14:6-12. Matthew omits the unseemly details (cf. Mk 6:14-29). Salome was probably 12–14 years of age, akin to an 18–22 year old today. It was culturally acceptable in Roman settings for a young woman, even a princess, to dance in such an audience. Antipas was grieved (v. 9), perhaps because he found John interesting (Mk 6:20), perhaps because he did not want John executed this way. According to Josephus (Ant., 18.119), John was executed at Machaerus, Antipas’s fortress east of the Dead Sea. After his disciples buried the body, they went and reported to Jesus, possibly to warn Him (see his withdrawal in v. 13; also 2:22; 4:12) or possibly to look to Him to take up John’s mantle.
B. Cycle #2: Feeding the Five Thousand at Bethsaida (14:13–15:20)
1. Jesus Withdrew: To a Secluded Spot (14:13)
14:13. Beginning in 14:13, Matthew presents the second cycle of withdrawal (14:13), helping people (14:14-36), and opposition (15:1-20). See the table at 13:53 entitled “Parallel Cycles in Matthew 13:53–16:28.”
2. Jesus Helped: By Feeding the Multitude and Stilling a Storm (14:14-36)
14:14-21. The site of the feeding of the five thousand is unknown, but may have been in the vicinity of Bethsaida on the northeast shore of the Sea of Galilee (cf. Mk 6:45). The traditional site of Tabgah on the northwest shore is unlikely because of v. 34, for Gennesaret is located close to it and would not accommodate the long boat ride. The numbers of the five loaves and two fish (v. 17) are probably not symbolic but serve to show the scant resources despite which Jesus was able to help the crowd. Matthew gives few clues explaining why he recorded the process of distributing the food (took the five loaves … looking up … blessed the food … breaking the loaves, and giving them to the disciples); these things were so often done at a typical meal that they would not have been included, except Matthew probably intends to link them to other miraculous feedings (e.g., through Moses, Exodus 16; Elijah, 1Kg 17:8-16, and Elisha, 2Kg 4:1-7, 42-44). Matthew also may be forecasting the Lord’s table (Mt 26:26). There also He took bread, blessed it, and gave it to the disciples (same words both passages). Perhaps the point is that the ultimate and wildly abundant provision for Israel (the twelve full baskets are probably symbolic) will no longer be found in the one who brought the Law nor in the prophets, but in Jesus.
14:22-33. Once again, Matthew gives no clues regarding Jesus’ actions in sending away the disciples, dismissing the crowds, and finding solitude to pray. In the stilling of the storm in 8:23-27, the main threat to the disciples was the waves, which were on the verge of swamping the boat. Here it is a contrary wind that hindered their progress (v. 24). The fourth watch of the night (v. 25) would have been between 3:00 and 6:00 a.m., probably closer to the latter since there was apparently just enough light for the disciples to see Jesus, though not to recognize Him. The disciples thought they saw a ghost (v. 26; Gk. phantasma)—people with corporeal bodies could not do what they saw Jesus doing. When Jesus said it is I, the Gk. words are ego eimi, a phrase used in Isaiah 40–50 (LXX) by God when He alone claims to have the power to rescue His people (cf. Is 41:10; 43:1-2, 10; 45:22; 46:4; 48:17). Is 41:10 says, “Do not fear [“fear” here is phobou; in Mt 14:27, phobeisthe—same word, different person and mood], for I am with you; Do not anxiously look about you, for I am [ego eimi] your God…. Surely I will uphold you with My righteous right hand.” Peter’s ability to walk on the water (vv. 28-29) was contingent upon Jesus’ identity as God’s Son. As long as Peter focused in faith upon Jesus, the authoritative Son, he could walk on water as Jesus did. Matthew indicates that when Jesus’ followers rely upon Him and do not doubt, they will be able to do remarkable things on the basis of His strength (opening the kingdom, 16:19; “moving mountains,” 17:20; reaching the nations, 28:18-20). When Peter “anxiously looked about him” (Is 41:10) at the waves he needed Jesus to stretch out His hand (v. 31). In other OT passages, God is the one who rescues His people from the sea (Ex 14:10–15:21; Ps 107:23-32; Jnh 1:4–2:10). Jesus took that prerogative for Himself and intimated that He was fulfilling this divine role. On the disciples’ exclamation You are certainly God’s Son! see the comments on 16:14-17.
14:34-36. Gennesaret (modern Nof Ginosar) is on the NW side of the Sea of Galilee, about three miles southwest of Capernaum. See 9:20 for the woman being healed by touching His cloak.
David Turner (Matthew, BECNT [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2008], 376) offers a helpful summary of the significance of chap. 14. “Looking back on Matt. 14, one can conclude that in the midst of growing opposition, the authority of the kingdom is also growing [as assured in the parables of chap. 13] through the miracles and through the weak but genuine and maturing faith of the disciples.”
3. Jesus Faced Opposition: From Pharisees and Scribes Over Oral Traditions (15:1-20)
Matthew 15:1-20 continues the second cycle by presenting the heightened opposition of the Pharisees and scribes … from Jerusalem (v. 1) (see the comments on 14:13, and the table at 13:53, “Parallel Cycles in Matthew 13:53–16:28”). The flow of Matthew’s argument may include the theme of ritual defilement. External incidental contact with unclean things (sick people, 14:34-36; bread “defiled” by unclean hands, 15:1-20) does not defile a person, but what comes out of the heart does.
15:1-9. The Pharisees and scribes … from Jerusalem probably denote an official party that has come to engage in a theological investigation of the popular Teacher who staunchly opposed some from their sect (12:38). The tradition of the elders (v. 2) refers to the “fence around the Law” put in place by the ancient Jewish scribes (see the comments on 12:1-8 on the Sabbath). Jesus’ disciples did not wash their hands when they eat bread. The Pharisees and scribes believed that hands could become ritually unclean by a host of ways. That impurity could be transferred to food when someone held it while eating. Defiled food would then make unclean the entire person, and those who were serious about their status before God would hardly allow this (cf. John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005], 611–15 for the details and bibliography; cf. also m. Yadaim for the need for washing hands). However, there was nothing quite like this in the Law for anyone other than priests or community leaders on special occasions (Ex 30:17-21; Dt 21:1-9), or if one had a bodily discharge (Lv 15:11). Jesus’ answer (v. 3) confronted the leaders with an accusation similar to the one they levied against Him and the disciples; when the disciples did not wash, they appeared to dismiss the Pharisees’ tradition, but when the Pharisees kept their own traditions they would sometimes transgress the commandment of God, the more serious of the two shortcomings. Jesus illustrated this with reference to the fifth commandment (Ex 20:12; Dt 5:16; Ex 21:17). The phrase has been given to God (v. 5) reflects a tradition called korban (cf. Mk 7:11), “a gift” pledged to God, no longer allowed to be used in common affairs. One could make a vow to turn over all his assets to the temple upon his death but retain use of them until then. However, these assets could not be transferred to others nor used to benefit anyone else (the poor; one’s family) since they belonged to God (Blomberg, Matthew, 238). Invalidated (v. 6) means “to disregard or refuse the authority or power of something,” in this case the word of God which must have sole authority for the life of God’s children. Religious traditions often do not supplement Scripture; they supplant Scripture.
Jesus cited Is 29:13 (vv. 7-9) which addressed Jerusalem (called “Ariel” in Is 29:1, 2, 7) with God’s plans to deliver her from the Assyrians (Is 29:1-8). In spite of what He would do, the city would continue to worship Him in a perfunctory manner, as they had always done (their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote, 29:13), with their hearts far from Him. Jesus makes a typological connection between the people’s reaction to the Word of God given through Isaiah and the people’s reaction in Jesus’ day to the Word of God given through Him. The worship of those who substitute human religious traditions for the Word is VAIN (“to accomplish nothing,” “to have no result,” “to be as though nothing has happened”)—no good comes of it unless it conforms to the Word and flows from a warm heart.
15:10-11. So serious was the Pharisaic neglect of Scripture that Jesus initiated an opportunity to teach the crowd. Verses 17-20 develop v. 11. What one ate was important in the OT and could result in one being unclean (see the context of Lv 11:24, 39-40). Defile means “to be profane, ritually unacceptable to God.” Jesus indicates that food was morally neutral (Mk 7:19); the problem was not what one ate but what one did. The more fundamental purpose of Jesus was not so much to show that food laws were obsolete as much as that other matters deserved a higher priority. Matthew 15:11 with Mk 7:19 sounded the death knell of dietary laws for the Church, but it was not Jesus’ primary purpose here.
