesarea by the Sea, or Syrian Antioch. Because of the strongly Jewish flavor of the book, it is unlikely that it was written primarily to Gentiles. There was a vibrant Jewish and Gentile Christian community in Antioch, one that took seriously the urgency of the Great Commission. It is possible that Matthew wrote his gospel with this group in mind, but there is no way to know for sure.
Date. Matthew’s gospel is dated by most scholars as coming from the late first century, partly on the assumption that it depends on Mark’s gospel for much of its contents (see the “Excursus” below), and therefore had to be written after Mark. It is possible that Matthew wrote after the fall of Jerusalem (Mt 22:7; 24:1). His references to the Church (16:18; 18:17), to the other nation that will possess the kingdom (21:43), and his refined Christology are sometimes invoked as support for a late date of Matthew. But there is a great deal of evidence in Matthew that supports a pre-70 date (on AD 70, see the comments introducing Matthew 24). He referred often to the Sadducees (3:7; 16:1-12; 22:23, 34), although they fade from significance after AD 70. Jerusalem was the center of Jewish opposition to the movement Jesus started, but after 70 that center shifted to Jamnia (western Israel). The destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 did not come about in the manner presented in Mt 24, making it likely that it was written before that war. Matthew recorded Jesus as enjoining, “leave your offering there before the altar” (5:23-24), which he probably would not have done if no altar remained after AD 70. A similar point could be made related to swearing “by the gold of the temple” (23:16-22) and paying the temple tax (17:24-27) if the temple had been destroyed. These observations are not absolutely conclusive, but taken together support the likelihood that Matthew was written before AD 70, perhaps between the early 40s to mid 60s. For the evidence for a pre-70 composition of Matthew, see Robert H. Gundry, Matthew, 1982, 602–6.
Purpose. It would have been helpful if Matthew wrote, “I’m writing this book for this reason: …” But he did not, and the gospel is complex enough that it is folly to suggest a single purpose for it. The purpose of Matthew’s gospel appears to be at least partially apologetic. He seems to build a case for Jesus of Nazareth being the One who fulfilled the OT prophecies about the Messiah, the Son of David, King of the Jews, Immanuel, and the King of the world. Matthew also wrote to explain why the Jewish Messiah was rejected by the Jewish leadership and crucified by the Romans. The “mystery form” of the kingdom (chap. 13) may have been presented by Matthew to explain why the kingdom had not yet come in its fullest form, even though the King had been present. These themes may have been intended by the evangelist to help his messianic community interact intelligently with antagonistic members of the “synagogue down the street.” That Gentiles are presented favorably (especially 2:1; 15:21; 28:18-20) is often cited by scholars who maintain that Matthew’s purpose was to motivate his audience, primarily Jewish believers, to begin to fulfill the Great Commission. Finally, Matthew’s gospel contains a considerable amount of instruction both on what it means to be a follower (“disciple”) of Jesus, and the consequences of not embracing Him as King of kings.
Excursus: Gospel Critical Studies.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called “the Synoptic Gospels” since they present a similar narrative on Jesus’ life (“synoptic” is derived from a Greek term that means “sharing or presenting a common view”). The Synoptic Gospels have a remarkable agreement on wording, content, and order of events. This agreement has puzzled scholars for centuries, and how to account for it forms the basis of what is called the “Synoptic Problem” or “Gospel Critical Studies.” Three related disciplines have developed in an attempt to account for the similarities between the Synoptic Gospels: Source criticism, Form criticism, and Redaction criticism.
Source Criticism. This discipline attempts to determine the relationship between the Synoptic Gospels by identifying the written traditions that lie behind them. Source critics seek to determine what information the gospel writers received from the church, and what those individual writers may have added to what they received to fit their editorial, theological, and practical purposes. Gospel critical scholars look at the similarities between the Gospels and conclude that the agreements stem from some kind of literary dependence between them. Matthew, Mark, and Luke have considerable overlap (e.g., Mt 12:9-14 // Mk 3:1-6 // Lk 6:6-11). Most argue that Mark was the Gospel written first, and that Matthew and Luke utilized Mark when they wrote their own gospels. Hence there are similarities between all three. Sometimes, however, Matthew and Luke agree in wording that is not contained in Mark (e.g., Mt 13:16-17 // Lk 10:23-24). To account for these agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark, source critics postulate that there was another source besides Mark that Matthew and Luke both used. That source is called “Q” (an abbreviation for the German term Quelle, “source”), and is theorized to have been a list of sayings by Jesus. However, there is no extant Q. It is a hypothetical source proposed by scholars to explain Matthew and Luke’s agreements against Mark. The proposed dependence of Matthew and Luke upon Mark and Q is called “The Two-Source Theory.” But sometimes Matthew and Luke contain material unique to their own gospels (for Matthew, see 19:10-12; for Luke, see 17:27-30). In these cases, scholars hypothesize that Matthew used a source (or many sources) unique to him, called the “M” source(s) not shared by Luke, and Luke’s unique content is derived from a hypothetical source called “L.” The proposal that Matthew and Luke used Mark, Q, M, and L, is called “The Four-Source Theory.” Many recent source critics reject the idea of the Four-Source Theory, though it was popular during the first quarter of the 20th century.
Source criticism can help one see the similarities between the Gospels and may give an indication of the individual emphasis of each gospel writer. Many evangelical scholars adopt the assumptions and engage in the practice of source criticism. But in the hands of more critical scholars, source criticism tends to diminish the credibility of Matthew, Mark, and Luke as independent witnesses and historians. The Two-Source Theory has come under attack for being illogical. For example, as it was mentioned above, source critics assert that Mark was written before Matthew and Luke, and that Matthew and Luke depend on Mark. They also point out (rightly) that Luke agrees with Mark’s order of events when Matthew departs from Mark’s order, and Matthew agrees with Mark’s order when Luke departs from it. Thus, they argue, Mark was written first. But it is possible that Mark’s gospel was written after Matthew and Luke, and depended upon both. When Matthew and Luke departed from each other, Mark may have chosen on one occasion to follow Matthew, on another to follow Luke. In addition, the fact that the Two-Source Theory requires an as-yet undiscovered hypothetical source called Q renders it hard (not impossible) to believe.
Form Criticism. This discipline seeks to determine the shape and content of oral traditions that circulated in the early church before they were written down. One of the goals of form critics is to provide a description of what the early church was like based upon what they believe can be determined about it from the oral traditions used by the gospel writers. Form criticism also seeks to categorize the kinds of features found in the Gospels, labeling some of its contents as “logia” (proverbial, prophetic, or “I am” sayings of Jesus in which He makes some statement of His identity), “pronouncement stories” (a short narrative that climaxes in Jesus making a profound statement on some topic), “parables,” and “miracle stories” (stories that include supernatural acts by Jesus). As an example of the methodology of form critics, they will look at a “miracle story” and postulate that the early church formulated this story to help it compete with miracle-working characters in Greco-Roman religions called theios aner.
Form criticism is grounded in several assumptions. First, the Gospels were not the work of one person. The stories in the Gospels evolved as they circulated throughout Christian communities, who adjusted them and embellished them to meet their own situational needs. Second, the stories about Jesus circulated for at least 20 years in oral form and in independent units. These units were retained or discarded based upon their helpfulness for the localized church. Third, Mark and Q (and perhaps M and L as well) were the first written records of these diverse oral traditions. Matthew and Luke depend upon these two (or four) sources. Fourth, the sayings of Jesus are authentic only if they differ from the kinds of things said either in early (intertestamental) Judaism or in the early church, if they have multiple independent sources that attest to their authenticity, and if the sayings fit well with other sayings thought to be authentic.
There are numerous dangers with form criticism. First, because it assumes the validity of the Two- (or Four-) Source Theory, it inherits the weaknesses of that approach to the Synoptic Gospels. Second, the more radical forms of Form Criticism (i.e., as espoused and practiced by non-evangelicals) tend to de-historicize Jesus and make Him an invention of the early church. Critical scholars say that the picture of Jesus in the Gospels largely does not square with the Jesus “of history.” Third, form criticism denies the presence of eyewitnesses and the biographical interest of the early church. If stories and sayings were fabricated and circulated in Christian communities, eyewitnesses to the events may well have challenged the validity of those inventions. Even Paul was careful to distinguish between what Jesus taught about divorce and what he taught (1Co 7:10, 12). If the more radical form critics are right, Paul would never have made such a distinction. Finally, so little is known about the first 30 years of the early church that the assumptions and conclusions of form critics rest upon speculation and subjective opinions.
Redaction Criticism. “Redaction” is drawn from the German term Redakteur, which means “editor.” Redaction criticism is the discipline that seeks to discover the editorial emphasis of each gospel writer. This emphasis is discerned by seeing how a writer adjusted the contents of the stories and sayings he received from the church, and how he arranged them into his larger narrative framework. Rather than seeking to determine how the contents of the Gospels were shaped by the early church (one of the goals of form criticism), redaction criticism seeks to determine the distinctive contributions by Matthew, Mark, and Luke by noting their differences from each other.
For example, Matthew arranges Jesus’ temptations in this order: bread, pinnacle of the temple, worship Satan (Mt 4:1-11). Luke’s order is bread, worship Satan, pinnacle of the temple (Lk 4:1-13). Why this change in the order? Matthew probably gives the more strictly chronological account (see his temporal marker “then” in Mt 4:5), and Luke has chosen to order the temptations to fit his emphasis on the temple. His gospel begins with the temple (Lk 1:8) and ends with the temple (Lk 24:53) and generally gives the temple a more prominent place than Matthew or Mark do.
Redaction criticism may have more to offer than source or form criticism, for it is demonstrable that one gospel writer draws attention to certain things that are not emphasized by the others, and vice versa. But it is better to say that their editorial work highlighted certain aspects of events that really happened, rather than to say that they adjusted the information they received from the church to fit their own theological purposes. For example, Matthew notes the exception clause regarding divorce because of adultery (Mt 19:9; see the comments there), a clause absent from Mark (Mk 10:11) and Luke (Lk 16:18) (see the comments there). Rather than say that Matthew added this material, or “changed Mark” (a phrase seen often in the commentaries of Two-Source scholars), it is preferable to maintain that Jesus really said “except for adultery,” and to propose why Matthew included it to suit his purposes, and why Mark and Luke omitted it to suit theirs.
There are several dangers associated with the more radical and critical approaches to redaction criticism (drawn from Robert L. Thomas, “Redaction Criticism,” The Jesus Crisis, 255-57). First, it inherits the weaknesses of the Two- and Four-Source Theories upon which it depends. Second, redaction criticism does not deal adequately with its chronological, evidential, and ethical questions. Chronologically, redaction critics maintain that the tradition about Jesus circulated through and was formed by the early church (Form Criticism), but that after this it was fashioned and shaped by the Evangelists—all in a span of 30–40 years. In a day when communications moved slowly, this is nigh unto impossible. Evidentially, form criticism does not deal adequately with the fact that there were eyewitnesses still alive whose word would challenge the “artistry” of the Evangelists. Ethically, the more radical redaction critics maintain that the Evangelists ascribed words and deeds to Jesus that did not originate with Him. Christianity is the mother of high morality and makes it somewhat unlikely that the writers would have done this.
So how does one account for the similarities and differences in the Gospels? The similarities are explained by recognizing that Jesus was an itinerant teacher. It was common for Jewish itinerant teachers to present much of the same material in the various places where they traveled. If Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount once, He probably gave it a dozen times in various locations to various crowds. The disciples, of course, would have heard it almost every time. When they wrote their Gospels as eyewitnesses (Matthew) or as church historians using primary sources (Mark and Luke), there would understandably be considerable similarity in the words they ascribed to Jesus. The differences in wording can be accounted for as they individually emphasized certain things Jesus said in any one setting. What He taught about divorce (Mt 19:3-12) can be read slowly in about 60 seconds. But He almost certainly took considerably longer to interact with the Pharisees, and later His disciples, on the topic. Matthew thus chose to emphasize one aspect of that much longer discussion, Mark and Luke others. The differences in the order or location of events can also be explained by Jesus’ travels. In Matthew’s gospel, Jesus taught the Lord’s Prayer (Mt 6:9-13) in Galilee early in His ministry (cf. Mt 4:23), but Luke (Lk 11:2-4) places it during Jesus’ trek from Galilee to Jerusalem much later, perhaps in Samaria (cf. Lk 9:51-52), possibly even in Bethany in the vicinity of Jerusalem (Lk 10:38-42, if Mary and Martha are the sisters from Bethany—a fair assumption). So which is it? Did Jesus teach the Lord’s Prayer in Galilee or much further south? Critical scholars maintain that this difference in location signals historical inaccuracies in the Synoptic Gospels. But as an itinerant teacher, He probably taught about prayer in both Galilee (the episode Matthew records) and elsewhere (Luke’s episode), just as any good traveling preacher does today, and did in Jesus’ day.
For evangelical discussions sympathetic to source, form, and redaction criticism, cf. the articles by Scot McKnight, Darrell L. Bock, and Grant R. Osborne, respectively, in New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, ed. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1991). For an interesting interaction between evangelicals who differ on these disciplines, see Robert L. Thomas, ed., Three Views on the Origins of the Synoptic Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2002). For a capable critique of Gospel critical studies, see Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell, eds., The Jesus Crisis: The Inroads of Historical Criticism Into Evangelical Scholarship (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1998), and Eta Linnemann, Is There a Synoptic Problem? Rethinking the Literary Dependence of the First Three Gospels, trans. Robert W. Yarbrough (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992).
COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW
I. The Introduction to the King-Messiah (1:1–4:11)
A. The King-Messiah’s Background (1:1–3:12)
1. The Messiah’s Ancestry (1:1-17)
1:1. Matthew introduced his gospel by emphasizing the legal right of Jesus of Nazareth to be the king of the Jews and of the entire world. Matthew included Jesus’ genealogy to argue for the validity of His claim to David’s throne. As the creation accounts began with the phrase record of the genealogy (LXX Gn 2:4; 5:1), Matthew’s description here of the fulfillment of God’s plan begins with the same phrase, suggesting that He was beginning the “new creation” (2Co 5:17). In Christ’s humanity, He was legally a son of David and was a rightful heir to the Davidic throne (2Sm 7:12-13).
1:3-6. What is the connection between Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba? Women were not usually included in Jewish genealogies (though cf. 1Ch 2). It is impossible to be certain, but perhaps the best view is that all four had unusual marriages through which God brought much good. He did the same through the unusual circumstances of the virgin birth. Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth were Gentiles, and Bathsheba was married to a Gentile. This may suggest Matthew’s desire to indicate to his audience that Gentiles not only had a role in the ancestry of the Messiah, but should benefit from the sacrificial death of the Messiah as well (Mt 28:18-20).
1:11. Jeconiah (aka Jehoiachin) is Joseph’s ancestor in the line of David through Solomon. Second Samuel 7:12-17 unconditionally promises the perpetuity of the Davidic kingdom through Solomon (vv. 12-13). But Jeconiah, who was in that line, was so wicked that God cursed him, not allowing his descendants to be king (Jr 22:30). This posed a dilemma. How can both the promise and curse be fulfilled? The answer is, “Through the virgin birth.” Joseph was legally in that line through David, Solomon, and even Jeconiah. But Jesus is not a physical son of Joseph, and so dodges the curse while still fulfilling the legal requirement of being a son of David. Jesus, through Joseph, is in the legal line to David and Solomon without being under the physical curse.
1:17. Matthew structured the genealogy in three groups of 14 names, possibly to indicate that the Davidic kingdom dismantled in the exile would be restored by King Jesus. The importance of the number fourteen is unclear, but the name “David” (Hb. dwd) adds up to 14 on the basis of Hebrew numerology (4 [“D”] + 6 [“W”] + 4 [“D”]), and since there were three letters, this may account for three sets of 14. But Matthew left no clues for the significance in his thinking of this arrangement. This is not a pure genealogical record, but makes a theological statement about Jesus as son of David. In order to get 14-14-14, David should be counted only once, but Jeconiah twice (because of the break ending v. 11 and introducing v. 12, where Jeconiah is viewed both as the last of the kings of Judah before the exile, and the first of the kings of Judah during the exile).
2. The Messiah’s Birth (1:18-25)
1:18-21. Jewish marriage practices had the groom taking the initiative in approaching the father of the prospective bride. If the bride’s father agreed to the marriage, the groom paid a price called a mohar, a sort of reverse dowry that compensated the bride’s family for any financial loss they might incur without her help in the family business. The couple exchanged vows and was considered legally married. Dissolution of the marriage during betrothal required formal divorce. The couple did not cohabit for a year while the groom prepared living quarters, often attached to his father’s house. After the year the groom and his friends would surprise the bride and her family, the wedding feast would begin, further vows would be exchanged, and the marriage consummated. It was during the year of betrothal that Mary’s pregnancy was discovered. Marriage would have been a tacit admission by Joseph that the child was his, possibly something intolerable to this righteous man. But he was kind as well, and intended to divorce her secretly by writing a bill of divorcement in the presence of two or three witnesses rather than suing Mary and her family to recoup the mohar and to make a case for his innocence. It required angelic intervention to change Joseph’s mind.
1:22-23. How Matthew views the connection between Is 7:14 and the birth of Jesus is debated. Possibly Isaiah’s words were fulfilled in the eighth century BC, with Jesus not so much “fulfilling” Isaiah, but Matthew “filling Isaiah full” of new meaning. Another view is that Isaiah’s prophecy had multiple fulfillments—one in the day of Ahaz and one in Jesus’ day. The preferable understanding is to see the prophecy as a direct prediction with an unvarnished fulfillment in the virgin birth. The meaning of VIRGIN (Gk. parthenos in Matthew and in the LXX at Is 7:14; almah in Hb.) is debated. Almah usually means “a young woman who is not sexually active” (Gn 24:43; Ex 2:8; possibly Ps 68:25 [ET; MT and LXX, 67:26]; Sg 1:3; 6:8; probably Pr 30:19). Parthenos meant “a young woman,” usually one who is presumed to be sexually inexperienced (though see LXX Gn 34:3, where it probably means simply “girl”). Only in Gn 24:43 and Is 7:14 does parthenos translate almah, and in Gn 24:43 it designates a young woman with no sexual experience. The one(s) who translated Isaiah into Greek for the LXX had other words available for “young woman of marriageable age who is having or who is about to have sexual relations” (e.g., neanis which could mean “maiden” or “young married woman,” or kore, “bride,” “young wife,” “concubine”), and apparently understood almah in Is 7 as referring to sexual inexperience. This weighs against the understanding that Isaiah was referring to his own or another’s wife on the verge of conception.
The structure of the words addressed to Judah (Is 7:1–9:7) and Israel (Is 9:8–11:16) are parallel, and contain the following features: the parallels mean that Is 7:1–9:7 should be read as a unit, and indicates that the promised Immanuel (Is 7:14) will possess the land (Is 8:8), defeat all enemies (8:10), and appear in Galilee as a light to the Gentiles (Is 9:1-2; see Mt 4:15-16), and will be seen as divine, ruling forever on David’s throne (Is 9:6-7). Matthew saw these themes directly fulfilled in the birth of Jesus (for the details, see D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” In Matthew, Mark, Luke of EBC, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], 78–81).
1:24-25. Joseph complied with the angel’s message and married Mary, apparently without any wedding celebration. To safeguard the integrity of the virgin birth, Joseph kept Mary a virgin until after the birth. While Mary is commendable for her role in Jesus’ birth, Joseph is similarly impressive. He was ethically upright, compassionate toward the woman he intended to divorce, and was in control of his libido enough to abstain from relations until after the birth. Joseph is the forgotten hero of Christmas!
3. The Messiah’s Fulfillment of the OT (2:1-23)
a. The Birth in Bethlehem (2:1-12)
2:1. Bethlehem was about six miles southwest of Jerusalem. Herod the king was the ruthless and paranoid puppet ruler under Rome. His atrocities included killing three sons, a wife, and her mother to protect his regime. There is no secular record of what happened in Bethlehem, but it is perfectly in keeping with his paranoia to slaughter these children. The magi remain enigmatic figures, but were probably wise men specializing in astronomy and astrology. In the Greco-Roman world they purportedly predicted the ascendancy of great leaders (Astyages of Media in the sixth century BC; Alexander the Great, and Augustus). From the east could be Egypt, but was more likely Babylonia, where a large and influential group of Jews still lived in exile. It is remotely possible that these magi were familiar with the prophecies of Daniel and that these, in association with the star, would have caused them to come to the Holy Land.
2:2. A star could signal the birth of powerful men. In Jewish tradition a new star appeared following the birth of Abraham, and the Messiah is associated with a star (Nm 24:17; Rv 22:16). What was this star? Jupiter and Saturn were aligned in Pisces in 7 BC, but such planetary alignments were never called “stars.” Halley’s Comet was visible in 12 BC but this is certainly too early. That this star appeared (2:7) suggests it had not been documented previously, and 2:9 implies that this star moved around, supporting a supernatural origin, and may parallel the pillar of fire that led the Hebrews in the wilderness.
2:3-6. These verses indicate that neither the magi nor Herod knew what Scripture said regarding the location of Messiah’s birth. Matthew cites Mc 5:2, where he only appears to contradict Micah’s words. Micah emphasizes what made Bethlehem great, the birth of the Messiah, and Matthew asserts that Bethlehem consequently was not unimportant. Matthew may have related the episode of Jesus’ birth in BETHLEHEM to make His connection with King David clearer. Though Jesus grew up in Nazareth, not Bethlehem, His birthplace links Him with David, a fact that would have carried some apologetic clout for those who might doubt the legitimacy of His descent from David.
2:7-12. Herod’s deception about worshiping the King of the Jews was consistent with what is known about his modus operandi. Matthew’s reference to gold, frankincense, and myrrh may intend to establish a parallel with Solomon, a son of David, to whom similar gifts were given (1Kg 10:1-2; 2Ch 9:23-24; Sg 3:6).
b. The Flight to Egypt (2:13-15)
2:15. The exact day of Herod the Great’s death is not known, but Josephus says it happened after a lunar eclipse on March 12-13, 4 BC, and before the Passover on April 11, 4 BC. Matthew’s use of Hs 11:1 (OUT OF EGYPT I CALLED MY SON) is puzzling. In its OT context, Hosea is looking backward—but not entirely. Hosea 11:9-11 contains the promise of a future restoration of the Jewish people after all their exiles. Hosea 3:4-5 indicates that Hosea knows about the future Son of David, and that He will be involved in the restoration of the nation and people. God had the power and ability to protect His people once in Egypt and brought her out from Egypt (Hs 11:1); He will protect His people and someday restore them (Hs 11:9-11). He will do this with the Son of David (Hs 3:5). Where does Jesus fit in? Jesus is the typological fulfillment of Israel, seen in that God protected both the Hebrews and Jesus in Egypt. The future restoration promised through the Son of David in Hs 3:5 and 11:9-10 will be accomplished through Jesus Christ. Just as the Jews were brought out of Egypt, and that was a proof that they would one day be restored, so Jesus being protected in and brought out of Egypt signals the commencement of Israel’s restoration. Israel’s full restoration will come only at Jesus’ second coming when He will free Israel from Gentile oppression (called “the times of the Gentiles” in Lk 21:24), following their faith in Him (cf. the comments on Mt 23:38-39 and Rm 11:20-27).
c. The Murder of Babies (2:16-18)
2:16-18. Herod discovers that he was duped by the magi, and cruelly has the baby boys in Bethlehem killed. Good estimates are that about 20 children were killed two years old and under, their ages specified to provide Herod a margin of error.
How does Matthew use Jr 31:15 (RAMAH)? Jeremiah indicated that the tears associated with exile (Jr 31:15) would end. Matthew has already made the exile a turning point in his thought (Mt 1:11-12), for during the exile the Davidic line was dethroned. The tears in Jeremiah’s day caused by the exile find a parallel in the tears of the mothers of Bethlehem. The exile is nearly over, the heir to David’s throne has come, and the true Son will introduce a new covenant (Jr 31:31ff.; Mt 26:28) promised by Jeremiah. See the comments on Jr 31:15.
d. The Disdain Because of His Hometown (2:19-23)
2:19-22. Herod’s kingdom was divided among his sons Philip, Antipas, and Archelaus. Archelaus ruled Judea proper, Samaria, and Idumea. He was more debauched than the others, his nine-year reign marked by immorality, brutality, and tyranny. Matters got so bad that there were complaints lodged in Rome against him by a deputation of Jews and Samaritans. Augustus summoned him to Rome, fired him, and exiled him to Gaul in AD 6. God warned Joseph about Archelaus, and when the family left Egypt, they went into the region of Galilee and lived in Nazareth, under the control of Herod Antipas.
2:23. He shall be called a Nazarene has no clear OT source. Nazarene apparently was a term of scorn in the first century (Jn 1:45-46; Ac 24:5), and Matthew appears to indicate that the OT prophets foretold that the Messiah would be despised (cf. Ps 22:1, 6-8, 13; 69:8, 20-21; Is 49:7; 53:2-3; and see Mt 8:20; 11:19; 15:7-8).
4. The Messiah’s Forerunner (3:1-12)
3:1-4. Matthew shifts his narrative about 30 years into the future to the start of Jesus’ ministry. John the Baptist’s attire (3:4) is strikingly similar to Elijah’s (2Kg 1:8), and Matthew makes that connection explicit (Mt 11:14; see Lk 1:17). Matthew thus consistently uses the phrase kingdom of heaven, not “kingdom of God” as in the other gospels, probably because his Jewish audience might have been offended at the excessive and overly-familiar use of God’s name. What is the kingdom of heaven? In Luke’s gospel, the initial announcements of the kingdom were made to Mary regarding her Son, of whom the angel Gabriel says, “God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end” (Lk 1:32-33). Gabriel appeared to reiterate the Davidic covenant found in 2Sm 7, in which God promised David a son who would rule and reign over His kingdom Israel forever. Of importance are the verbal parallels between Lk 1:32-33 and 2Sm 7:13-16 (both passages referring to and using the words “son,” “house,” “kingdom,” “throne,” and “forever”), which indicate that Jesus has come, among other things, to fulfill the role as the ultimate Son of David. These points suggest that the gospel writers had an apologetic purpose, to argue for Jesus fulfilling the promises regarding David’s seed ruling over David’s kingdom. It makes the best sense to see this kingdom as the same one promised in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is a literal geopolitical kingdom in which there was a ruling king, replete with authority that is exercised over a literal people and a literal land. Matthew calls it the kingdom of heaven not because it exists only in heaven, but because it will come to earth from heaven.
3:5-12. The connection between the baptism administered by John and the confession given by those baptized is disputed. The preposition for (eis) in the phrase for repentance (v. 11) can carry the nuance “because of” or “on the basis of” (see Mt 10:41, where the phrase “in [eis] the name of a prophet” could be translated “on the basis of the name of a prophet” or “because one is called a prophet”), so that the baptism in water by John is “because of” or “on the basis of” the prior repentance of the people. John’s blistering words for the Pharisees and Sadducees (v. 7) indicate that there was an element among those who came whose actions were hypocritical. We have Abraham for our father (v. 9) indicates that their ethnic and religious background was presumptuous and gave them false security. To be children to Abraham was wrongly restricted to Jewish people in their thinking, and would depend upon one’s repentance (a change of mind regarding one’s sins). True repentance was to be demonstrated by the production of good fruit (v. 10), the absence of which negated the baptism and showed the repentance to be spurious. For Matthew, it is good fruit that provides the evidence that one is in right standing with God (i.e., “saved”), not the supposed presence of life without good fruit (Mt 7:16-20; 13:3-9; 18-23).