15:12-14. Jesus ascribed the Pharisees’ taking offense to their being plants which My heavenly Father did not plant. This alludes to Is 60:21; 61:3, where restored Israel is right with God on the basis of His gracious action. The Pharisees were not the recipients of God’s restorative work, now manifested in Jesus. As a result, they would be uprooted (judged) and resist Jesus’ ministry. That God did not plant them, and that Jesus told Peter, “Leave them!” (NET) is reminiscent of the parable of the wheat and the tares. The landowner lets both grow together until the harvest when they are separated and the tares (sons of the evil one, 13:38) are judged (13:30, 40-41). The Pharisees were blind guides in that they were blind to the true intent and “weightier matters” of the Law, as well as to their own unenviable condition, and could not be counted on to lead others safely in spiritual matters.
15:15-20. Jesus commanded the crowd to hear and understand (v. 10), suggesting that He anticipated the difficulty of His instruction. The disciples had a private audience with Jesus and received further instruction. For the comments on 15:16-19, see above on 15:10-11. To eat with unwashed hands (v. 20) forms an inclusio with the phrase “they do not wash their hands” in v. 2. This signals that Jesus’ main point in the discussion was to deal with the sub-biblical oral traditions of the Pharisees, which often obscured the true requirements of the Law.
C. Cycle #3: Tyre and Sidon and Feeding the Four Thousand (15:21–16:4c)
1. Jesus Withdrew: To the Region of Tyre and Sidon (15:21)
15:21. This begins the third cycle of Matthew’s “He withdrew, He helped, He was opposed” structure running through 16:28 (see the table at 13:53-58, “Parallel Cycles in Matthew 13:53–16:28”). The district of Tyre and Sidon provides an important geographical note. Both cities were on the Mediterranean coast, Tyre being about 30 miles northwest of Capernaum, Sidon about 25 miles north of Tyre, and both in the Roman province of Syria. The district suggests that Jesus may not have gone all the way to the cities, so that the farthest north He traveled may have been to the district of Caesarea Philippi (16:13).
2. Jesus Helped: By Assisting the Canaanite Woman and Feeding Many (15:22-39)
15:22-28. The Canaanite woman (v. 22) makes an unlikely heroine, as Canaanites were the indigenous people almost displaced by the Hebrews and their perpetual enemies (Jos 3:10; Jdg 1:1). How she addressed Jesus, however, sounded very Jewish (see the plea of the blind men in Mt 9:27-28 and 20:30-31) and indicates well-rounded knowledge of His mission and power. Once again the disciples show how calloused they were (see 14:15), and Jesus seemed ready to dismiss her (I was sent only to … Israel, vv. 23c-24). When she became more insistent (v. 25), He gave a further explanation in v. 26. The children’s bread is probably a metaphor for the covenant blessings intended for the Jewish people, and dogs a reference to Gentiles as those outside of the covenant community of Israel. Her response in v. 27 indicated a surprising level of insight regarding the relationship of the Jewish people’s covenant blessings and the benefits they provide for Gentiles (see Gn 12:3; Rm 11:17-18; Eph 2:11-22). The salvation-historical priority of Jesus was to reach the Jewish people, but as the Great Commission (Mt 28:18-20) indicates, even Gentiles benefit from the Jewish Messiah.
15:29-31. It is not clear where this episode takes place. By the Sea of Galilee is probably on the southeastern shore in the Gentile region of Decapolis (see Mk 7:31), a fact bolstered by the boat ride into the Jewish region of Magadan (v. 39), probably Magdala, on the northwest shore of the Sea. The textual clues in Matthew do not make this reconstruction certain, however. Like Moses, Jesus went up on the mountain and healed a number of the Gentiles there. The crumbs that blessed the Canaanite woman are now applied to a much wider group, indicating Jesus’ intent to broaden His ministry to encompass Gentiles.
15:32-39. The similarities with the feeding of the 5,000 in Mt 14:15ff. are obvious, but there are differences. Here Jesus was probably in a Gentile region with Gentile people, He went up on a mountain, the crowd was with Him three days, Jesus initiated this feeding, the amount of the provisions and leftovers differ, and the size of the crowd is smaller. The point of this miracle may be to indicate that Jesus would include Gentiles in the scope of His ministry and that they would participate in the great messianic banquet that described the kingdom, along with the Jewish people. Carson (“Matthew,” 358) explains the unbelief of the disciples in light of Jn 6:26. There Jesus rebuked the crowds for following Him in order to receive nothing more than food. It is possible that the disciples thought He might not feed a crowd again because of that previous episode. In addition, this second feeding miracle parallels the two feeding miracles prompted by Moses (Ex 16; Nm 11), suggesting that Jesus was the new Moses. It is impossible to determine if the seven large baskets are symbolic, as Matthew does not give any helpful clues.
3. Jesus Faced Opposition: From the Pharisees and Sadducees Who Wanted a Sign (16:1-4c)
16:1-4. It is not easy to determine the flow of the argument here. Matthew may have included 16:1-4 to demonstrate the stark contrast between the (probably) Gentile recipients of blessings in 15:21-38 who also received remarkable signs and the complete blindness of the religious leaders.
The Pharisees and Sadducees were hostile sects but united in their opposition of Jesus. On the sign from heaven (v. 1) and the sign of Jonah (v. 4), see 12:38-40. These religious leaders could forecast the weather, which is always difficult because conditions change so quickly. But in spite of the indisputable miracles Jesus performed, they could not comprehend that they were the signs of the (messianic) times.
D. Cycle #4: The Leaven of the Pharisees and Teaching the Disciples (16:4d–16:28)
1. Jesus Withdrew: To the Other Side of the Sea (16:4d)
16:4d. And He left them and went away begins the fourth cycle involving Jesus withdrawing, helping someone, and then being opposed. (See the table at 13:53-58 above, “Parallel Cycles in Matthew 13:53–16:28”).
2. Jesus Helped: By Teaching His Disciples (16:5-20)
16:5-6. Mark 8:22 notes that Jesus and the disciples came to Bethsaida, on the northeast shore of the Sea of Galilee, at the conclusion of the boat trip. Matthew 16:5 makes it sound as if the disciples traveled without Jesus, while 14:13 and 15:39 sound as if Jesus sailed without them. Unless the text is clear that they traveled separately (cf. 14:22), the assumption must be that they were together. The focus here is upon the disciples whose negligence in bringing bread (v. 5) becomes the point of the episode.
The leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees (v. 6) is explained in v. 12 as the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. A small amount of dough with active yeast could make a large batch of unleavened dough rise. Leaven sometimes, thought not always, refers to evil influences (Lk 12:1; 1Co 5:6-8). The metaphoric reference to leaven stands for the poisonous influence of the religious leaders who sought to turn the people against Jesus. According to 27:20-26, they were successful.
16:7-12. Verse 7 indicates that the disciples did not understand Jesus. They may have thought He was warning them not to buy bread from the leaders (v. 6). Their preoccupation was with their lack of bread and presumably the hardship that might bring, whereas Jesus’ concern was with more potent issues. The disciples’ anxiety about food was unfounded in light of the care and the power of Jesus, who recounts the two feeding miracles as a reminder of both. The disciples are still men of little faith (v. 8). Jesus will provide the mundane things needed for survival. What the disciples—then and now—needed to watch out and beware of (v. 6) was not the lack of physical provisions but the subtle permeation and influence of false teaching, hypocrisy (Pharisees; cf. 23:13, 15), and unbelief (Sadducees; cf. 22:23).
16:13. The disciples demonstrated a considerable lack of spiritual insight in 16:1-12, but in 16:13-20 God overcame that through the revelation given to Peter. Caesarea Philippi was about 25 miles north of the Sea of Galilee. The city, originally called Paneas, was given by Caesar Augustus to Herod the Great in 20 BC, and Herod promptly built a temple in honor of Augustus on the site. Herod then gave it to his son, Philip the tetrarch, who renamed it “Caesarea Philippi” in honor of Augustus, adding Philip’s name to it in order to distinguish this city from Caesarea by the sea. Philip also kept a palace there. A large spring was there, one of the main sources of the Jordan River, and a shrine to the god Pan. It was a thoroughly pagan, Roman place, and the promise of an unstoppable Church flew in the face of the assumed powers that were represented there. On the title Son of Man, see the comments on 8:18-22.
16:14-17. The common denominator between John the Baptist, Elijah, and Jeremiah was that they were all prophets calling the people to return to covenant faithfulness. Elijah performed miracles (1Kg 17), and there were great prophetic hopes attached to him as the forerunner of the Messiah (Mal 4:5-6; Mt 11:7-15). That Jesus’ ministry might be confused with his was understandable. Jeremiah and the prophets prophesied judgment, as did Jesus (cf. 11:20ff.; 21:33ff.). The Christ (v. 16) is a title, not a proper name, and means “one who is anointed.” In the LXX christos is used for the Hebrew masiah, “anointed,” for priests (Lv 4:5, 16; 6:22 [LXX 6:15]) and kings (e.g., 2Sm 23:1), including the future great Davidic king, the Messiah (PssSol 17:32; 18:5; 2 Bar 29:3; 30:1; 27:2; 4 Ezra 12:32). Matthew uses the word Christ elsewhere in narrative sections of his gospel (1:1, 16, 17, 18; 2:4; 11:2), but the disciples use it for the first time here. Living God is used in Jos 3:10; Jr 10:10; Dn 6:20, 26, for God’s power and uniqueness in contrast to false gods like Pan. As the Son of the living God, Jesus can guarantee that the gates of Hades (see the comments below) will not prevail over the Church. “Son of God” occurs in 4:3, 6, and figures prominently in 14:33 (“You are certainly God’s Son!”), where Jesus rescues Peter and the disciples from the sea, a prerogative reserved only for God in the OT (Ex 14:10–15:21; Ps 107:23-32; Jnh 1:4–2:10).
The response of Jesus is enigmatic (v. 17). In 14:33 the disciples recognized that Jesus was God’s Son. Why did He claim divine revelation for Peter’s confession when the disciples seem to have understood this previously? Perhaps the best answer is to understand that in 14:33 the disciples ascribe divinity to Him as they witnessed His God-like power over natural forces. That episode surely led them to a budding perception of Jesus’ deity. But in 16:16, Peter connects Jesus’ divine identification with the concept of the coming Messiah, who, with a few noteworthy exceptions, was not viewed as divine in the OT or Early Judaism (for a human Messiah, see 1QS 9:11; CD 12:23; 4QPBless 3f; b. Ber. 56b; b. Suk. 52a; 4 Ezra 7:28; b. Sanh. 99a; for the exceptions, see the LXX of Dn 7:13; b. Hag. 14a; b. Sanh. 38b). Peter’s insight that connected these two facts came from God, not his own ingenuity.
16:18. Jesus assigns Simon a new name, Peter, just as God did with Abraham. In both cases the new name shows how the individual will function in God’s plans (Abraham becomes the “father of many,” Gn 17:1-8, and Peter the “foundation stone”) as He creates a new people (the Jewish people in Abraham’s case, the Church in Peter’s). The identification of this rock is interpreted variously as Peter’s faith, Peter’s confession, Peter’s preaching office, the truth shown to Peter, the 12 disciples, Jesus Himself, Jesus’ teaching, and even God Himself. Most of the variety stems from the bitter antagonism between interpreters from markedly different backgrounds. Many take exception to identifying Peter as the rock, but some of the reason for that is grounded in saying too much about Peter (e.g., that he was the first pope). But Peter is the focus in the verses before and after v. 18. Eph 2:20 and Rv 21:14 speak of the 12 apostles as foundational for the Church, a fact supporting that Peter was part of the foundation, but was not the sole foundation vis-à-vis the other apostles. And it was Peter who, using the keys of the kingdom, opened the kingdom for the Jewish people (Ac 2), the Samaritans (Ac 8), and the Gentiles (Ac 10), so that Jesus’ prophecy about Peter seems to have actually come true in that he does function as the foundation of the Church. On this much most recent commentators, even from highly diverse religious persuasions, agree. However, doctrines related to apostolic succession or the infallibility of the Church cannot be substantiated from this, nor any other, text.
The gates of Hades probably means “death” (see Jb 38:17; Ps 9:13; 107:18; Is 38:10). As Son of the living God Jesus guarantees that the power of death would neither conquer nor imprison (as gates can incarcerate) the Church. In Matthew, there was much opposition to Christ, and the church being “killed” was quite possible. And Jesus, in the next section (Mt 16:21) would talk about His own death.
16:19. Precisely how Peter functions as the rock is explained in v. 19. On keys, see Rv 1:18; 3:7; 9:1-6; 20:1-3. The keys of the kingdom of heaven probably refers to Peter’s and the apostles’ authority to admit people into the blessings of the kingdom, for keys often were used by the stewards who supervised one’s household to dispense provisions for those who needed them (Is 22:15, 22; see Lk 11:52 where the “key of knowledge” related to entering the kingdom). The keys relate specifically to bind[ing] and loos[ing]. As Peter and the apostles preached in various areas—as they wielded the keys of the kingdom and Jesus built His Church—people would be loosed from their sins (forgiven) as they responded correctly to their gospel message (Ac 2:14-39; 3:11-26), or bound in their sins (remain unforgiven) if they did not (Ac 4:11-12; 8:20-23; 13:4-12, 44-52; 18:5-10). The verb construction shall have been bound, shall have been loosed (estai dedemenon, estai lelumenon, future perfect periphrastics) probably does not indicate that heaven made the determination of who is bound or loosed before Peter, though the concept is theologically sound. Instead, it probably accentuates the permanent divine agreement between Peter and heaven on the matter. To paraphrase: “Peter, when, in the future, you bind or loose people, be assured that unquestionably they will remain bound or loosed in heaven as well.”
16:20. Jesus warned the disciples to remain silent about this discussion, probably to avoid misunderstanding in the throng that followed Him and would have forcefully made Him king with very little encouragement, but also perhaps to avoid aggravating the religious leaders further.
3. Jesus Faced Opposition: From Disciples Who Did Not Understand (16:21-27)
16:21-22. The disciples did not yet adequately understand the more serious implications of Jesus’ divine Messiahship. The elders and chief priests and scribes is an apt summary of those included in the Sanhedrin, the ruling religious body. Jesus alluded cryptically to His death before this (9:15; 10:38; 12:40), but this was the first time He did so explicitly with the disciples (see Mk 8:32). Peter demonstrated that he still had a lot to learn about Jesus’ Messiahship.
16:23. Get behind Me, Satan! reflects Jesus’ words at the conclusion of the temptation (4:10). There the Devil sought to keep Jesus off the cross by soliciting Him to sin, rendering Him unfit to be a sacrifice. Peter unwittingly played the same role, becoming a stumbling block (lit., “a trap,” but metaphorically “a situation or person that causes another to sin”) for Jesus. Peter was setting his mind on man’s interests. The typical Jewish expectation was that the Messiah would provide enormous political, economic, and spiritual relief for the Jewish people (cf. PssSol 17), but a dead Messiah could hardly do any of that.
16:24-27. On this section, see the comments on 10:34-39. Verse 24 is explained by vv. 25, 26, and 27. If one gains the whole world and forfeits his soul (“life”), this is pointless, for one would not be able to enjoy all that he acquired. Nothing can be given in exchange for one’s soul. Therefore, if one wishes to preserve his life, paradoxically it must be given up to follow Christ. Verse 27 gives another motivation for following Jesus. At the second coming, Jesus WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS—especially those, in context, related to following Him (v. 24; see also Jn 5:28-29; 6:28-29).
VI. The Foretaste of the Glory of the King-Messiah: The Transfiguration (16:28–17:8)
16:28. The Son of Man coming in His kingdom has been interpreted as the transfiguration, the resurrection, the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and the full-orbed establishment of the kingdom (i.e., assuming that the Church = the kingdom). The more defensible view is that v. 28 refers to all indicators of Christ’s kingly authority and judgment, including the transfiguration, His resurrection, the spread of the Church, and the judgment of Jerusalem. If 16:28 is about the kingly authority of Jesus that has residual effects, then the transfiguration alone is not the best referent. This view fits well with the idea of judgment in v. 27, with the transfiguration that follows immediately in chap. 17, and with some of the disciples who would not taste death, which seems to require a lengthier span of time than the six days that passed before the transfiguration (17:1). In addition, Judas is an example of one who did taste death and missed the resurrection, Pentecost, the Church’s growth, and AD 70.