John declares that the baptism Jesus will bring will be with the Holy Spirit and fire (v. 11). Jesus is the “baptizer” and the Spirit is the element into which the believer is baptized (Mk 1:8; Lk 3:16; Jn 1:33; Ac 1:5; 11:16, and even 1Co 12:13). The Spirit does not do the baptizing. With the Holy Spirit and fire indicates that everyone will experience both aspects of this baptism, either a baptism in the Spirit that is a “refining fire” (strengthening through trials or growth in sanctification; see Zch 13:9; Rm 8:12-14; 1Pt 1:7) for those who embrace Christ, or for those who do not embrace the Messiah, a “fiery judgment” (Gn 19:24; Ps 21:9; Ezk 22:20; 2Th 1:7-8; Heb 10:27) eternal in duration.
B. The King-Messiah’s Preparation for Ministry (3:13–4:11)
1. The Messiah’s Baptism (3:13-17)
3:13-14. John’s reluctance to baptize Jesus is understandable. John’s baptism was in response to one’s confession of sins, was preparatory for the One who would dispense the fiery Spirit baptism, and was enacted in anticipation of the coming kingdom. Jesus was sinless, was ready to dispense the eschatological baptism, and was the King who was present. How could John baptize Him? Jesus’ baptism, however, was important for establishing His identification with John, the coming kingdom John preached, and those who had undergone John’s baptism in preparation for that kingdom.
3:15-17. In the baptism of Jesus, both Jesus and John cooperate to fulfill all righteousness (v. 15). This is My beloved Son (v. 17) (citing Ps 2:7) is from a Psalm loaded with messianic freight, and in whom I am well pleased (Is 42:1) is about the call of the Suffering Servant. In Is 42:1, God says, “I have put My Spirit upon Him.” This finds a parallel in Mt 3:16 with the words Spirit … descending … on Him. How does all this fit together? Jesus entreated John to baptize Him so that together they might do all that God required (righteousness) of Jesus as He fulfilled Scripture when He embarked on His messianic suffering-servant ministry for which God gave Him a visible manifestation of the Holy Spirit who came upon Him. The Spirit descending as a dove probably does not refer to creation (Gen 1:2 where the Spirit hovered dove-like) nor to Noah’s dove (Gn 8:8-12). It seems to be simply a visual manifestation apparently seen only by Jesus and John (Mt 3:16; Jn 1:32-33), intended to convey God’s approval of His Son as He embarked on His ministry.
2. The Messiah’s Test (4:1-11)
With His baptism, the first of two prerequisites for Jesus beginning His ministry was over. The second involved His testing. At His baptism, God identified Jesus as His Son. In the first two temptations, the Devil attacks Him on precisely His divine Sonship.
4:1-2. There are a number of parallels between Jesus’ temptations and the testing of Israel in the wilderness (Dt 8:2). Israel was led by the Spirit (Neh 9:20) as was Jesus (Mt 4:1). Moses fasted for 40 days (Ex 34:28; Dt 9:9) and later Elijah did as well (1Kg 19:8). Matthew may allude to these possibly to indicate that Jesus was the supreme prophet or the “new Moses.”
4:3-4. The first temptation may have been designed to influence Jesus to act independently of God by using His own powers to alleviate His hunger. But Jesus responded by citing Dt 8:3, which is in a context of God humbling Israel, evaluating the people’s obedience, determining if they would depend on Him, disciplining them as a father disciplines a son (Dt 8:3-5). Where Israel failed, Jesus was faithful.
4:5-7. In the second temptation, the Devil cited Scripture about God’s promises to protect His people (Ps 91:11-12). Either physically or in a vision, Jesus was taken to the temple probably because it symbolized God’s intense care for His people (Ps 18:6; 48:9; 65:4), the very point of this temptation. Jesus responded with another reference to Deuteronomy (6:16), where Moses warned the people not to test God as they had when they sought to force Him to give them water (Ex 17:1-7). While God promises to protect His children, they must not coerce Him to do so, which would be tantamount to turning Him into their slave. Jesus’ response does not indicate that this temptation was to dupe Jesus into a spectacular display so that people would forcibly make Him king and cause Him to bypass the cross.
4:8-10. The third temptation may also have been a visionary experience. What the Devil offered Jesus, the Father had already promised Him, namely world dominion (Nm 24:15-19; Ps 2:7-8; Dn 7:13-14). Jesus cited Dt 6:13, a verse found in the context of warnings about idolatry on the eve of the Hebrews entering the Holy Land. Failure to worship God alone would result in decisive judgment (Dt 6:14-15), and had Jesus succumbed to the temptation to worship the Devil, He would have faced God’s wrath and forfeited His saving role.
4:11. Unlike Israel in the wilderness, Jesus did not fail when He was tested. When the Devil left him, angels came to minister to [lit., “to serve”] Him—possibly indicating that they brought food since a forty-day fast would have left Him precariously weak.
There are practical lessons suggested by this episode. First, Jesus drew upon Scripture to resist the attacks of the Devil. How can Christians hope to fare very well against Satan if they have little knowledge of the Word (Eph 6:17)? Second, the Devil quoted Scripture, but did so out of context. Psalm 91:11-12 is about His protection in the vicissitudes of life, not in presumptuous and impetuous actions chosen in foolishness. God’s people must not only be able to quote Scripture, but will need to know what it means in its context. Third, eventually God met all of Jesus’ needs, and as His children wait humbly for Him to act, He will never let them down.
II. The Authority of the King-Messiah (4:12–11:1)
A. The Setting for the Expression of the Messiah’s Authority (4:12-25)
1. The Messiah’s Relocation to Galilee (4:12-16)
4:12-16. Jesus shifted His base of operations back to Galilee in the north, probably because of the threat posed by Herod Antipas who incarcerated John the Baptist. It was also a logical place for Jesus to begin the more aggressive phase of His ministry. Galilee was open, densely populated, and laced with roads that fostered its bustling commerce. Matthew indicates that Jesus’ relocation fulfilled Is 9:1-2. This prophecy, connected with the birth of the Child in Is 9:6-7, refers not to the restoration of the tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali after the exile but to the ultimate restoration of Israel in messianic days, aspects of which were beginning during Jesus’ ministry.
2. The Messiah’s Initial Followers (4:17-25)
4:17. Repent means “to change one’s mind (about the seriousness of one’s sins) and behavior.” It does not carry the primary sense of sorrow over sin, nor is it usually understood in the Gospels strictly as a mental adjustment. When John the Baptist preached repentance, he expected it to be accompanied by a change in behavior (Mt 3:7-10; see Lk 3:8-14).
4:18-22. It is unclear what other exposure to Jesus Peter and Andrew might have had before this call, but it is likely that there was some. Fishers of men, in contrast to their previous vocation, suggests that their role would be to help win people to the movement started by the Lord. Their response was immediate, but while Peter and Andrew left their nets, James and John left their father, implying a deeper sacrifice.
4:23-25. Matthew 4:23 has a virtual twin in Mt 9:35, with minor differences depicted by the bold font in the chart below.
This feature, called an inclusio, implies that Matthew intended the material between 4:23 and 9:35 to be read as a thematic whole. That primary theme is Jesus’ authority. In 4:23a, b, c, Jesus exercised His prophetic authority by His teaching and preaching. A grand example of this was the Sermon on the Mount, chapters 5–6–7 (see especially 7:29). In 4:23d-24, Matthew reported that He showed His authority as He healed the people (see 8:9; 9:6, 8; 10:1), a theme developed through the nine miracles in chaps. 8 and 9.
B. The Messiah’s Teaching Demonstrated His Authority: The Sermon on the Mount (5:1–7:29)
The Sermon on the Mount is probably the most famous of all the teachings of Christ, but it is difficult to determine exactly what its purpose is. The approach here is that the sermon is Jesus’ teaching about how those who repented in preparation for the coming of the kingdom should live as they await its coming.
5:1-6. The purpose of the Beatitudes is to present the virtues that should characterize those who are ready for the kingdom and to assure them of blessing and reward when it comes. Verses 1-6 express the blessedness of one who is rightly related to God and vv. 7-12 the blessedness of one who is rightly related to people. In the most basic sense, blessed means “deep joy,” usually flowing from knowing one has received divine favor. Poor in spirit (v. 3) may include an economic component, but the focus here seems to be on recognition of one’s spiritual bankruptcy; those who have nothing of their own to offer God have the kingdom. Those who mourn (v. 4) look primarily at the sadness often experienced in this evil, difficult era while anticipating the kingdom. The promise is that they shall be comforted, the passive voice referring to what God will do for them. For the idea of gentle (v. 5), see Ps 37:9-11 where the “gentle” rely on God to reverse their fortunes. On thirsting for righteousness (v. 6), see Mt 5:20.
5:7-9. Social relationships are the focus of these beatitudes. Being merciful (v. 7) embraces both forgiveness for those who are guilty and compassion for the suffering; they shall receive mercy does not indicate that God’s mercy toward us is contingent upon us showing mercy to others. Mercy cannot be merited (for a fuller explanation of this, see the comments on 18:31-35). The pure in heart (v. 8) refers to those who are morally unstained, clean, and free from duplicity or filth in their relationships with others. Peacemakers (v. 9) are sons of God because, like God, they pursue reconciliation with others, just as God has extended Himself to reconcile people to Himself.
5:10-12. Verse 10 parallels v. 3, both concluding with the same promise. Verses 11-12 serve as an expansion of v. 10. Persecution can come from living for the sake of (heneken) righteousness. But in v. 11, Jesus says that persecution can come because of (or “for the sake of,” also heneken) Me. This particular righteousness for which one might be persecuted is a righteousness based upon and found in Jesus.
5:13-16. The salt and light figures make it clear that Jesus intended His people to influence the world. The main point of the salt in this text is not to create thirst or serve as a preservative against the moral decay of the world, but to improve taste, to make the world a better place. A lamp provides light precisely so that one can see in the darkness, and it is nonsense to conceal it. The citizens of the kingdom are light, and they must shine and not conceal that light. The result is the enhancement of God’s reputation in the world, not the aggrandizement of the lamp.
5:17-19. The flow of thought is not completely clear, but the idea of good works in v. 16 might summon notions of keeping the Law as fulfilled by Christ. The phrase Law or the Prophets occurs in 7:12 where the golden rule appears to satisfy the requirements of the Law (the Pentateuch, Mt 12:5) and Prophets (the rest of the OT, Lk 16:29, 31). Matthew indicates that Jesus does fulfill the OT, using “fulfill” 15 times for bringing about what was forecast in the OT (e.g., 1:22; 2:15, 17; 8:17; 26:56). The Law or the Prophets remain relevant until all is accomplished (v. 18), the precise idea probably being that the OT serves as a beacon shining upon Jesus as the one who provides the fulfillment of messianic promises. From this standpoint all of the Law and each of the prophets are valid forever (until heaven and earth pass away, possibly at the conclusion of the millennial kingdom) as they all point toward Christ. This includes not only the Ten Commandments but all 613 of them, even the ritual and civil aspects of the Law (not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law, v. 18; not even the least of these commandments will pass away, v. 19). The religious leaders would hardly have dismissed even the least of these commandments, but they certainly would not have taught that they pointed to Jesus of Nazareth as the One who fulfilled them. However, vv. 17-18 do not require the people of God to perform the Law today, but to promote the ongoing validity of the OT as a signpost identifying Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. Only where the NT reiterates the OT commands are believers to keep the Law; but then it becomes “the Law-as-fulfilled-in-Jesus,” also known in the NT as the “law of Christ” (1Co 9:21; Gl 6:2), but is no longer the Law of Moses (cf. Rm 3:31; 8:4). Then (v. 19) introduces a conclusion Jesus draws from the previous verses. Those who minimize the importance of the OT as an apologetic for Jesus being the Messiah will face loss of rewards in the kingdom.
5:20. For I say to you introduces an additional thought to that of one’s rank within the kingdom—namely, the circumstances under which one might be excluded from the kingdom altogether. Righteousness in Matthew generally has two connotations: ethical behavior in keeping with the teachings of Jesus (Mt 5:10, 20; 6:1), and a rather Pauline understanding of righteousness as a pure, holy, and innocent status before God that He imparts to followers of Jesus. This finds support in Mt 5:6, where those prepared for the kingdom hunger and thirst for righteousness, and they are promised that “they will be satisfied”—a divine passive, so that God is the one who fills them full of righteousness. This makes it unlikely that the context allows for 5:20 to be understood as a proof text for works righteousness. See further the comments on 7:21-23.
The fundamental problem with the Pharisees was that at the core of their righteousness was keeping the law or their own oral traditions, but they excluded Jesus. The scribes and Pharisees would probably not have objected to the righteousness Jesus presented in 5:21-48, except that He claimed to be its authoritative source and that His teaching superseded the OT. The righteousness one needed to enter the kingdom of heaven came as a gift from God to the spiritually bankrupt and is found only in connection with Christ.
5:21-48. As is the case with much of Matthew, it is hard to figure out exactly the purpose of the six “antitheses” in these verses. The view adopted here is that He was presenting new revelation alongside the OT based upon His prophetic authority. Moses prophesied that a great prophet would arise in the future (Dt 18:15, 18; cf. Dt 34:10-12 for the implication that the coming of this great prophet was still future), and the NT writers see this fulfilled by Jesus (Ac 3:20-23). While Jesus is more than a prophet, He functions in the role of a prophet, calling the people back to faithfulness to God.
5:21-26. Jesus cited the sixth commandment regarding murder (Ex 20:13) but equated the guilt of an emotion with the act of murder, something not found in the sixth commandment itself. He could do this because of His prophetic authority as the law’s fulfiller. In v. 22 there is probably not an escalation in the venues of judgment, but court, supreme court, and fiery hell represent the certainty of accountability for anger expressed in a way that shames a neighbor. The main point of vv. 23-25 is that the followers of Christ are to seek reconciliation as swiftly as possible when one has harmed another out of anger.
5:27-30. Jesus cited the seventh commandment regarding adultery (Ex 20:14). Again, He connected inner motive with outward act. When Jesus said, but I say to you, He was not giving material derived from the commandment, but altogether new revelation that complemented the law. With lust for her could also be translated “in order to cause her to lust” for him. Either way, the attitude of lust is the problem here. Verses 29-30 indicate that His followers must take radical steps to conquer moral sins. Gouging out the eye or cutting off the hand are surely hyperbolic statements but suggest extreme measures to avoid sexual sins. On being thrown into hell, see the comments on 18:7-10.
5:31-32. Jesus cited Dt 24:1, 3 regarding the regulation of divorce. If lust in the heart is spiritually tantamount to adultery, then divorce without biblical warrant is full-fledged adultery. Technically, divorce was not commanded in Dt 24:1; what was commanded was the need to give a certificate of divorce, and divorce was permitted only for the reason of unchastity. See the comments on 19:1-9. What Jesus taught here went beyond Moses, who permitted divorce if a certificate were provided. But Jesus emphasized the gravity of the consequences for one who executed an improper divorce and for one who marries an improperly divorced person.
5:33-37. Jesus’ instructions regarding vows were drawn probably from several passages, for there is no single OT verse that says this precisely (see Lv 19:12; Nm 30:3; Dt 23:21; Ps 56:12). To make a vow involved the pledge to do something, to call upon God to witness the discharge of the action, and to punish if it were not carried out. The OT did not forbid the trading of vows, but it did regulate the practice. Today one might say, “I swear on the soul of my grandmother” to do this or that, and in Jesus’ day people might swear by the gold in the temple or any number of other revered things. This sounds solemn enough, but such vows were used occasionally by the unscrupulous to conceal the intention to never keep their promise. Jesus dismissed the practice altogether, demanding absolute truthfulness instead. Scripture says that God swears by Himself (Heb 6:13), and that Paul also made a vow (Ac 18:18), suggesting that making vows is permissible on earnest occasions (such as weddings or giving testimony in court).
5:38-42. Jesus may have alluded to several OT texts (Ex 21:24; Lv 24:20; Dt 19:21) regarding acts of retaliation. Dt 19:18 indicates that the “law of the tooth” (lex talionis) was a guideline for the civil authorities and did not approve private retribution. It was possible that many applied it wrongly for personal revenge, but Jesus forbade the practice for his followers. Not only should they not retaliate, they should be willing to surrender what was theirs to avoid taking revenge (turn the other [cheek] … let him have your coat also … go with him two [miles], and give and lend to those who ask; see 1Co 6:7).
5:43-48. In the last of the six antitheses, Jesus enjoins love in keeping with Lv 19:18, but goes beyond that command by insisting on loving one’s enemies (contrast 1QS 1:4, 10). Jesus’ followers are to pray for those who persecute them (see 1Th 5:17), because to do so is so like God who provides the necessities of life for all, even those who hate Him. There is no reward in loving only those who love us, for even the tax collectors and Gentiles—both despised by many of the Jewish people—show the same love (the verb is agapao) for each other. Verse 48 must be read in its context. Perfect might be translated better as “mature.” Jesus expects His followers to show the same kind of mature love for everyone, those who are pleasant and difficult, as God shows to them, especially by joyfully meeting their daily needs.
Jesus emphasized the need for virtue in Mt 5. Starting in Mt 6 he discussed the proper motives for living virtuously. A. B. Bruce (“Matthew,” The Expositor’s Greek Testament, The Synoptic Gospels, ed. W. Robertson Nicole [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans], 116) points out that in chap. 5 Jesus encouraged His followers to show their good works when they are tempted to hide them, and in chap. 6 to hide their good works when they are tempted to show them.
6:1. Righteousness has an ethical sense of giving (6:2-4), praying (6:5-15), and fasting (6:16-18). For those who follow Jesus’ teaching there is the promise of reward, a theme that dominates the chapter (6:1, 4, 6, 18). Those rewards may include God’s approval (1Co 4:5; Mt 25:21) and perhaps the opportunity to serve Him in a grand way when the kingdom comes (Lk 19:17).
6:2-4. One needed to avoid hypocrisy when fasting. Sound a trumpet suggests “calling attention to one’s self” at the start of a fast. People were hypocrites if they fasted purportedly to please God but actually to be honored (lit., “glorified”) by others, or if they gave to help others when they intended to “help themselves” by inflating their reputation. Giving was to be done in secret (not letting the left hand know what the right hand is doing), and God would “pay back” the one who gives in this manner. It is a mistake to restrict God’s reimbursement to money.
6:5-8. Hypocrisy in prayer was also forbidden. The synagogues and street corners include every indoor and outdoor public place where one might pray to impress others. Impressing others would be the only reward, but God is unimpressed. When public or corporate prayer is motivated by narcissism it is wrong.
Meaningless repetition was a characteristic of the prayers of some Gentiles (1Kg 18:26; perhaps Ac 19:34). God already knows the needs of His children and delights to meet them. Mindless repetition is unnecessary.
6:9-10. Pray, then, in this way (ESV, “like this”) indicates that this prayer provides a pattern to follow rather than a prayer to recite (though see Lk 11:2). Verses 9-10 focus upon matters related to God’s program, while vv. 11-13 focus upon people’s needs. Father probably reflects an Aramaic word Abba, which was used both during childhood and adulthood and could be used for respected men outside of one’s family. “Daddy” is not quite the best English equivalent. This intimate Father is also in heaven, emphasizing His transcendence and divinity. Hallowed is not a call to worship but is an imperative of request or entreaty for God to cause His name (His “fame”) to be revered. The kingdom has present manifestations (see Mt 13) and a future cataclysmic coming (Mt 22:1-14; 25:31-46); this petition may incorporate both a request for more people to experience the present form of the kingdom (i.e., find salvation) and for the kingdom to come soon in its full eschatological form.
6:11-13. Daily bread probably means “bread for the coming day.” On forgiveness, see 6:14-15. Temptation refers to solicitations to moral infractions, and Do not lead us into temptation is informed by the second positive part—deliver [“rescue”] us from evil or better “the evil one.” It is the Devil, not God (Jms 1:13), who initiates the temptation, but God rescues us from his evil designs.
6:14-15. Jesus expands on the theme of forgiveness in v. 12 (see the comments on 18:31-35). It is possible that He means, “If you do not forgive others, God will not forgive you,” but this runs contrary to the very idea of forgiveness, which by definition cannot be earned. It is better to see it as indicating that one’s capacity for forgiving others is tied to the receipt of forgiveness from God. If one does not or cannot forgive others, it may indicate that he has not yet received forgiveness, so that forgiving others becomes an evidence of one’s forgiveness before God.
6:16-18. Jesus forbids ostentation related to fasting. To anoint your head was a common practice in which oil laced with aromatic spices was applied to the hair or beard during times of celebration or when honoring someone (Lk 7:46; Jn 12:3). Jesus’ point is that, out of humility, one is to conceal his serious spiritual activity, even to the extent of “putting on a happy face,” and God will reward him.
6:19-21. Just as Jesus’ followers should not crave earthly acclaim (6:1-18), they should not crave earthly things (6:19-34). Jesus does not forbid the accumulation of wealth, but He does command that it not be treasured because it can be lost. Storing up treasures in heaven in context may be fostered by the spiritual disciplines of giving, praying, and fasting—performed with the right attitudes and in the right way.
6:22-23. People fix their heart on where their treasure is (vv. 19-21); so they fix their eyes on what they desire most (vv. 22-23) (for both, see Ps 119:10, 18). The clear eye probably parallels the heart set on heavenly treasure. Just as a healthy eye gives light to the body, so wholehearted fidelity to God gives meaning and light to one’s life. Unbridled lust for material things can cloud one’s spiritual sight; obsession with earthly things obscures one’s sunny view of God.
6:24. A misplaced heart and a clouded eye lead to a misaligned will that tries to serve two irreconcilably different masters. One could not have served Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Adolph Hitler at the same time. Eventually a person would default to serving one or the other, and that is the case with God and wealth (mamo nai, mamonai, “mammon,” “worldly things”).
6:25-30. Materialism beguiles one of heavenly treasure, obscures spiritual sight, and enslaves to something other than God (vv. 19-24). For this reason (v. 25) the followers of Christ must not permit themselves to be obsessed with worldly goods. Do not be worried is an imperative verb which means “to have anxiety based upon perceived or real impending misfortune” (see also Php 4:6). God gives the greater gifts (life and one’s body) and will supply the lesser ones (food, clothing). The Father feeds the birds (v. 26); but He hardly ever makes worms rain from the sky into opened beaks. They work for their food, but He providentially puts worms where the birds peck. His children are more precious to Him than birds; they can count on Him to provide food, clothing, and shelter, usually through their work (which He also provides). By being worried (v. 27) one cannot add a single hour (literally “one cubit”) to one’s life span, which is sometimes described in units of measured distances. Wild flowers usually grow only for a few weeks in Israel because it is so arid, but God dresses them with splendor (vv. 28-30). The materials to make dyes were difficult to obtain and yielded mediocre results. Even Solomon could not clothe himself in garments as brilliantly colored as the lilies of the field. Such vegetation, however, was disposable, used for tinder to light the fire in a home’s oven. God can be trusted to clothe the follower of Jesus, whom He values more than dried grass.
6:31-32. For the second time Jesus forbids fixating on things. Such obsession characterizes the Gentiles—probably a reference to those outside the covenant community of God who, as a result, do not know God’s provision.
6:33. The kingdom includes both a future cataclysmic coming and present effects (see the commentary on Mt 13). To seek first His kingdom involves not only being prepared for its future coming but also incarnating its values and glorifying its King in the present time. His righteousness (see 6:1) surely includes what He demands of His children ethically (see the connection of kingdom and ethical righteousness in Rm 14:17). All these things include the basic essentials of life. There is no guarantee that God provides luxury items when people claim them or visualize their reception. The main point of 6:33 is that God so demands His people’s undivided attention that He promises to provide their necessities so that they will not worry about them and can fully concentrate on Him.
6:34. In the phrase tomorrow will care [lit., “will worry”] for itself, Jesus probably personifies tomorrow as owning its own anxieties. It is folly to wrest what belongs to “Mr. Tomorrow” and make it one’s own today. Instead, when tomorrow comes, it will have enough trouble of its own, but God will enable the believer to handle those troubles then (6:25).
7:1-2. Jesus has been discussing His disciples’ motivation. Here He begins to discuss His disciples’ relationships with others, especially those who are antagonistic to His message. Do not judge does not mean that believers are to suspend all discernment. In 7:6 determining the identity of the “dogs” and “swine,” as well as false prophets (v. 15), is impossible without critical thinking. Judge means “harsh, destructive criticism.” If a person sets himself up as judge, it implies that he has a broader knowledge of God’s Word and standards and a higher degree of being able to live it. The harsh, strict standards by which they criticize others will be the same standard by which God will hold them accountable.
7:3-5. Judgmentalism (7:1-2) can easily lead to fault-finding (7:3-5). When people are critical of others without recognizing their own faults, they have the satisfaction of self-righteousness without the rigors of self-improvement. One is a hypocrite who uses an apparent act of kindness (removing a speck) to inflate his own ego. Before presuming to help others, one must undergo some self-discipline and yield to the discipline of the Lord (Ps 51:10-13).
7:6. If one is not to be judgmental, neither is one to be completely blind to others’ faults. Dogs and swine were considered unclean animals by the Jews. The holy thing and the pearls, given the context of vv. 3-5, may be the correction a disciple might give to someone who needs it, after the disciple has removed the log from his own eye.
7:7-11. When seeking to remove the speck from someone’s eye (vv. 3-5), or trying to discern when to refrain from casting pearls (v. 6), one must pray for wisdom and discernment. Verse 8 does is not guarantee that every persistent prayer will be answered the way one prefers. The context (vv. 6-11) suggests that God is generous when His people ask for discernment when “casting pearls before swine.” Three analogies indicate He will gladly provide discernment. First, many desert rocks had roughly the same color and shape as loaves of bread, but no father would substitute a rock if a child asked for bread (v. 9). Second, snakes were considered unclean for eating (Lv 11:12) but like fish had scales. A snake filet might resemble a fish filet, but no father would deliberately trick a child with something that would defile him (v. 10). Third, as parents give gifts to their children, similarly God will give wisdom in knowing how to act toward those who are resistant (v. 11).
7:12. This is arguably the most famous verse in all Scripture. God is gracious in response to prayer for discernment (vv. 6-11), so God’s people should be gracious in how they treat others (v. 12). The guideline is to treat others the way one wishes to be treated. Such an approach summarizes and fulfills the 39 books of the Hebrew canon (the Law and the Prophets) and puts in pithy form the command, “love your neighbor as yourself” (Lv 19:18; Mt 22:39; Rm 13:8-9).
7:13-14. Verse 12 concludes the Sermon on the Mount. What follows in vv. 13-27 are four warnings Jesus gives to His audience about applying the sermon. The first warning (vv. 13-14) is a caution to the lost about where they are headed. The verb enter (v. 13) has no grammatical object, but v. 14 indicates that eternal life is the destination and should probably be understood here. The narrow gate, small gate and narrow way are harder to find than the wide ones and must be sought deliberately, or people will not escape destruction. The narrow way that leads to life is found only by faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Jn 14:6; Ac 4:12). Destruction means “a loss that produces utter ruin, perishing,” and here refers to loss of eternal life.
7:15-20. This is the second warning, cautioning His followers about “pretenders.” Perhaps the connection here with vv. 13-14 is that false prophets prevent others from entering the narrow gate because they beckon people to the broad gate. Verses 16-20 tell of their deeds, vv. 21-23 of their words.