17:1. Jesus provided a powerful experience for the three “inner circle” disciples, perhaps to offset the distressing mention of His impending death (16:21; 17:22). Exodus 24:9-18 provides a typological background for this episode (six days, Ex 24:16; three associates, Ex 24:9; a mountain covered by a cloud, Ex 24:12, 15; the glory, Ex 24:17; and God’s voice, Ex 24:16; 25:1). Matthew’s point in presenting these features of what transpired may be to build a case for Jesus being the new Moses, the new leader of God’s people. Mt. Tabor is the traditional high mountain, but Mt. Hermon (30 miles north of Capernaum), which rose to over 9,200 feet, is a better option, though the precise location is unknown. Lk 9:28 says the transfiguration took place some (lit., “about,” “approximately”) eight days later, but Matthew gives the more precise chronology.
17:2-3. Transfigured (metamorphoo, “to transform, change in form,” here “a change that is outwardly visible”) is further described by the remainder of the verse. The appearance of Moses and Elijah was probably to indicate the superiority of Jesus over these two prominent OT characters.
17:4-8. Peter offered to build three tabernacles (better “shelters” or “booths”—usually temporary dwellings made of animal skins supported by poles and secured with rope and stakes), perhaps to commemorate the event. But Peter’s intent to honor Moses and Elijah, as well as Jesus, brought a correction from God (v. 5), who clearly put the priority upon His Son.
VII. The Model of Humble Service Provided by the King-Messiah (17:9-27)
A. The Messiah Was Willing to Suffer (17:9-13)
17:9-13. This was the last time Jesus commanded His followers to remain silent about His power (8:4; 9:30; 12:16; 16:20; see the comments on 9:27-31). The connection between vv. 9 and 10 centers on the relationship of Elijah to the death of Jesus. Mk 9:11-12 suggests that their confusion resulted from being unable to harmonize the promise that Elijah will restore all things with Jesus’ forecast of His own death. If Elijah would lead the Jewish people in revival and spiritual restoration, then why would any revived and restored Jewish person kill the Messiah? The scribes were right about Elijah’s coming (v. 11), but failed to connect John’s ministry to what was promised of Elijah’s (Mal 4:5; Lk 1:17; see the comments on Mt 11:13-15). John did prepare the people for Jesus’ coming, but was killed nevertheless (v. 12); the same fate could well await the Messiah, Jesus.
B. The Messiah Was Willing to Help the Dull (17:14-20)
17:14-20. The thematic connections between this episode and the ones surrounding it are not clear. Jesus’ references to His death (17:9, 12, 22-23) are followed by miracles (17:14-21, 24-27), indicating that He was nevertheless the divine Messiah. Davies and Allison (The Gospel According to St. Matthew, 2:728) point out the primary thrust of these verses, which is seen in the repetition of various words for “faith” (unbelieving, apistos, v. 17; littleness of faith, oligopistia, v. 20, and faith, pistis, v. 20) and “power” (edynasthesan, [not] “to be able,” translated could [not] in v. 16; edynethemen, [not] “to be able,” translated could [not], and adynatesei, “to be unable,” translated impossible, v. 20). God’s merciful power, which He makes available to His people as they serve others, is conditioned upon their reliance on Him. Lunatic (v. 15) means “to be moonstruck,” i.e., adversely affected by the supposed supernatural powers of the moon, but here refers to something akin to epilepsy.
The disciples’ inability to heal (v. 16) is surprising in light of 10:1-8, but in keeping with their stumbling progress. Jesus’ rebuke (v. 17) was directed primarily against the disciples, but generation broadens the scope to include the others who were there. The disciples failed because of the littleness (better “poverty”) of their faith, which may consist of understanding God’s vast power but not relying adequately upon Him; poor faith is faith mixed with a portion of doubt (see 8:26). The extreme condition of the boy, the pressure from the father and perhaps the crowd, the absence of Jesus and the three prominent disciples—these may have contributed to their lack of faith. Nothing will be impossible to you is clearly hyperbolic, and it is imperative to recognize that faith is not a shamanistic spell that compels God to give health and wealth to His children. The context is that of power in ministry that comes in outrageous reliance upon God, and faith includes not only belief in God’s ability to act but reverent dependence upon Him that does not mandate how He should respond.
As a side note, Lk 9:28 says that Jesus went up on the mountain prior to His transfiguration to pray, and Mk 9:29 emphasized the need for prayer (as does Mt 17:21—a verse not found in the best manuscripts). Perhaps one of the reasons Jesus was able to exorcise this pernicious demon, aside from His divine power, was because of His life of prayer. Significant times of prayer precede remarkable accomplishments in ministry.
C. The Messiah Was Submissive (17:22-27)
1. Prepared to Die (17:22-23)
17:22-23. The trek to Caesarea Philippi and back was finished. The mention of Galilee anticipates 17:24 and 19:1, where Jesus leaves never to return. The verb delivered is used for Judas’s betrayal of Jesus (26:15, 16, 21, 23, 24, 25, 45, 46, 48), and this is the first time Jesus mentioned it (though cf. 10:4). Deeply grieved indicates that the disciples only heard they will kill Him and not the glorious final outcome raised on the third day. They were beginning to comprehend the dark day that awaited them, and no longer chastised Jesus for speaking of it.
2. Prepared to Pay a Tax (17:24-27)
17:24-27. The two-drachma tax (v. 24) was the temple tax used to support the sacrificial system in Jerusalem. According to the Mishnah (m. Shek. 1:1), the tax was a fixed amount seen as equivalent to two days’ wages, to be paid annually in the month of Adar (February-March) by all adult Jewish males over 20 years of age. The question posed to Peter indicates some concern regarding Jesus’ practice on this matter. Jesus used the opportunity to make a strong Christological point (vv. 25-26); as God’s Son, the Son of the King, Jesus would be exempt from paying this tax, just as kings of the earth exempted their own sons. Jesus, however, surrendered His right to the exemption to avoid undue offense, and miraculously provided the resources for Peter to pay the tax for both of them, suggesting that Peter is among “God’s sons” because of his connection with Jesus. Once again Matthew shows his readers Jesus’ humility in paying a tax for His Father’s house from which He was exempt, and in His perfect willingness to provide for Peter’s needs.
VIII. The Ethics of the Leaders Chosen by the King-Messiah (18:1–19:12)
A. Humility: Necessary to Enter and Serve in the Kingdom (18:1-6)
18:1-6. The question, Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven? may have arisen because of the mention of Jesus’ death. Which of them would be leader in His absence? On the kingdom of heaven, see 3:1-4. Jesus’ answer focused not on rank, but on the more critical issue of how to enter the kingdom—that is, by being converted (“change one’s ways, to turn to God”) and becoming like children. This comparison could be understood several ways, but the key is being humble (v. 4), explained further in v. 6 as believing in Me. Entering the kingdom is the prospect only for those who humbly trust in Jesus for salvation (see the comments on 7:21-23 for entering the kingdom). In v. 4, Jesus returned to the initial topic of being great in the kingdom. Humility was needed to enter the kingdom and to be great in it, for the leaders of His community are to be its servants (20:24-28) willing to care even for the insignificant (a child, v. 5). Whoever causes [a Christian]… to stumble (“spiritual harm”) will be held accountable for it (v. 6).
B. Personal Purity: Avoid Harming Self and Others (18:7-14)
18:7-10. Jesus does not say why it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come (v. 7), but later He indicates that evil thrives before it is expunged (24:6). Verse 7 indicates both God’s providential superintendence of stumbling blocks and human responsibility for them. In v. 8, Jesus warns that His followers could cause themselves spiritual harm by their own imprudent behavior. The OT forbade self-mutilation (Dt 14:1; 1Kg 18:28; Zch 13:6), and Jesus surely did not mean this verse to be applied literally. His point is that dealing with sin requires severe steps.
Fiery hell (v. 9) is literally “Gehenna of fire.” For the history of Gehenna, aka the Hinnom Valley on the southwest end of Jerusalem, see 2Kg 16:3; 21:6; 23:10; 2Ch 33:6. Under King Josiah, the valley became Jerusalem’s city dump where fires constantly burned to reduce volume and speed putrefaction. It was a graphic representation of hell. According to this context, some of the characteristics of being saved include being dependent upon God and believing in Jesus (see comments above). But if one harms and despises His followers (vv. 2-10) and does not deal severely with his own sin, he shows an affinity with the world that indicates he might be unsaved and condemned (destined for fiery hell). The main point of v. 10 is that believers are important to God, and if angels who serve them (Heb 1:14) observe one of these little ones receiving harsh treatment, God will “find out about it” from them and neither He nor they will approve.