False prophets (v. 15) are ravenous wolves who look like the sheep but will devour God’s flock for their devious ends. Not all who claim to be a part of the covenant community are. Jesus teaches that there are wolves in sheep’s clothing, houses that look similar but have different foundations, tares that resemble wheat (13:24), wise and foolish virgins (25:1-13), and good and bad slaves (25:14-30). Fruits refer to the actions of false prophets, and while their deeds might temporarily conceal who they really are, eventually their actions will betray them (vv. 16-18). A false prophet does evil deeds and teaches rotten doctrine just as surely as a bad plant produces correspondingly bad fruit
7:21-23. This is the third warning, directed at those who claim to be a part of Jesus’ community but who are not. No one is allowed admission into the kingdom on the basis of the good deeds he has performed, no matter how spectacular they might be (prophesy, cast out demons, perform many miracles). Entering the kingdom only happens when one has the kind of righteousness grounded in Christ that surpasses the Pharisees’ (5:10-11, 20); when, like a little child, one depends on the Lord for entrance (18:3); when one recognizes that entering is possible only as God effects it (19:16-17, 23-26); and when one enters only through Jesus (and the religious leaders hindered people from doing this, 23:13). I never knew you has the sense, “I do not recognize you as one of my people,” and their alleged good deeds He views as LAWLESSNESS.
7:24-27. The last of the four warnings, this one is about acting upon the words of Jesus. Just as there are wolves among the sheep (7:15-23) and tares among the wheat (13:24-30) until the end, so do the houses of the wise and foolish stand side by side until the Son of Man comes to judge and take His throne. The house is a person who has heard Jesus’ words; the rock represents the teachings of Jesus that, as one does them, result in withstanding the storm, whether it be eschatological judgment (Is 29:6; 30:30; Ezk 13:10-16; 38:22) or life’s trials.
7:28-29. The scribes were virtually walking footnotes who derived their authority by citing other famous rabbis. By contrast Jesus taught with His own authority, functioning as a prophet, giving new revelation from God. Jesus’ authority continues into the next several chapters of Matthew (see 8:9, 27; 9:6, 8; 10:1), serving to tie the Sermon on the Mount where He displayed His authority through His teaching with chaps. 8–10 where He displayed His authority through His miracle-working ministry.
C. The Messiah’s Miracles Demonstrated His Authority (8:1–9:34)
Matthew 11:4-5 is a key for understanding chaps. 8 and 9. The miracles not only show Jesus’ compassion but also confirm His messianic authority. Matthew 11:6 (“And blessed is he who does not take offense at Me”) is equally important as it serves to connect the narratives about the miracles in Mt 8 and 9 with the dialogue in these chapters. Donald A. Hagner (Matthew 1-13, WBC [Dallas: Word Books, 1993], 196) points out that Jesus confronted several groups whose response to Him was either appropriate or deficient (see 8:10; 8:26-27; 9:8; 9:3, 11; 9:33-34). Those who are blessed are those who do not stumble over Jesus; they or their loved ones usually receive healing. But those who stumble over Him face dire consequences (8:11-12).
8:1-4. Leprosy was a term applied to skin diseases such as eczema, psoriasis, possibly seborrhea, not Hansen’s Disease (or modern leprosy). Leprosy rendered one a social outcast (Lv 13:45-46), ritually impure (Lv 13:3-30), and was thought to be a sign of judgment (2Ch 26:20; Nm 12:9-12). When Jesus touched him, He was formally violating Lv 5:3; but the Law was to benefit people (Mk 2:27), and to help someone was no real infringement of the Law. In the next miracle He heals with a word without touching the sick one. Perhaps Jesus knew that this leper needed caring physical contact, something denied him during his illness. The healed leper was to show [himself] to the priest and offer the prescribed sacrifices in obedience to Lv 14:1-33. For Mt 8:4, see the comments on 9:27-31.
8:5-13. Capernaum was the center of Jesus’ Galilean ministry (cf. 4:13). The centurion in a Roman legion would be roughly somewhere between a high-ranking noncommissioned officer and a captain in the modern army. He oversaw 100 soldiers, with each legion having 60 groups of 100 when fully staffed. This centurion was courteous in not insisting that Jesus come under [his] roof, as Jewish people often refused to enter the homes of Gentiles to avoid becoming ritually impure. The centurion’s faith was bolstered by his own military context. He was given authority and exercised it over his troops. Jesus had authority over all diseases and the evil spirits that sometimes inflict them. Jesus had not seen faith like this “even in Israel”—the birthplace of faith in God. Those who will come from east and west are probably Gentiles like the centurion and not scattered Jews. Those with faith will recline … in the kingdom of heaven, which is likened to a wedding feast (Is 25:6; Mt 25:10; Lk 14:15; Rv 19:7-10). The sons of the kingdom refer to the Jewish people who simply assumed their inclusion in the messianic kingdom (see m. Sanh. 10:1) and who even viewed themselves as God’s agents in judging the nations (2 Bar 72:6; T. Abr. 13:6). Jesus makes it clear that without faith in Him they would be excluded from the kingdom. The outer darkness (Mt 22:13; 25:30) and weeping and gnashing of teeth (13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30) are metaphors for the experience of God’s judgment reserved for unbelievers. Some scholars view those in the outer darkness as believers excluded from the celebrative aspects of the kingdom because they failed to live for God (the view of Zane C. Hodges, Grace in Eclipse: A Study on Eternal Rewards [Dallas: Redención Viva, 1985], 83-95). This view is impossible, however, in light of 13:42, 50, where tares, who are labeled “sons of the evil one” in 13:38, and bad fish, called “wicked,” not righteous, in 13:48, experience this judgment.
8:14-17. Peter’s mother-in-law was healed so thoroughly that she had no residual effects, evident in that she waited on Him. The citation of Is 53:4 has engendered considerable discussion. Does the atonement guarantee healing for Christians? The answer is, “Yes, but…” Believers are guaranteed the resurrection body in the atonement also (Rm 6:4-10), but there is no indication that they will receive it prior to the rapture of the Church, at which time—and not before—God frees His child from all physical and spiritual ills. Matthew cites Is 53 as initial proof that Jesus was filling the role of the Suffering Servant, with the fuller, more climactic fulfillment coming at His crucifixion and experienced by the Church at the rapture.
8:18-22. It is possible that Jesus’ departure to the east side of the Sea of Galilee prompted some to pursue remaining with Him. Teacher is used in Matthew by people who did not actually believe in Jesus (12:38; 19:16; 22:16, 24, 36). Scribe(s) is used 23 times in Matthew, each time negatively except 23:2-3. Son of Man is used in contexts that either emphasize His earthly ministry and divine authority (9:6; 12:8; 19:28) or His suffering and death (8:20; 17:12, 22; 20:18). Daniel 7:13-14 uses it in an eschatological context for the One who establishes the kingdom on earth (see Mt 24:27-39). Jesus emphasized not only His divine authority but also His humility. Only one who is divine could inaugurate the kingdom and reconcile God and humankind. Nowhere to lay His head testifies of the rigors of Jesus’ itinerate ministry. Following Jesus would be a challenge for the scribe, for the disciples (who leave their homes in 8:23 for the east side of the Sea of Galilee), and for anyone.
Bury my father probably includes both the funeral and the months of mourning that traditionally followed. Burial of one’s father was so important that other religious observances could be suspended (e.g., saying daily prayers, study of the Torah), but following the Messiah was the highest priority. The dead burying the dead probably means, “Let those who are dead to the call of the kingdom bury those who are physically dead.”
8:23-27. The Sea of Galilee (a fresh-water lake) is rimmed by hills and valleys that can funnel high winds that can whip up whitecaps abruptly. These violent waves, however, do not fully subside for 24–48 hours, making this miracle remarkable (it became perfectly calm) when the winds instantly abated and the water became glassy. Matthew may have drawn a parallel with Israel’s deliverance at the Red Sea in Ex 14 (the people cried out for deliverance beside the water, had fear, were rescued by God, and as a result, had faith in God and Moses). Jesus is the “New Moses” and more—Jesus rebuked the winds and waves and they obeyed, but Moses was silent.
8:28-34. The country of the Gadarenes is difficult to locate with certainty, and a number of textual variants are connected with the name (“Gergasenes?” “Gerasenes?”). It is probably the general area of Gadara, a city about five miles southeast of the Sea of Galilee. Its influence extended to that sea, including the town now called Kursi. The topography there fits Matthew’s description, with fertile but steep slopes that plummet into the sea.
What business do we have with each other? is an OT phrase (2Sm 16:10; 1Kg 17:18; 2Kg 3:13) that always indicates hostility. Torment us before the time: Demons will be tortured forever in judgment (Jd 6; Rv 20:10; 1 Enoch 16:1; Jub 10:8-9; T. Levi 18:12; 1QS 3:24-25; 4:18-20). Jesus, because He is the Son of God, will mete out this punishment at the appointed time, but the Gadarean episode is a foreshadowing of that future judgment.
The presence of swine makes it likely that this was a Gentile region, and the city of Gadara was in the Gentile province of the Decapolis. It is not clear why the demons wanted Jesus to send them into the herd, though 12:43-45 implies that demons seek hosts to wreak their destructive work. Jesus permits them, but the situation does not unfold as they anticipated. The drowning may have occurred to show the demons’ colossal power versus the superior power of Jesus or possibly as a sign of their future judgment. Mark 5:13 says there were 2,000 pigs, and as any hog farmer will attest, they are uncooperative creatures.
It is also unclear why the townspeople implored Him to leave. They appear to be worried about further financial loss, and the identity of Jesus as well as the deliverance of the demoniacs was inconsequential to them, suggesting that their priorities were skewed. The proper response, in spite of their loss, would have been to welcome Christ, thank Him for delivering the possessed men, and help to spread His fame in the region (see Mk 5:18-20).
9:1-8. Matthew continues to emphasize the theme of authority (9:6, 8) and the reaction of various groups to His miracles. The paralytic needed physical healing, but his greater need was spiritual. The reaction to Jesus’ pronouncement of forgiveness is understandable in light of the OT texts that ascribe the prerogative only to God (Is 43:25; 44:22). Blasphemes (v. 3) means “to speak against someone,” “to harm one’s reputation.” When a person claimed to have divine privileges, it diminished God’s unique and exalted place by suggesting that a mere human could share His attributes. It was not just uttering a theological lie. The healing confirmed that Jesus was not blaspheming, that He did have the divine authority to forgive sins. Miracles in the Gospels and Acts frequently occur to substantiate those whom God used to initiate a new movement and to validate new revelation.
9:9. The call of Matthew took place in Capernaum, and it is likely that he was willing to follow so readily because of observing these miracles. As a tax collector, Matthew’s job may have been to work a tollbooth for people traveling to or from the regions under Herod Antipas (Galilee) and Philip the Tetrarch (Gaulinitis, northeast of the Sea of Galilee, roughly the same as the modern Golan Heights). Tax collectors usually contracted with Roman authorities to gather a set amount of tax revenue each year, and as long as that quota was met, those authorities were satisfied. They made a profit by overcharging people, and their assistance rendered to Rome as well as their contacts with Gentiles resulted in Jewish people despising them.
9:10-13. Sinners refers to those who, at best, were irreligious, and at worst reputed violators of the Law. The question posed by the Pharisees in v. 11 is more of an accusation than a request for information. They disapproved of Jesus’ interaction with such known sinners for He was allowing Himself to be defiled by their company, and perhaps charged Him with “guilt by association.” The words healthy and righteous should be understood as ironic, for Jesus saw the Pharisees as being neither (cf. 5:20), though these words summarized their estimation of their own condition. Jesus cites Hs 6:6 in v. 13. Neither Hosea nor Jesus should be understood as dismissing sacrifices, for God desired them; but He desired COMPASSION (mercy) more. The Pharisees were in the same category as the apostates of Hosea’s day for they neither showed compassion toward the outcasts Jesus was reaching nor joy at their repentance. Many believers today fall into this trap as they pompously isolate themselves from the world, when God desires them to extend His love even to those on the fringes of society.
9:14-17. It is likely that John the Baptist was imprisoned by Herod Antipas by this time (see 14:1-12). The disciples of John had ascetic tendencies as did John and, on the topic of fasting, were in agreement with the Pharisees. Jesus’ disciples did not fast since it was inappropriate for them to do so—the bridegroom (Jesus) was still present, a cause for celebration. The guests at a wedding feast freely enjoyed themselves. Later, when He was gone, His disciples would fast.
The connection of vv. 16-17 with what precedes is unclear. Perhaps by these images He (and Matthew) meant that His presence (vv. 14-15) entailed the rise of a new spirituality that could not simply be added onto Judaism as most were practicing it. Those, like John’s disciples and the Pharisees, could not maintain their traditional ways and add “a little bit of Jesus” to them. There is considerable continuity between the Hebrew Scriptures and the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, but the religious system of Israel could not be just slightly amended without disastrous results (a worse tear results … the wine pours out and the wineskins are ruined). Jesus’ point is not so much that Judaism and Christianity, respectively, are ruined by trying to combine them, as if they are both perfectly fine when unmixed. Instead, He proposed that catastrophe follows such an attempt, namely the forfeiture of salvation found only in Him.
9:18-19. The four miracles in 9:18-34 may provide concrete examples of individuals coming wholly to Jesus for their “preservation” (9:17), as well as providing substantiation that Jesus is the Messiah (see 11:4-6).
The typical synagogue official would have been similar to an administrative elder or executive pastor. He did relatively little of the preaching, but recruited those who did and otherwise oversaw the affairs of a synagogue. These officials were usually prominent in their communities.
9:20-22. Why did Matthew intertwine the miracle of the official’s daughter and the woman with the hemorrhage? There are few clues, but both episodes emphasize Jesus’ compassion (see 9:36) and His ability to deliver against all human expectations and perceived time constraints (the daughter was already dead by the time Jesus got to the official’s home in all three gospels [Mk 5:35; Lk 8:49]; the woman had been ill for 12 years). God can work on behalf of His children even when they think enough time has passed to make it impossible for Him to do so.
The hemorrhage was due to some uterine disorder, and this sort of illness had serious social and spiritual implications (Lv 15:19-25; see also Ezk 36:17; CD 4.12-5:17; 11QTemple 48:15-17; Josephus, War 5.227; m. Nidda; m. Zabim 4:1). The fringe of His cloak may have been the tassels that were worn on the four corners of one’s garments to remind a person of the Law (Nm 15:38-41; Dt 22:12). It is possible that the sick woman did not approach Jesus directly because of the shame of her condition. Made you well is literally “saved you.” When Paul uses the verb it usually means “being rescued” from the eternal consequences of sin, and Matthew uses it this way (1:21; 10:22; 16:25; 18:11; 19:25); but here it may mean little more than God delivering her from her physical condition.
9:23-26. At the official’s home, a crowd in noisy disorder had gathered, probably consisting of musicians, professional mourners, and friends bringing food and condolences (2Ch 35:25; Jr 9:17-22; 16:7; Ezk 24:17, 22; Hs 9:4; Ec 12:5; Am 5:16). The job of the professionals was to express grief for the family, the louder the better. Even a poor family was expected to hire two flute players and one wailing woman (m. Ketub 4:4). The crowd began laughing at Him when He said the girl was just asleep. They may have felt disdain for Him as they knew she was dead and perhaps Jesus did not yet know it, or because they assumed that even this great Healer could not raise one from the dead. But “sleep” was an apt description of her condition; when people sleep they awaken from that temporary condition. Because of Jesus’ authority, her state of death was rendered temporary. This was also the first time in Matthew’s Gospel that Jesus raised one from the dead, and this was important for substantiating His messianic identity (Mt 11:5).
9:27-31. This is the first explicit mention of healing the blind in Matthew. According to the OT, messianic days would be accompanied by sight being restored (Is 29:18; 35:5; 42:7). The miracle lent weight to the claim that Jesus was the Messiah (Mt 11:5), and the blind men recognized Him as such, calling Him by the messianic title Son of David (9:27; see Matt 1:1) and even Lord (9:28). Josephus (Ant. 8.42-49) ascribes great healing prowess to Solomon, David’s son, which may account for the title here.
As in the case of the woman with the hemorrhage (9:22), the key for the blind men being healed was their faith. Apparently, Jesus wanted to avoid the sensationalism this miracle might produce, and sternly warned them against announcing it. There was the risk that the crowds would foment rebellion against Rome utilizing Jesus as the messianic liberator and cause Him to bypass the cross. The men, however, could not contain themselves.
9:32-34. Matthew says that the demon was cast out of the mute man in contrast to the other miracles where he wrote that people were “healed.” The exorcism provided the setting for the accusation of the Pharisees that Jesus conspired with the ruler of the demons to help this man (see 10:25; 12:24). The accusation was public, given in response to the musings of the crowd, and signals open and explicit opposition by the Pharisees for the first time in Matthew. The opposition grew considerably more intense from that point on.
D. The Messiah’s Disciples Functioned with His Authority (9:35–11:1)
9:35-38. On 9:35 and its broader contextual connections, see the comments on 4:23-25. The harvest refers to the extensive needs of the distressed and downcast people of Israel, who were like sheep without a shepherd, a phrase that had messianic associations (Ezk 34:5, 23). Jesus commanded the disciples to pray that God would raise up and send out workers—and then Jesus enlisted the disciples to do what He urged them to pray about. God’s people must always pray—but there comes a time when effort must be coupled with entreaty.
10:1-4. The inclusio of 4:23 and 9:35 finds a continuation in 10:1, where the words that conclude 4:23 and 9:35 occur again. Chapter 10 is the second major discourse in Matthew and continues the theme of Jesus’ authority (10:1). This is a precursor of the Great Commission in Mt 28:18-20. For a detailed discussion of the twelve disciples, see John MacArthur, “Matthew 8-15,” MNTC (Chicago: Moody, 1987), 129-182.
10:5-6. These verses specify the “target audience” of the disciples. They were not to go to the Gentiles or to the Samaritans, though no reason is given for the restriction to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Perhaps the best reason is that it was expedient to go to those with whom the disciples shared a common set of values and beliefs. There would be time for a ministry to the Samaritans and Gentiles later (10:18). The Jewish national rejection of Messiah had not yet taken place (Mt 12:14, 24); only afterward could the message be taken to the Gentiles (cf. Rm 11:11).
10:7-8. Here, Jesus instructs the Twelve about some of the ministry activities they would perform. No nature miracles are mentioned, and, as Craig Blomberg points out, the curing of each of these kinds of maladies occurred in the book of Acts (3:1-10; 8:7, 13; 9:32-43; 14:8-10; 19:13-16; 20:7-12) except for lepers (Matthew, NAC [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1992], 171).
10:9-10. Jesus also instructed them regarding their belongings while engaged in this work. There is a harmonization problem between Matthew and Mark. In Matthew, Jesus forbids taking sandals and a staff (with other items). In Mk 6:8-9, Jesus allows them. The best solution is that Jesus allowed only one pair of sandals and one staff in keeping with Mark, but not two. That Jesus, in Matthew, says “shake the dust off your feet” (10:14) and not “off your sandals” does not prove they lacked sandals. Mark 6:11 says “shake the dust off the soles of your feet,” but those feet had sandals. Given the harsh terrain of the land of Israel, walking for any distance without shod feet would be impossible, and theirs was to be a traveling ministry (see the verbs for going, entering, and leaving in vv. 5-15). If the disciples had sandals when they began their travels, then they probably also had one tunic and one staff but should not acquire more. By being lightly equipped they would not be hampered by the weight of transporting extra supplies and would experience and demonstrate God’s provision. Accusations of greed would also not stick to them.
10:11-14. The instruction to stay at a house until you leave would help the disciples not waste time finding better accommodations, nor perplex an initial host. Peace was often associated with the arrival of the Messianic Age (Is 9:6; 52:7; Mc 5:5; Nah 1:15; Zch 9:10); if a house is worthy probably means “they welcome you and your message,” then they would have the kind of peace that will characterize the kingdom and avoid the judgment for those who do not embrace the gospel (Mt 10:15). Jewish people who traveled through Gentile regions would shake the dust off their feet (v. 14), for unholy places might make one unclean or one could track defilement into Jewish districts (cf. m. Ohal. 2:3). For the disciples to do this as a testimony against Jewish homes was to insinuate that they might someday be judged by God just as the Gentiles would be.
10:16-20. Verses 16-20 present the likelihood of more active opposition, and may have been given by Jesus in preparation for what would happen to them further in the future. These kinds of persecution happened in the book of Acts.
Sheep and doves are both victims of predators with few defenses, and the metaphors suggest that the disciples were to be transparent and vulnerable to people to serve them, but they were also to be wise as serpents (or “snakes”), which have a knack for self-preservation. The disciples were not to be unduly naïve, resulting in perpetual victimization. The courts (v. 17), refer to judicial actions against the disciples. Though they would encounter overwhelming obstacles, they nevertheless must provide a testimony (lit., “witness”) to their abusers. The promise of vv. 19-20 was intended chiefly for the disciples, and in Acts they speak in crisis situations while “filled with the Holy Spirit” (Ac 4:8; 7:55; 13:9). The promise that their words will be given to them by the Spirit reflects a prophetic experience that is not guaranteed to every believer.
10:21-22. The one who has endured, based on vv. 21-22, is the one who continues his witness in the midst of furious antagonism. The end sometimes refers to the last days (e.g., 1Co 1:8; Rv 2:26), but it often carries a less technical sense of “the end (of a period of time)” (Lk 1:33; 1Co 10:11; 2Co 3:13; 1Pt 4:7). In v. 21, death due to persecution makes it likely that the end here is the end of life, whether from persecution or other causes. Saved refers to spiritual deliverance, and perseverance is the evidence from which one can infer that a person is saved (Col 1:22-23; Heb 3:5-6, 14; and see the comments on Mt 13:18-23). Perseverance, however, is not the cause of salvation.
10:23. Does the phrase you will not finish [“going through” is not found in the Gk.] the cities of Israel reassure persecuted disciples that they will always have places of refuge in Israel despite widespread persecution? Or does it mean that the mission to Israel will not be completed even at the second coming? The two views are not mutually exclusive, for to say one is surely to suggest the other. Matthew 10:11-15 places this statement in the broader framework of the Church’s mission to Israel. But the explanatory for linking the desperate flight from one town to the next in 23a and b with “finishing the cities” in 23c supports the first view. Until the Son of Man comes is similarly difficult. It may be a reference to His “coming” to the Father at His ascension or to His eschatological second coming. But a satisfying option is that it is a reference to Jesus’ “coming” in judgment in AD 70. In 16:27 and 26:64, the coming of the Son of Man is associated with judgment. In addition, the persecution of His followers is depicted as taking place early on, during the period before relations with the synagogue were curtailed (10:17), making it likely that Jesus is referring narrowly to the experience of His disciples following the resurrection. This does not exclude the need for the ongoing mission to Israel today, however.
10:24-31. For Beelzebul, see the comments on 12:22-24. As 10:16-25 indicates, there will be intense opposition to believers, especially those involved in evangelistic efforts. Fear would be a normal reaction, so Jesus encourages them three times not to fear (vv. 26, 28, 31), and gives them truths that might assuage it. Verse 26 contains the first truth, promising that the identity of Jesus and the disciples will finally be revealed in the day of judgment if not before; they are not of Satan, but of God, and eventually even their persecutors would see that. Therefore, they were to be bold about what He told them in darkness and whispered in their ear, probably figures for the private instruction Jesus gave the twelve in contrast to the open proclamation coming later (v. 27).
The second truth is that their fear of God must supersede fear of opposition so that their mission would continue (v. 28). The third truth emphasized God’s sovereign awareness of their distress and His care for them. If God cares about even the little things (sparrows; the number of the hairs of your head), why should they fear people?
10:32-33. Therefore introduces an inference from what precedes. If Jesus’ followers do not fear people in a paralyzing sense, then they will confess Him. The meaning of Jesus denying a person probably refers to being deprived of salvation (cf. 10:22). Will Jesus deny Peter before the Father (see 26:70, 72)? This is unlikely. The tense of the verb denies indicates that if a person’s life could be defined or summarized as a whole by the words, “He denied Me,” then that person can expect to be denied by Jesus. But that label does not fit Peter’s life. He surely denied Christ, but he repeatedly “confessed Christ” (Jn 21: 15-17) thereafter. Jesus is not warning about an occasional lapse in one’s witness that is otherwise found in a life punctuated by outspoken identification with Him.
10:34-39. Jesus must be confessed before people, even if His witnesses experience contention and martyrdom. I did not come to bring peace refers to dissension that they, and all His people, would experience because of their loyalty to Jesus. Eventually there will be peace on earth for His gospel is one of peace, but in the meantime even family members may be set at odds with one another. Breaking with one’s family because of Jesus (v. 37) is to take up the cross and “lose one’s life” in this world (vv. 38-39). It was common for a criminal to carry both the crosspiece of his crucifix and a plaque that delineated his crimes. Jesus probably meant that following Him could lead to such severe persecution that crucifixion might result. Verse 39 could be paraphrased, “He whose life pleases only himself will miss eternal life, and he whose life is lived for Me even to the point of death will find that eternal life awaits him.”
10:40-42. What if a person is not a missionary? There are other ways to help the cause. Those who contribute even in small ways (giving a cup of cold water to drink to a weary, hot, roaming minister—probably what is meant by little ones) will share in the reward of those who are on the front lines.
11:1. To teach and preach are the same words found in the inclusio of 4:23 and 9:35. In 10:1, the mention of healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness provided a continuation of the theme of Jesus’ authority; in 11:1, the teaching aspect of His work continues.
III. The Reactions to the King-Messiah (11:2–12:50)
A. John Was Confused (11:2-15)
Matthew 11:2 provides a transition with John the Baptist inquiring about the works of Christ. Chapters 4–10 emphasized the authority of Christ based upon His teaching and healing ministry, and beginning in chap. 11 the main theme revolves around how one should respond to Jesus.
11:2-6. See 14:3 for John’s imprisonment. John’s question (v. 3) is understandable in light of his own prophesying about the Messiah coming with judgment (3:7-12), but there was little judgment so far in His ministry. In addition, most of the Jewish people anticipated a Messiah who would come as a great warrior king like David to free Israel from her oppressors (c. 164 BC, the SibOr 3:652-656; c. 63-48 BC, PssSol 17:1-4, 21-25, 30-32, 35-37, 45-46). Jesus’ answer (vv. 4-5) draws heavily upon messianic texts from Isaiah (26:19; 29:18; 35:5-6; 42:7, 18; 61:1) as proof that He was the Expected One.
11:7-11. Jesus defended John’s ministry. A reed shaken by the wind would have been a common sight along the Jordan where John baptized; but people did not go out to see just something commonplace or even something with worldly splendor (soft clothing belonged to the rich and powerful). John was more than a prophet (v. 9) from the standpoint that he was the one chosen to prepare the way for the Messiah (citing Ex 23:20 and Mal 3:1). John was greater than all from the standpoint that he was the one who would point to Christ more clearly than anyone else. But even those least in the kingdom of heaven are greater than John, probably because those who are citizens of the messianic kingdom and who look back to the cross can give a more profound explanation of Jesus than John could.
11:12. Verse 12 is puzzling, but it probably should read, “The kingdom has violence done to it, and violent men are seeking to seize it.” The verb suffers violence could be middle voice (“The kingdom is forcefully advancing itself” or something like it) but is probably a true passive judging from the parallel expression violent men take it [“violently seize” it] by force. The verse indicates the spiritual battle the opponents were waging against John and later Jesus as these opponents discouraged people from following them.
11:13-15. John himself is Elijah (v. 14), but not in the literal sense of Elijah descending to earth from heaven. Luke 1:17 says John came “in the spirit and power of Elijah,” not unlike Elisha. God gave three orders to Elijah toward the end of his ministry (1Kg 19:15-16), only one completed by him before his ascension (1Kg 19:19), the others being accomplished by Elisha “in the spirit and power of Elijah” (2Kg 8:7-8; 9:1-3). At the transfiguration, it was not John the Baptist and Moses who joined Christ but Elijah and Moses.