18:12-14. See Lk 15:3-7. The point here, however, is that God goes to great pains to redeem His people and to keep them in His love. The followers of Jesus should show the same kind of pastoral concern for each other that God demonstrates.
C. Corporate Purity: Conduct Church Discipline (18:15-20)
18:15-20. This passage indicates how a wayward sheep is brought back to the fold. The first step (v. 15) involves a caring, private admonition of the sinful disciple. To the verb sins some ancient mss add “against you” (reflected in the KJV; NKJV; ESV; RSV), but scribes tended to add material, supporting the shorter and more encompassing reading. Show is literally “to rebuke,” or “to convince a person of his wrongdoing.” This reproof is to be conducted in private; slander and gossip have no place in Jesus’ community. You have won [“to gain,” “prevent the loss of”] your brother presents the goal of the process. These steps must be conducted with family-like kindness (brother is used twice). Those who relish church discipline are precisely the ones who should not engage in it.
The second step (v. 16) involves the enlistment of TWO OR THREE WITNESSES (see Dt 19:15). These additional participants probably did not observe the initial sin. The need for privacy would be reduced if they had. Their role is to accompany the original witness to lend weight to the gravity of the situation, and perhaps to certify to the church that restoration was being conducted correctly.
The third step (v. 17) involves telling the church, presumably so that the entire church becomes involved in the effort to restore. If this attempt fails, then the offending party is to be treated as a Gentile and a tax collector. Jewish people kept their interaction with Gentiles and tax collectors to a bare minimum. While Jesus accepted Gentiles and tax collectors, an unrepentant believer who has been taken through the three steps of church discipline should not be accepted back into the church. In the phrase let him be to you, you is singular, not plural. Jesus was personalizing the instruction, making the responsibility for restoration and discipline binding upon every individual in Jesus’ community (not just the leaders!).
For v. 18, see 16:19. Here, however, it is the entire community that participates in the binding and loosing, not just Peter. In this context it deals less with salvational forgiveness of sins and more with the restoration (being loosed) of one who is already saved. The two who agree (v. 19) refers to the same two or three witnesses of v. 16 and the two or three … gathered (v. 20). Their agreement probably relates to the need to tell the entire church. On earth and in heaven (v. 19) parallel the similar phrases in v. 18. Anything that they may ask must be governed by the context as a promise related to church discipline, and surely includes asking for God’s providential guidance through these steps. Anything literally is “any matter” or “any affair,” i.e., any circumstance requiring church discipline. In v. 20 Jesus promised to be present with His people when they engage in restoration, just as He does in 28:20. The church needs reassurance of His presence and authority not only in the daunting task of evangelism, but also in the distressing task of church discipline.
D. Forgiveness: Remember How Much God Forgives (18:21-35)
18:21-22. Peter’s question flows from the implications of church discipline in vv. 15-20. There are petty offenses not worthy of church discipline for which forgiveness is appropriate. Seventy times seven (NASB; KJV; RSV; NLT) is literally “seventy-seven” times (so NRSV; NIV; NET), indicating that no restriction should be placed on the number of times forgiveness is offered.
18:23-27. On the kingdom of heaven (v. 23), see the comments on 3:1-4. The talent (v. 24) (talanton) was the largest denomination of money in the Roman world, and ten thousand talents was the largest number employed in that day. In modern currency, the spending power could easily be several billion dollars. The slave made a promise he could not possibly keep (v. 26). Driven by his compassion, the king no longer counted the loan against the slave (v. 27) and acted as if the loan had never been made. There were no further consequences, no further punishment, and complete release from the obligation.
18:28-30. What follows in vv. 28 mirrors vv. 24-27, except the amount of money and response of the unforgiving slave differ. The denarius was a Roman silver coin, worth one day’s wage for a common laborer. The second slave owed the first about 100 days’ wages. This is not a trifling amount, but 100 denarii is minute in comparison to the 10,000 talents.
18:31-35. There are two options regarding the main point of the parable. The first is that certain results should be present if one has been forgiven, and the absence of the results indicates that the person did not receive forgiveness from God. In Lk 7:36-50, the sinful woman was saved by her faith (Lk 7:50), her many sins forgiven (Lk 7:47). She responded by expressing her great love to Jesus (Lk 7:47). The implication is that if she had not been forgiven, she would not have shown her love, a proper response to receiving forgiveness. Conversely, the unforgiving slave gives evidence of never actually receiving his king’s forgiveness, for if he had, a reasonable response would have been forgiveness of the other slave. As a result, the king rescinds the forgiving of the debt, and increases the severity of the punishment (torturers, not simply “jailers,” NIV; TNIV; KJV; ESV; HCSB), a reference to judgment and eternal condemnation.
Another approach is that the parable is a warning to those who have “entered the kingdom of heaven” as children who trust Jesus (see 18:1-6 above) and who are brothers in the fullest sense (18:21), saved individuals who have received the gracious forgiveness of God (18:27, 32-33). But they choose to be unforgiving of others. As a result, God turns those saved individuals over to torturers, probably discipline from God in this life, until they learn to forgive. While the first view is unobjectionable, the second has better contextual support mentioned above.
The details of the parable must not be forced to “walk on all fours.” God is not so capricious as to change His mind about forgiving people. Verse 34 cannot be invoked as a support for purgatory; if anything, it supports the idea of the eternal duration of hell since the slave would never have paid off the debt and been released. The essential lesson is this, and only this: In this life God will severely discipline those whom He has forgiven but then refuse to forgive others.
E. Divorce: Avoid It (19:1-12)
19:1-2. The connection between chaps. 18 and 19 may be on the need for forgiveness, not only in general relationships with others, but especially in marriage where unfaithfulness and divorce may occur.
19:3. The test was designed to trick Jesus into being at odds with Moses or into infuriating those who held contrary views. For any reason at all (see Dt 24:1-4) reflects the more popular view of divorce championed by the famous rabbi Hillel (d. AD 20, leader of the Sanhedrin during the reign of Herod the Great), who taught that one could divorce his wife for any reason, including burning dinner or being unpleasant (m. Git. 9:10; see also Josephus, Ant., 4.253; Life 426; Sir 25:26). Rabbi Shammai (Hillel’s contemporary) had a much narrower view, permitting divorce only for “indecency,” probably lewdness or promiscuity short of actual intercourse.
19:4-6. Jesus cited Gn 1:27 (v. 4); God did not create many women for Adam, nor many men for Eve. God brought one man and one woman together in an intense sharing of a common life which included sexual union (JOINED TO HIS WIFE … BECOME ONE FLESH, Gn 2:24) and which superseded all other familial bonds (SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER). Serial monogamy was not, and is not, God’s design.
19:7-8. The Pharisees returned to the question about Dt 24:1-4. They believed that Moses required divorce, but Jesus corrected them. Moses permitted divorce because of your hardness of heart, a reference to unfaithfulness by a spouse. The only command in Dt 24 comes in v. 4 (see the comments there). Divorce is therefore “never to be thought of as a God-ordained, morally neutral option but as evidence of sin, of hardness of heart” (Carson, “Matthew,” 412-13). From the beginning (see Mt 19:4) indicates that God’s foundational purpose for marriage was that it be permanent between one man and one woman, and that purpose is not trumped by the allowance for divorce in Dt 24 when there is moral failure.
19:9. The verse probably does not mean “Whoever divorces his wife, even for immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” If Jesus forbade all divorce for all reasons, it is highly unlikely that Paul would have allowed divorce for abandonment by an unbelieving spouse (1Co 7:12-16), and v. 9 would be placed at loggerheads with 5:32 where Jesus clearly permits divorce. Immorality (porneia) is sometimes interpreted as “an incestuous marriage” (forbidden in Lv 18:6-18) on the basis of its use in 1Co 5:1. But in that context an incestuous affair is meant, not a marriage, and the word elsewhere means “sexual sin,” referring to prostitution, premarital and extramarital sex (1Co 6:13, 18; Eph 5:3; 1Th 4:3), and sometimes adultery (Sir 23:23), depending on the context. Incest is also unlikely because 19:6 says that God joined together the man and woman, which would not be true if the marriage were contrary to the Law. Nor does immorality mean “unfaithfulness during betrothal,” for which divorce was the approved action (1:18-19). Jesus spoke of a consummated marriage in 19:5-6 (one flesh), but the marriage was not consummated during betrothal. The exception clause may modify only whoever divorces his wife, allowing divorce but forbidding remarriage. However, it is hard to see how divorce could constitute adultery without a subsequent one-flesh remarriage, and remarriage following divorce was assumed (see m. Git. 9:3). Jesus appears to permit divorce and remarriage without either being a sin if one’s spouse was unfaithful. In addition, the adultery could be forgiven (see David’s case, 2Sm 12:13; also 1Co 6:9-10), but this must not be used to rationalize it, and forgiveness never precludes serious consequences.