B. The Masses Were Unresponsive (11:16-24)
11:16-19. In this little analogy, Jesus is symbolized by the children playing the flute for other children who refused to dance (cf. 11:19, where “playing the flute” corresponds to Jesus’ “eating and drinking”) and John is symbolized by the children who sang mournfully but other children did not mourn (cf. 11:18, where “singing a dirge” corresponds to John’s refusal to eat or drink). This generation disregarded John and Jesus—John because of his asceticism and Jesus because of His “excessiveness.” Both Jesus and John taught with wisdom, each in his own unique but complementary way, but the people found both repugnant. The wisdom John and Jesus voiced, however, was vindicated by her deeds; i.e., the works of John and Jesus (see 11:2) exonerated them from unwarranted accusations and showed the validity of the wisdom they articulated.
11:20-24. Woe refers to a condition of deep destitution, suffering, or pain. Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum were within about five miles of each other around the north end of the Sea of Galilee. In spite of the innumerable miracles Jesus performed there, as well as the amount of teaching, their reaction, based on these verses, was one of unbelief. Miracles do not always promote faith in unbelievers. Tyre and Sidon were Gentile cities north of Israel on the Mediterranean Sea, and Sodom needs no comment. Verses 21 and 23 give indirect evidence for Jesus’ omniscience, for He knew what might have happened in these corrupt cities if He had done the kinds of miracles there that He performed in Galilee. Notably, today Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum are just ruins, but other cities in the region (Svat aka Safed, probably the “city set on a hill”; Magdala aka Migdal; Tiberias) are still bustling towns. When Jesus pronounces a woe, ruin is the result.
C. The Downhearted Were Encouraged (11:25-30)
11:25-27. Lord of heaven and earth expresses God’s sovereignty and indicates that even the dissension that surrounded Jesus was part of His sovereign plan. He revealed spiritual truths about Jesus and the kingdom to infants (those who are of no account in the world’s opinion) but hid them from the wise and intelligent (see 1Co 1:26-29). Both groups witnessed the same miracles and heard the same Teacher, but God gave special insight to those who welcomed Christ, and it pleased Him to do so (v. 26). Those who were sympathetic to Christ were the ones to whom the Son wills to reveal these realities, for He is the only one capable of adequately mediating knowledge of God to humankind.
11:28-30 The promise of rest was tied especially to the promises about the Son of David, the Messiah, providing security for the house of Israel (see Jr 23:5; 33:15-16; Ezk 34:15, 23-25; Am 9:11-15). That rest is found only in Jesus, and has eternal implications (Heb 4:1-11). The people were weary and heavy-laden because the excesses of the traditions of the Pharisees marginalized those who were spiritually “sick” (Mt 9:12) and even on the Sabbath left people hungry, maimed, and demon possessed (12:1-24). The religious leaders laid heavy burdens upon the people without providing any help (23:4) or showing mercy (9:13; 12:7; 23:23). On the other hand, Jesus’ burden is light but not necessarily effortless. Anyone who has tried to embody the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount knows the requirements are agonizingly difficult. But they are easy and light in contrast to the heavy burdens of the Pharisees precisely because He is gentle and humble in heart and, as the Suffering Servant, bears His people’s sins (Is 53:11-12). He does not break off a battered reed, nor snuff out the spark from a smoldering wick (Mt 12:20)—that is, He helps those who are demoralized. Jesus says, “Come to Me,” and those who do find a challenging yoke, but also a compassionate Savior who encourages, loves, forgives, restores, strengthens, and saves (for this interpretation, see Jon Laansma, I Will Give You Rest: The Rest Motif in the New Testament with Special Reference to Mt 11 and Heb 3-4, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, Series 2 [Tübingen: Mohr Dieback Siebeck, 1997], 238-50). Rabbinic literature speaks of taking on the yoke of the Torah or the yoke of the commandments, meaning “adopting Torah,” including the performance of Rabbinic instruction as a lifestyle. Jesus is contrasting following Him, which is light, with following Rabbinic Torah, which is burdensome (Mt 23:4). Perhaps the more severe expressions of Christianity have strayed from the kind of discipleship He offers.
D. The Leaders Were Antagonistic (12:1-50)
1. Regarding Sabbath Practices (12:1-21)
12:1-8. At that time provides a chronological connection with the events of chaps. 10–11. Thematically the connection may involve prime examples of the rest that Jesus provides in contrast to the heavy burdens of the religious leaders.
The Sabbath is mentioned here in Matthew for the first time, and chap. 12 begins a recurring theme of Sabbath controversies. One of the reasons was that during and after the exile (around 440 BC), Pharisaic Judaism began to develop rules that augmented biblical Sabbath law in order to “build a fence around the Law” (m. Aboth 1:1) so that one would not inadvertently violate it. Those additional rules are not found in the Hebrew Scriptures. Carrying a burden on the Sabbath was forbidden (Jr 17:21-24), but the later authorities felt the need to be more explicit about identifying what a burden was. They formulated dozens of rules so people would avoid carrying a burden on the Sabbath (a tailor could not carry around a needle stuck into his coat; one could not carry enough ink with which to write two letters of the alphabet, etc.). So, according to these traditions, when the disciples were picking the heads of grain off the stalks, they were guilty of reaping and of preparing food for consumption on the Sabbath, both banned under Pharisaic traditions.
What David did (vv. 3-4) is recorded in 1Sm 21:1-6. The consecrated bread was 12 loaves of bread placed on a special table in the tabernacle and later the temple, symbolizing God’s presence with the tribes of Israel. Only the priests could eat these loaves (Ex 25:30; Lv 24:5-9), but David was no priest. Jesus’ point is that the OT did not condemn David for his action. If the written Law could be suspended for David without consequence, then oral traditions could be suspended for Jesus and His followers. The rigidity of the Pharisees’ interpretation of the Law was not in accord with Scripture itself and it could not explain the incident with David.
Even the priests break the Sabbath and are innocent (v. 5). On the Sabbath priests changed the consecrated bread (Lv 24:8) and offered double the number of animals for the burnt offering (Nm 28:9-10). If priests “broke” the Sabbath for the sake of the temple, and if Jesus is greater than the temple (v. 6), then He could “break” the Sabbath as well. The authority of the temple laws shielded the priests from guilt; the authority of Jesus shields his disciples from guilt. The Pharisees needed not only to keep the Law but to be compassionate (v. 7, see 9:13; Hs 6:6), a trait that many of them lacked as seen in their attitudes on this occasion. For the Son of Man is Lord [“boss”] of the Sabbath (v. 8) not only sums up Messiah’s supremacy over the temple in v. 7, but also serves as the ground for the innocence of Jesus and the disciples. Jesus has the unequivocal authority to determine how to apply the Sabbath.
12:9-14. To heal on the Sabbath was to work. It was laid down in their oral tradition that only if life was in actual danger could one provide medical attention (m. Yoma 8:6; m. Shabbat 22:6), and then steps could be taken only to keep the sufferer from getting worse, not to improve his condition. Withered means “dried up, shriveled, lifeless.”
In v. 11, the main question was simply whether the Sabbath was a day for doing beneficial activity or not. Judging from Ex 23:12, it was. Jesus’ point was that if it were permissible to help an animal on the Sabbath, it was certainly permissible to help a person.
The man’s hand was restored to normal—its shriveled, shrunken condition was reversed, perhaps expanding and becoming muscular before their eyes. The Pharisees’ anger came because He rejected their view of the Sabbath and exposed their inconsistency; they were willing to help an animal on the Sabbath but not a person. His mercy, His easy yoke, and light burden were highlighted in contrast to the heavy burden of the Pharisees.
12:15-21. Matthew 12 is thematically linked to Is 42:1-3, a passage viewed as messianic (see Tg. Is 42:1, and W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, ICC [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991], 322-24). Those connections include: (1) the Spirit (Is 42:1; Mt 12:18) as the agent of Jesus’ miracles and the focal point of the blasphemy of the Spirit in 12:24; (2) The double mention of Gentiles (Is 42:1, 3; Mt 12:18, 21), which fits with Matthew’s and Jesus’ emphasis on the gospel going to the Gentiles; (3) Is 42:2, which says that people did not HEAR HIS VOICE IN THE STREETS, a feature that corresponds with Mt 12:16, where Jesus told people to keep quiet about healing them; and (4) the mention of the BATTERED REED and SMOLDERING WICK (Is 42:3), which corresponds to His kindness in healing so many (Mt 12:15). Jesus was fulfilling the role of the prophesied Suffering Servant.
2. Regarding Exorcisms (12:22-37)
12:22-24. In the wake of the healing of the blind man, the crowds begin to wonder if Jesus was the Son of David. The syntax, however, indicates that the question was asked with some doubt. The Pharisees countered that idea by claiming connivance between Jesus and Beelzebul the ruler of the demons. Beelzebul may have come from the Hebrew woalzebub (“lord of the flies,” with “flies” serving as a euphemism for “manure”), a mocking takeoff of Ba‘alzebul this should read Ba’alzebul (“Prince Baal”), a pagan deity (see 2Kg 1:2-3, 16). It was clearly intended by the Pharisees pejoratively, along with ruler of the demons, for the Devil.
12:25-30. These verses presuppose that Satan also has a well-organized kingdom. The reference to a kingdom, a city, and a house shows that in large or small organizations, internal division wreaks havoc. Jesus responded to their accusation with three arguments. (1) He showed the absurdity of their view. How then will his kingdom stand? (v. 26). It made no sense for the Devil to give a person power if that power was used to ransack his own kingdom. (2) He showed the inconsistency of their view. Your sons were the disciples of the Pharisees (i.e., other Pharisees), and Pharisees sometimes engaged in exorcisms. But exorcisms by Jesus and exorcisms by the Pharisees were assigned by them to two different sources (Beelzebul and the Spirit of God, respectively). Jesus rightly brands this as inconsistent. (3) He showed what was actually taking place through the exorcisms (vv. 28-29). The kingdom of God has come upon you suggests that with the presence of the King some effects of the kingdom were also present, including exorcising demons. The connection between vv. 28 and 29 is that Jesus was not part of Satan’s kingdom. Rather, He was successfully attacking Satan’s kingdom, called the strong man’s house. His property was the people under Satan’s sway. Verse 30 unpacks the consequences of Jesus’ battle with Satan. There could be no middle ground: one was, and is, either on God’s side with Christ or on Satan’s side.
12:31-32. In v. 31, Jesus stopped explaining and started warning. On blasphemy, see 9:3. Most scholars agree that the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit refers to attributing the miracles Jesus performed through the power of the Spirit to the evil one. The title Son of Man was used in contexts that emphasized His humility associated with the incarnation (see 8:20). Perhaps speaking against the Son of Man was pardonable because Jesus’ identity was veiled. Someone might reject His words but eventually be forgiven if the person accepted the evidence of His miracles performed through the Spirit. But if that evidence was rejected, then there was no other evidential “safety net” that could keep one from falling into spiritual ruin.
It is unlikely that this sin can be committed today, for conditions are different; Jesus is not physically present performing miracles, validating His identity as the Son of Man and Son of God. Some aver that unbelief is the unpardonable sin. However, every person who trusts Christ is pardoned for the sin of unbelief. If one dies in a state of unbelief, that sin is not so much unpardonable as it is unpardoned. Other texts (Heb 6:4-6; 10:27-29; 1Jn 5:16) are cited as references to the unpardonable sin. However, those texts seem to describe individuals who were outwardly and superficially sympathetic to faith in Jesus, but then apostatized, showing that they were never saved. Those situations are different from Mt 12.
This sin shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come. Those who committed the sin in Jesus’ day were beyond salvation. The age to come is not “heaven” or “purgatory,” but is the messianic kingdom on earth when Jesus once again will be physically present performing miracles. Some will reject Him then also (Rv 20:7-10). The conditions will exist for this sin to be committed again without hope of forgiveness.
12:33-37. The Pharisees’ evil words (v. 24) originated from the evil that fills the heart (v. 34). Make the tree (v. 33) refers to arboriculture, developing and cultivating trees to produce the desired fruit. If the fruit is bad, the tree is defective. The Pharisees’ reaction (their “fruit”) to Jesus’ ministry indicated that their heart was faulty. They would be held accountable in the judgment for every careless (“worthless,” “useless,” “unproductive”) word. No one is “justified by words.” But good words (good treasure) demonstrate that one has a good heart, which, in context, means acknowledging that what Jesus says about Himself is true. Words dismissing Jesus demonstrate an evil heart that will result in condemnation.
3. Regarding Signs (12:38-45)
12:38-42. The irony of v. 38 is that His earlier miracles led the Pharisees to accuse Jesus of working with the Devil, yet they wanted more miracles. Sign means “an unusual act with special meaning,” and here carries the nuance of a miraculous act. The scribes and Pharisees were looking for such an astounding display of power that all reservations about Jesus could be dismissed. Perhaps if Ursa Major (the Big Bear constellation) would run across the sky and bite Orion’s belt—then they could believe. The THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS causes some concern since Jesus only spent Friday and Saturday night in the tomb. But Jewish people regarded even a part of a day as “a day and a night” (see 1Sm 30:12-13; 2Ch 10:5, 12; Est 4:16; 5:1). The Gentile men of Nineveh and the Queen of the South (1Kg 10:1; 2Ch 9:1) make unusual protagonists in Jesus’ rebuke, but they are commendable inasmuch as they responded appropriately to those with considerably less authority than Jesus.
12:43-45. The key to understanding this brief allegory is in v. 45c, d. This evil generation is used in both vv. 39 and 45, linking the two warnings together. Jesus’ ministry brought profound benefits for many (12:15), but most remained either noncommittal or hostile toward Him. As a result, they were worse off (the last state of that man becomes worse than the first) because eventually God would judge them for their antipathy.
E. Family Ties Were Narrowed (12:46-50)
12:46-50. The point of this paragraph is to encourage people to follow Jesus even in the general environment of animosity. Brothers cannot refer to Joseph’s sons through a previous marriage to someone other than Mary; this would make Joseph’s oldest son the legal heir to David’s throne, not Jesus. Jesus has to be Joseph’s legal first-born to qualify for the throne. Jesus is not undermining the importance of blood ties, but being a follower of Jesus supersedes family commitment, and those who follow are adopted into a new family with God as their Father (Rm 8:15-17). On doing the will of My Father, see the comments on 7:21-23.
IV. The Kingdom and the King-Messiah in the Present Era (13:1-52)
A. The Parable of the Sower and the Soils (13:1-23)
In many ways chap. 12 is the watershed chapter of Matthew. There the leaders formally rejected Jesus and committed the unpardonable sin. They rejected the King. In light of this, what happens to the kingdom He offered? Jesus answered that question in Mt 13 with eight parables about the nature of the kingdom in light of the nation’s rejection of the King.
“Parable” could be defined many ways, but the working definition here is that it is a true-to-life story designed for teaching some specific spiritual truth usually pertaining to the King, the kingdom of God, or the citizens of the kingdom.
13:1-9. See 13:18-23 below. Often seeds would be scattered on the ground from leather pouches as a farmer walked the field. Sometimes the fields were plowed, then seed scattered, and fields plowed again. In the parable, some seed fell beside the road (v. 4) where footpaths often bordered the fields. There were rocky places just below the surface of the soil in many areas. The plant could grow, but eventually withered under the sun because it did not get the moisture or nutrients it needed. Thorns often grow when no other plants will. In the rugged terrain of Israel, they can take over an area so the crops are choked. Let him hear (v. 9) served as both a warning and an invitation by Jesus to His hearers to exercise their minds to grasp the spiritual significance of this and the other public parables.
13:10-17. Up to this point in Jesus’ ministry He had not once taught the crowds in parables. This is why the disciples questioned Him about it (v. 10). He teaches the crowds predominantly in parables throughout the remainder of Matthew’s gospel. Verses 10-17 explain why. The disciples have the privilege of knowing the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but not all do. “Mystery” means “a secret” or “that which is hidden,” the contents usually revealed to a select group. Here it refers to truth Jesus was revealing about the kingdom of heaven for the first time (for “kingdom of heaven, see 3:1-4). In the OT prophecies, the kingdom would come to earth in a cataclysmic, civilization-shattering way, accompanied with judgment of the nations and the restoration of Israel (see Is 2; Dn 2, 7; Zch 14). But with the rejection of the King, Jesus reveals new aspects of the kingdom not forecast by the OT. George Eldon Ladd (The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974], 225), wrote, “The new truth, now given to men by revelation in the person and mission of Jesus, is that the Kingdom which is to come finally in apocalyptic power, as foreseen by Daniel, has in fact entered into the world in advance in a hidden form to work secretly within and among men” (italics Ladd’s). In the end, the kingdom will come in all its outward power at Jesus’ second coming, but in the wake of the nation rejecting the King, the “mystery form” of the kingdom is at work in the world initially.
The parables were designed to reveal truth to the privileged few, including the disciples, but to conceal it from the spiritually dull (vv. 12-13)—especially the religious leaders and opponents of Jesus seen in Mt 12. The parables thus have a dual function, the key being God’s elective purposes. However, as in much of Scripture, divine election and human responsibility are not mutually exclusive; the spiritual receptivity of the hearer plays a role in this, and if one did not persist in rejecting Jesus, he or she could later embrace Him. The citation from Is 6:9-10 (vv. 14-15), spoken by God through the prophet, was for Isaiah’s contemporaries, and addressed their spiritual unresponsiveness. That citation served as an analogy for the Jewish rejection of Jesus.
13:18-23. In the parable, the seed represented the word of the kingdom (v. 19), and Jesus was the sower. The seed sown beside the road was those who heard the word about the kingdom but who did not understand it (13:9), and Satan (symbolized by the birds in v. 4) hindered their understanding of the truth (see 2Co 4:3-4). The seed sown on the rocky places represented one who was superficial, lacking the ability to follow through, especially when … persecution arises (vv. 20-21). The seed among thorns (v. 22) represented the person distracted by material concerns (worry, wealth) that choke the word (see 1Tm 6:10). The good soil receives and understands the word being spread by the King and produces a bountiful crop (see Mt 13:12).
A crucial question emerges: Which of these four is “saved?” All agree the first is not. All agree that the fourth is. The other two may have been saved since they seemed to have “life,” but this is unlikely, for several reasons. First, none of the first three produced fruit, so the fourth seed was in a distinct category. Second, John’s and Jesus’ teaching suggested that avoiding judgment was not dependent upon the apparent presence of life but upon the production of good fruit (Mt 3:10; 7:19). Third, in Mt 10:22, 32-33, Jesus said that endurance during times of persecution were indications that one was truly saved, but the second seed sown in rocky soil falls away when persecution arose, making it likely that the second seed (and probably the third) was not saved.
What is the point of this parable? Prophecies of the kingdom in the OT did not envision this kind of “coming” of the kingdom quietly and spiritually into the hearts of people as they responded correctly to the Word. None of this precludes the climactic coming of the kingdom in the future at the second coming of Christ.
B. The Parable of the Wheat and Tares (13:24-30; cf. 13:36-43)
13:24-30. For the interpretation of this parable, see the comments below on 13:36-43. The second parable is about one of the mysteries of the kingdom. It reveals how, during the present age before its climactic coming, the kingdom contains diabolical counterfeits, something not seen in the OT concept of the coming kingdom from which all enemies of God are removed.
C. The Parable of the Mustard Seed (13:31-32)
13:31-32. In later rabbinic thought, the mustard seed was proverbial for smallness (m. Niddah 5:2). It was the smallest seed regularly cultivated in Israel. In a single season modern mustard bushes can grow in excess of ten feet tall. The point of the parable is that in the OT gradual growth was not part of the coming of the kingdom. However, this newly revealed truth about the kingdom, the “mystery form” of the kingdom during this present era, does grow gradually into a large entity. This gradual growth does not preclude a future coming that is sudden, enormous, and earthshaking. The BIRDS may refer to malevolent elements found in its mystery form, but birds do not always represent evil in Scripture (see Mt 6:26), and may be a feature in the parable simply to indicate the large size of the bush.
D. The Parable of the Leaven (13:33)
13:33. Bread was usually baked using a piece of dough with active yeast in it from a previous batch of dough. Leaven sometimes refers to corrupting influences (Mt 16:6; 1Co 5:6), but not always (Lv 7:13; 23:15-18). Here the leaven probably has much the same function as the mustard seed, indicating small origins with gradual growth that permeates a much larger entity such as the world. The leaven in this parable infuses three pecks, a huge amount enough for 100-150 people. Jesus’ small band would have a gradual but wide effect upon the world, then subsequently the kingdom would come in full force.
E. The Reason for the Parables (13:34-35)
13:34-35. Psalm 78:1-2 is cited in v. 35. It was written by Asaph, poet and prophet under David and Solomon. Psalm 78 is an extended review of the history of the Jewish people from the patriarchs through David’s time. The main theme in the psalm is God’s faithfulness despite the people’s disobedience. Asaph calls his psalm a “parable” and “dark sayings” (78:2), probably indicating that he was drawing insights from historic events not usually seen in them. Asaph wrote the psalm to instruct his own and following generations. When Matthew says Jesus taught in parables it was to fulfill typologically what Asaph had done, i.e., presenting new insights about the kingdom of God that would come in spite of the people’s unfaithfulness.
F. The Parable of the Wheat and Tares, cont. (13:36-43; cf. 13:24-30)
13:36-43. In v. 36 Jesus withdrew from the boat (13:2) and the crowds, and continued instructing the disciples in parables privately. He explained the referents of the elements of the parable of the wheat and the tares. The good seed is the sons of the kingdom placed in the world by Jesus. The devil places the tares in the field, i.e., sons of the evil one in the world. Tares bore a strong resemblance to wheat and could not be distinguished from it until a crop matured. This enemy places counterfeits of the sons of the kingdom (true followers of Jesus) in the world to hinder the spread of the mystery form of the kingdom during the present age. In the future when the kingdom fully comes the Son of Man will remove these fakes from the kingdom (stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness) and judge them. The moment Jesus returns to earth at the second coming the kingdom arrives as well, but there is a short period of time in which Jesus judges those not aligned with Him (1,335 days, Dn 12:12; see the comments there). At the end of that period of judgment, the sons of the evil one are removed from the kingdom and experience weeping and gnashing of teeth—a favorite expression of Jesus for eschatological judgment (Mt 8:5-13 and see the comments there; also 13:50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30). At that time, finally, THE RIGHTEOUS will share and enjoy the glory of God with Him in His kingdom.
G. The Parables of the Buried Treasure and Pearl of Great Price (13:44-46)
13:44-46. The parables of the treasure and the pearl emphasize the great worth of the mystery form of the kingdom. Jewish prophetic thought did not view the kingdom as something as inconspicuous as a buried box of valuables or a priceless pearl that one might providentially stumble across. It was to come powerfully and openly from God alone at the end of the age. Jesus tells us virtually nothing about the situation surrounding the treasure and the ethics of the man who obtains it; these do not fit His purpose. The point seems to be that while the kingdom is not physically resplendent, it is nevertheless priceless and one must obtain it at all costs. Pearls were more highly prized in the ancient world than today (see Jb 28:18; 1Tm 2:9; Rv 17:4; 18:12, 16). This mystery form of the kingdom is worth obtaining, no matter the cost.
H. The Parable of the Dragnet (13:47-50)
13:47-50. Not unlike the parable of the wheat and tares, the parable of the dragnet indicates that the mystery form of the kingdom encompasses good and evil components, and only the final “sweep of the net” sorts them out. That the righteous are not mentioned indicates the emphasis of this parable. Jesus is concerned with the final removal of evil, when the net is full at the end of the fishing. This is not about church discipline. The focus here is on the state of the kingdom when the final judgment occurs. Initially it includes both the righteous and the wicked, but an infallible sorting out will certainly take place so that only the righteous remain. For v. 50, cf. the comments on 8:5-13.
I. The Parables Gave New Revelation about the King and Kingdom (13:51-52)
13:51-52. The scribe probably refers to disciples who will teach other disciples. The head of a household in Jesus’ teaching was one who dispensed items for others (20:1-16; 21:33-43). The treasure sometimes referred to what one produces from one’s heart (12:35). So the disciple-scribes must teach things new and old for others. This has special relevance for the Twelve, but the entire Church is included since it is founded upon their teaching. Things new and old indicates Jesus taught new truth about the mysteries of the kingdom, but old truth clearly seen in the OT as well, and that His followers must teach both. He taught what is found in the OT about the coming of the kingdom—future separation and judgment and the enormity of the kingdom. But there is also new material in this chapter, the mysteries of the kingdom, which included small beginnings, gradual growth, permeation, and the mixture of good and bad elements. The followers of Jesus are to teach the old and the new.
V. The Withdrawal, Help, and Opposition of the King-Messiah: Four Cycles (13:53–16:28)
A. Cycle #1: The Ministry in Nazareth (13:53–14:12)
1. Jesus Withdrew: To Nazareth (13:53)
13:53-58. This section is the first of four cycles with parallel structure that run through Mt 16:28. Matthew 13:53-58 presents all the elements of each section. Matthew’s structure continues to show the ongoing kindness of Jesus in the face of mounting opposition. See the table “Parallel Cycles in Matthew 13:53–16:28” below.
2. Jesus Helped: By Teaching in the Synagogue (13:54)
It is not clear what His hometown (v. 54) is. In 14:13 Jesus enters a boat, supporting the possibility that it is Capernaum. But more than likely it is Nazareth, and Matthew omits the return to Capernaum. He began teaching them in their synagogue. This would, under normal circumstances, be a blessing for these people. But their hard-heartedness left them without benefit from His teaching.
3. Jesus Faced Opposition: From His Kin and King Herod (13:55–14:12)
The residents of Nazareth fixated upon His humble beginnings, and failed to be led past these by His powerful ministry and thereby grasp who He truly was (vv. 55-56). The proverb A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household (v. 57) is similar in force to the modern adage, “Familiarity breeds contempt.” The relationship of the paucity of miracles and their unbelief is not that their lack of faith hampered Jesus’ power. He did not do many miracles there because they did not bring their sick to Him at all, precisely because they did not believe in Him.
14:1-2. One of the themes of chap. 13 was the gradual growth of the mystery form of the kingdom (13:31-33) in spite of mounting opposition to Jesus by the religious leaders (chap. 12) and others (13:53-58). Here the governing authorities opposed Him, namely Herod the tetrarch (b. 20 BC). This was Herod Antipas, one of Herod the Great’s sons, who ruled from 4 BC until AD 39 over the region of Galilee and Perea, where John the Baptist and Jesus ministered. It is the same Herod who assisted Pilate in the trial of Jesus (Lk 23:6-12). John the Baptist … risen from the dead was probably a reflection of superstition and not reflective of a well-rounded theology of resurrection. Jesus and John both preached the kingdom of heaven, which may have led Antipas to this conclusion.
14:3-5. The date of John’s imprisonment is unknown, but it is mentioned in 4:12 and 11:2. It was occasioned by John’s denunciation of Antipas, who around AD 29 became attracted to and eventually married the wife of his half brother, Herod Philip. Her name was Herodias, and she was also Antipas’s niece, the daughter of another half brother, Aristobulus. She insisted that Antipas divorce his Nabatean wife, daughter of the king of Petra, Aretes IV, an act that was both a breach of a political alliance and a personal affront. Hostilities arose between them, and eventually Aretes started a war that led to Antipas’s downfall in AD 36.
The Law forbade a man marrying his brother’s wife (Lv 18:16; 20:21) unless the brother died childless (Dt 25:5). Herod Philip was alive and had a daughter, Salome. John challenged Antipas’s marriage to Herodias on these grounds.
Parallel Cycles in Matthew 13:53–16:28