19:10-12. Jesus’ approach to the permanency of marriage and the restrictions on divorce elicited a strong reaction from the disciples. He is much more narrow than Hillel, but in line with Shammai’s view of marriage and divorce. However, Shammai’s view was probably virtually abandoned in Jesus’ day, making the contrast between Jesus’ approach and the popular one all the more startling.
IX. The Citizens of the Kingdom and the King-Messiah (19:13–20:34)
To Be a Citizen of the Kingdom, One Must …
A. Be Childlike to Be in It (19:13-15)
19:13-15. Matthew may have recorded this episode to emphasize the sanctity of the family, the heart of it being marriage and children.
B. Depend on God to Enter It (19:16-30)
19:16-22. This episode shows the kinds of attitudes that do not characterize the childlikeness approved in 19:13-15. What good thing (v. 16) is contrasted with the One who is good (v. 17), suggesting that obtaining eternal life is dependent upon God rather than one’s deeds. Verse 17a is literally, “Why are you asking Me about a good thing [that you would do]?” He made this theme explicit in 19:26, namely, that one’s entrance into the kingdom is the result of God’s work, not a result of one’s deeds. Keep the commandments is puzzling in light of the strong grace context, but Jesus played the works card to challenge the man’s assumption that he, by his deeds, could obtain eternal life. Jesus included Lv 19:18 (v. 19) on loving one’s neighbor, a critical observation for understanding what followed. The young man may have made money his idol, but Jesus gave no hint of this. Instead He focused on his failure to keep the very laws he claimed to have kept. Jesus commanded him to sell everything and give to the poor (v. 21), an application of Lv 19:18 for this man. Jesus called his bluff and proved that he had not and would not do what he claimed to have done. He even revealed an awareness of his own deficiency in keeping the law (v. 20).
19:23-26. The disciples were astonished because (v. 25) in Early Judaism wealth was an indication of God’s favor, since it was believed that God would surely not endow a sinner with wealth. Hence if it were hard for a rich man to get into the kingdom, how could anyone else hope to do so? Jesus responded by saying it is ultimately God’s work (for more on entering the kingdom, see the comments on 7:21-23).
19:27-30. In contrast to the rich young ruler, the twelve left the little they had to follow Jesus. How would that benefit them? Regeneration (v. 28) is used again in the NT only in Ti 3:5 where it refers to the regenerating work of the Spirit for the believer. But here it refers to the future renewal of the earth when the curse is lifted (Rm 8:18-25) during the “new age,” the millennial kingdom, when Jesus comes to reign upon the earth. The disciples will judge the twelve tribes of Israel. This is a significant promise because it shows that the disciples were not only the foundation of the Church (Eph 2:20-22) but also the leaders of the remnant of Israel (Rm 11:1-6). Jewish believers have this unique status as members both of the Church and Israel. This promise was probably made only to the twelve as a unique group, but the NT indicates that all believers will participate with Christ in His judgment of the earth (Mt 25:21; Rm 16:20; 1Co 6:2; Rv 2:26-27; 3:21). The promise of v. 29 is not a literal one, since one cannot have 100 literal mothers! God is no man’s debtor: if Jesus’ disciples were shunned by family members, they would find within the messianic community a hundred surrogate loved ones, in addition to eternal life. The first will be last; and the last, first provides both reassurance and a warning. The statement in context states that God’s grace extends to those who approach God in childlike trust (vv. 13-15). God will incorporate and advance them in the kingdom instead of those who enjoy power and prominence like the rich young ruler, which provides the warning in these verses. The same phrase is found in 20:16, giving a slightly different look at God’s grace there, namely that He is remarkably gracious and does the unexpected for His people.
C. Not Be Shocked at Those Whom God Excludes (20:1-16)
20:1-2. There is a clear structure in 19:30-20:16. It begins with the saying, “But many who are first will be last, and the last first” (19:30). Then, in the parable, often called Parable of the Gracious Landowner, during the morning hours workers are hired from first to last (20:1-7), but in the evening, workers are paid from last to first (20:8-15). Verse 16 inverts the clauses in 19:30. The reversal theme from 19:23-30 continues. (See David Turner, Matthew, 478.)
20:3-7. The third, sixth, ninth, and eleventh hours were approximately 9:00 a.m., 12:00 noon, 3:00 p.m., and 5:00 p.m., and assume a twelve-hour workday. Jesus did not explain why the landowner returned throughout the day, and probably nothing should be read into this (perhaps he was disorganized; the harvest was urgent). Similarly, the workers hired at the end of the day were probably not the reputed worst workers (v. 6), but rather simply had not found work.
20:8-16. Temporary laborers were usually paid each evening (v. 8) (Lv 19:13; Dt 24:15). Those who worked longer but were paid a single denarius grumbled at the landowner (v. 11) since, by human reckoning, they deserved more than those who came later, though they were paid appropriately (20:2). But this is the point of the parable. It is not primarily about deathbed conversions, disciples who joined Jesus after the initial twelve, the Gentiles being included in the people of God after the Jewish people, the need for not seeing rewards in the kingdom as an entitlement. These points are not clearly evident in the parable. What is clear is that God exercises His freedom to give kingdom blessings graciously to whom He chooses, and that may cause shock when He reverses human expectations.
D. Yield to the Messiah the Desire for Prominence (20:17-34)
1. Jesus Was Willing to Die (20:17-19)
20:17-19. It is possible that 20:17-19 looks back to the Parable of the Gracious Landowner and presents the basis on which even late-comers can be part of the kingdom—through God’s grace effected in the death of Christ. This is the third time Jesus mentioned His death to the disciples (16:21-23; 17:22-23). To go up to Jerusalem (vv. 17-18) was a topographical expression, as the city is about 2,500 feet above sea level. Jesus and the disciples were headed to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover, as were thousands of others, for the Law required three pilgrimages each year for Jewish men in celebration of certain holy days (Ex 23:14-17). On Son of Man, see 8:18-22. This prediction, unlike the others, included the condemnation by the leaders, and the mocking, scourging, and crucifixion by the Gentiles. Although the Church has historically held the Jewish people responsible for the death of Jesus, obviously Jesus includes Gentiles as responsible parties in this conspiracy of guilt (see Ac 4:27-28). It is the Son of Man, the Son of David, the divine Son of God, who would voluntarily undergo such treatment to save others. His humility would contrast starkly with the arrogance of the sons of Zebedee in the following section.
2. The Leaders of the Disciples Were Required to Serve (20:20-28)
20:20-23. These verses function as the bridge connecting 20:1-18 with 20:29-34. God will give rewards on the basis of His grace (vv. 1-16) through the death of His Son (vv. 17-19); all jockeying for rewards and status are misdirected in light of what God alone has determined and in light of Jesus’ example.
The sons of Zebedee (v. 20) were James and John (4:21). The only other place in Matthew’s gospel where a mother directs a request to Jesus for a child is in 15:22. The Canaanite woman’s request was granted on the basis of her sheer desperation and faith, in contrast to the denied request voiced by Mrs. Zebedee. Sit one on Your right and … left (v. 21) was an appeal for the brothers to acquire a high rank in the kingdom, even to direct the other disciples. Jesus already promised that the twelve would reign in the kingdom with Him (19:28), but James and John wanted a guarantee that they would be the first among equals. To drink the cup (v. 22) was an idiom for “undergoing God’s wrath” (Pss 11:6; 75:7-9; Is 51:17, 22; Jr 25:15, 17, 27-28; 49:12; Lm 4:21; 16:19; 18:6), but here probably means “to undergo intense suffering” since they were not the objects of wrath. We are able is ironic, for neither brother stayed awake in Gethsemane while Jesus prayed for the “cup” to pass from Him (Mt 26:37-46). Prepared (v. 23) refers to the preordained plan of God who sovereignly governs all things, including His determination regarding a disciple’s position in the kingdom. James was martyred in Ac 12:2; John suffered, but apparently was not a martyr (cf. Jn 21:20-23; Rv 1:9).
20:24-28. Matthew does not say why the ten became indignant, but possibly because they were afraid they would lose their own prominence in the kingdom, or become subservient to James and John. They forgot the childlikeness enjoined by Christ in 18:4. The rulers of the Gentiles (v. 25) were counter-examples; lord it over them means “to have mastery” (Mk 10:42; 1Pt 5:3), sometimes “to bring into subjection, gain dominance” (Ac 19:16), usually with a sense of heavy-handedness. Shall be your servant (or “helper,” v. 26), shall be your slave (v. 27) give the positive values, all too frequently ignored in some ecclesiastical settings. It is true that a leader serves his organization by exercising authority and influence. But the true servant leader—one who satisfies Jesus’ job description—occasionally gets his hands dirty in the process of helping those who cannot reciprocate. Jesus Himself did not come to be served, and provides the supreme example of servant leadership. Ransom means “the money paid to obtain the freedom of a slave.” Jesus’ sacrifice frees those who trust Him from the tyranny of sin, personified as a slave master in Rm 6:1-14. For (anti, meaning both “in exchange for” and “in the place of”) points to a person who receives a benefit because of some kind of exchange or substitution. At the cross, Jesus took the penalty of the sins of His people upon Himself, dying in their place as their substitute, and in exchange gives them eternal life. How the many (pollon) are ransomed is specified in 26:28 (My blood … poured out for many [pollon] for forgiveness of sins), where the wine symbolized His blood soon to be shed on the cross. Many indicates that the benefits of Jesus’ death are applied only to those who trust Him as Savior (see Rm 5:18, where all men refers only to those who receive grace and the gift of righteousness in Christ, Rm 5:17). Matthew 20:28 is cited often in support of the doctrine of particular redemption.
3. Jesus Was Willing to Serve (20:29-34)
20:29-34. In 9:27, at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry before He faced opposition, two blind men cried out using the same words as in 20:30 (with Lord being textually suspect in v. 30). This episode is near the end of His ministry after rejection and opposition. “So despite being rejected, Jesus’ charity remains the same throughout. His difficulties do not cancel His compassion” (Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 109). In addition, Jesus demonstrates His ongoing role as a servant leader.
Matthew and Mark (10:46) state that this miracle happened as Jesus left Jericho, Luke (18:35ff.) while entering. There is not a good explanation for this (see the major commentaries for the options), but Luke’s account is the least precise (literally, When Jesus was near Jericho, Lk 18:35), and may indicate a compressed account in order to accommodate the Zaccheus narrative. Matthew relates that there were two blind men, Mark and Luke only one. Matthew may have referred to both men in order to draw the parallels between them and the other two blind men in 9:27 (cf. above on 20:29-34). But there are no formal contradictions in the three accounts.
For Son of David, and the other details of the healing, see 9:27-31. Jesus possessed great authority; He was the messianic leader; He was no doubt preoccupied with what awaited Him in Jerusalem. But, unlike the crowd, He took the time to show compassion (v. 34) as the model servant-leader for these blind men, and by doing this instructed His disciples.
X. The Rejection of the King-Messiah (21:1–23:39)
A. The Messiah Offered Himself to the People (21:1-11)
21:1-3. The theme of Jesus’ royal identification (“Son of David,” 20:30-31) continues in chapter 21 (He is “King,” v. 5; “Son of David,” vv. 9, 15). In spite of all that will happen to Him in Jerusalem, Jesus was still the King of the Jews.
Bethphage was probably on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives. The Mount is an eschatologically important location (e.g., Zch 14:4; Ac 1:9-11) and historically important as the place from which the glory of the Lord departed from Israel (Ezk 9:3; 10:4, 18-19; 11:22-23). Jesus’ triumphal entry roughly retraced this route as if to say, “The glory has returned!”
21:4-9. Verse 5 is drawn from Is 62:11 and Zch 9:9, both from eschatological contexts about the deliverer rescuing Israel. The crowd spread their coats (v. 8) as a symbolic act. As their coats were under His feet, so they pledged to submit to their King. The branches from the trees were reminiscent of the celebration when Judas Maccabeus liberated Israel from Antiochus Epiphanes IV in 164 BC (1Mac 10:7; 2Mac 13:51), suggesting that the crowd expected a similar military emancipation through Jesus. Hosanna (v. 9) is probably a term of praise (see Lk 19:37-38), with their wish that their praise be heard in heaven (in the highest). The crowd shouted Ps 118:26 (cited also in Mt 23:39). The heart of Ps 118 is God’s deliverance of His people (vv. 13-14) who cry out to Him (vv. 15-21). The deliverance would come through the rejected stone (v. 22), the ONE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD (v. 26), the Messiah.
21:10-11. This is the prophet may reflect an inadequate view of the residents of Jerusalem regarding Jesus, but Matthew offers no appraisal of their view. But Jesus did function as a prophet in this context.
B. The Messiah Confronted the Corruption of the Priests (21:12-17)
21:12. The priests and people were buying and selling in the temple, probably a reference to the purchase of animals for sacrifice (for doves, see Lv 5:7). The money changers were necessary since many pilgrims would have brought foreign coins embossed with pagan images, and these were not to be used to pay the temple tax. Jesus’ primary concern appeared to be with the misuse of the temple and not with the leadership swindling the pilgrims. MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER (v. 13), from Is 56:7, looks forward to a time when God-fearing Gentiles will be welcome in the temple (Is 56:3-8). ROBBERS’ [better “revolutionists’”] DEN (or “cave”) alludes to Jr 7:11. In Jeremiah’s day, those who were disobedient to God viewed the temple as a magic charm that would spare them from His retribution. In Jesus’ day, the priests disregarded God’s desires for the temple, rendering them rebels against Him. Yet they functioned as if there would be no repercussions for their apathy.
Jesus’ act was considered insidious. His measures shut down the normal sacrifices probably for the rest of a busy day close to Passover. At Jesus’ trial, His action against the temple, and the authority with which He claimed to perform it (21:23), were the primary charges raised against Him (26:61; see also 27:40). No mere mortal had the right to do such things.
21:14-17. Perhaps to show one of the proper functions of the temple, Jesus healed the blind and the lame, probably in the outer Court of the Gentiles since the physically challenged were not admitted into the inner courts (Lv 21:18-19). The question voiced by the chief priests and the scribes (see 16:21) in v. 16 was a veiled mandate for Jesus to silence the children. He cited Ps 8:2, in which God ordained the children’s praise to nullify the opposition of His enemies. God was doing that in Jesus’ setting through these children. Jesus implicitly placed these leaders among God’s enemies. When Jesus left the temple and went to Bethany, about two miles southeast of Jerusalem on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, He stayed probably with Lazarus (Jn 12:1).
C. The Messiah Foretold the Judgment Against the Nation (21:18-22)
21:18-22. The withering of the fig tree comes between two sections that speak of opposition by the leaders in the temple (21:12-17 and 21:23), and, for reasons presented below, was probably a symbolic act portending God’s judgment because of their obstinacy. In the morning (v. 18) signifies Monday of Passion Week, the next morning after the triumphal entry on Sunday. Usually when fig trees are in leaf, they have fruit. Figs were used as a metaphor for the Jewish people (Jr 24:5, 8; 29:17; Hs 9:10), and the image of withered trees represented God’s judgment (Is 34:4; Jr 8:13; Hs 2:12; Jl 1:7; Mc 7:1). In Matthew, good fruit (righteous living) was the evidence of a right relationship with God, and absence of fruit made one liable to judgment (see comments on 3:5-12). The Jewish leaders were obligated to render the good fruit of Israel to God but failed to do so (see the comments on 21:33-46). As the fig tree advertised fruit but provided none for Jesus, so the Jewish leaders advertised spiritual fruit from Israel but actually offered none to God.
Verses 20-22 must also be read in this context of judgment. For the promise related to faith and prayer, see 17:14-21. The twelve apparently did not throw mountains around, but their prayers did result in the advancement of the Church against an otherwise insurmountable “mountain” of antagonism (Ac 1:14; 4:31-33; 8:15; 10:9; 13:2-3).
D. The Messiah Exposed the Cowardice of the Leaders (21:23-27)
21:23-27. Matthew does not note it, but Mk 11:27 (“they came again to Jerusalem” suggesting the start of a new day) and Lk 20:1 (“on one of the days” similarly indicating another day) indicate that 21:23 took place on the day after the events of Mt 21:18-22 which transpired on Monday (see the comments on Mt 21:18-22). Matthew 21:23 introduces the events on Tuesday of Passion Week. The question about His authority to do these things related to the cleansing of the temple. However Jesus answered would be problematic. If He claimed only human authority, He would leave Himself vulnerable to the charge of sinful action against the temple. But if He claimed divine authority, He might be open to the charge of blasphemy by claiming divine prerogatives. So, He responded with a question about their view of the source of John’s baptism (vv. 24-25a). Jesus’ question sounds evasive, but if they answered His question correctly then they would be answering their own. John the Baptist was a prophet sent by God, and he testified regarding Jesus (3:11-14). The religious leaders should have believed John and embraced Jesus, but their failure to do so gave their real estimation of John. They feared the people (v. 26), who saw John’s ministry as legitimate, so to avoid infuriating the crowds they feigned ignorance. By doing this, however, they implied that they were not fit to lead the Jewish people, for one of their main jobs was to determine who posed a spiritual threat, or who was actually sent from God.
E. The Messiah Presented Parables about the Consequences of Their Rejection (21:28–22:14)
21:28-32. The purpose of the Parable of the Two Sons was to expose the leaders’ deficient view of John and ultimately Jesus. The vineyard owner represents God, the first son the known sinners who, before John started his ministry, were disobedient to God but repented under John. The second son represents the religious leaders who claimed to be obedient. Yet when John came, they refused to believe the message God sent through him (cf. vv. 25, 32). Verse 32 indicates a twofold rejection of John by the leaders, in the initial stages of his work (John came to you) and later when John’s ministry had an impact on sinners (afterward the leaders persisted in their unbelief). Before you (v. 31) may reiterate the theme of the reversal of human expectations but may actually mean that the leaders would not get into the kingdom at all because of their opposition of Jesus (7:21-23; 23:13).
21:33-41. This parable continues the attack against the religious leaders. The landowner is God, the VINEYARD is Israel (cf. Is 5:1-7; Jr 2:21; Hs 10:1), the vine-growers are the leaders of Israel, the fruit they raised is what they owed God (a righteous life; see Mt 3:8-10; 7:16-20; 12:33; 13:23). The rejection of the landowner’s slaves represents the rejection of the prophets by the Jewish religious leaders (see 21:45), and the rejection of the son was the rejection of Jesus. Verse 33 suggests that considerable effort was expended developing this vineyard, reflective of God’s creation and care of Israel. The landowner sought to receive his produce (v. 34), a percentage of the yield divided with those who farmed it. The mistreatment of the slaves (vv. 35-36) shows the continuity between previous generations of religious leaders who abused God’s prophets and the leaders of Jesus’ day—a point that becomes explicit in 23:29-36. The phrase they said among themselves (v. 38) has an earlier parallel in v. 25 (reasoning among themselves), making explicit the connection between the farmers and the religious leaders. The deeds of the farmers were so outrageous that they would not get away with them. The landowner will punish the thugs and replace them with farmers who will pay him (v. 41). The verb pay (apodidomi) is used in 22:21 (translated “render” in the phrase “Render … to God the things that are God’s”). The religious leaders had not given God what was due Him, namely the kind of lives He required them to live, nor had they led Israel to bear the kind of spiritual fruit He sought.
21:42-44. Jesus cited Ps 118:22, which is found in a context that defines who the true followers of God are, namely those who trust in the Lord for their deliverance (Ps 118:15-21). Their deliverance comes through THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED (Ps 118:22), the blessed one who comes in the name of the Lord (v. 26; see the comments on 21:9). Verse 43 is often cited in support of the idea that the Church replaces Israel in God’s program. But in the phrase the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, the antecedent of you in v. 43 is not Israel but the religious leaders (v. 45), and in the parable it is the farmers, not the vineyard. The supervision of the kingdom would be given to a people producing the fruit of it, a reference to the apostles who would lead the faithful remnant of Israel (cf. 19:28). The word people [lit., “nation,” ethnos] in the singular as it is here was used often in the LXX for the Jewish people rightly related to God (e.g., Gn 12:2; Ex 19:6; Dt 4:6; Mc 4:7; Zph 2:9), with the plural often referring to Gentile nations (Lv 26:45; 1Sm 8:20; Ps 2:8; Is 2:4). In v. 44, Jesus indicated that if one fell on the stone, the stone won, and if the stone fell on a person, the stone won. No matter what, the stone wins (see Is 8:14-15; Dn 2:44-47). One had better not reject the stone (21:42).
21:45-46. The religious leaders understood Jesus correctly. Yet, in spite of the fate of the wicked farmers in the parable, they sought to seize Him and ignored the consequences.
22:1-14. Again indicates that Jesus continued addressing the theme of the removal of the kingdom from the Jewish leaders. For the kingdom of heaven (v. 2), see the comments on 3:1-4 and 13:10-17. The kingdom is often likened to a wedding feast (Mt 8:11-12; Rv 21:2, 7-9). The king sent out his slaves (v. 3), a reference to the prophets and John the Baptist. The verb call in this context means “to invite,” and does not mean “to experience the effectual call of God for salvation” as it does frequently in Paul (see Rm 8:28-30). Often in ancient times an initial notification of such a gala would be followed by the formal summons when preparations were complete. This was the second call. They were unwilling to come indicates that they were reneging on an assumed previous agreement, not unlike the second son in 21:30 and the evil farmers in 21:35-36. In his rage, the king set their city on fire (v. 7), prophetic of what happened to Jerusalem in AD 70 (cf. Josephus, War, 6.403-422). Worthy (v. 8) is the same word John the Baptist used when he addressed the Pharisees in 3:8 (bear fruit in keeping with [“worthy of”] repentance); the parable was directed mainly to those leaders who never repented.
Verses 9-10 are sometimes interpreted as presenting a transition from God’s focus upon Israel to a predominantly Gentile Church. But as in 21:33, it is the religious leaders who are confronted with this parable, who snub the king, and who will be judged. The king’s slaves went to the roads on the outskirts of town and invited everyone (vv. 9-10). The fringe people in the parable parallel the first son (21:29) and the good farmers (21:41, 43) who, late in the day, do God’s will. The leaders parallel the second son (21:30) and the wicked farmers. They early on appear to fulfill their obligations but ultimately refuse to do so and, in the case of the farmers, will suffer the consequences. The ones who accepted the invitation later are the Jewish riffraff (21:31-32) who will be included in the kingdom while the respectable leaders are turned away. In this parable, Jesus reiterated the reversal principle (see 19:30–20:16).
On the inclusion of the evil guest (v. 10) not dressed in wedding clothes (vv. 11-12), see the comments on 13:24-30, 36-43, and 47-50. The fate of this man is similar to that of the false prophets in 7:15-23. The lack of appropriate wedding clothes may depict his failure to meet the requirements for entering the kingdom (see the comments on 5:20; 7:21; 18:3-4, 6; 19:23-24).
The parable concludes with a foreboding note (vv. 11-13). This describes the judgment following the second coming, when the unprepared guest is thrown into the outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth (v. 13). In support of this as a reference to eternal punishment of unbelievers, not the regret of carnal Christians excluded from the happy aspects of the kingdom, see the comments on 8:5-13. Few are chosen (eklektos, i.e., “elect,” “chosen” for salvation; cf. Rm 8:33; Col 3:12; 2Tm 2:10) (v. 14) indicates that God chooses those who will be in the kingdom. But His sovereign choice is surely compatible with the decisions people make (like ignoring God, v. 5), but here, and in all of Scripture, the impetus is grounded in God’s sovereign plan.
F. The Messiah Escaped Their Traps (22:15-46)
22:15-22. This section reiterates 21:41, 43, about rendering to God what He requires. The trap (v. 15) was brilliant. Whatever Jesus said would get Him in trouble. Rome might see Him as an insurrectionist and punish Him if He disallowed paying taxes. But with an affirmative answer He might infuriate the Jewish people, for paying taxes was an agonizing reminder of their subjugation. The Herodians (v. 16) were aristocratic Jews in league with Rome, intent on the perpetuation of their privileged status and despised by their fellow Jews. Normally the Pharisees would not have sought any accordance with them, but if Jesus disparaged paying taxes, the Herodians would report it to the Roman authorities. The flattery (v. 16) was designed to embolden Jesus to say something against Rome. The poll-tax was a Roman tax upon personal property and agricultural products and probably amounted to about one day’s wage each year. The likeness (v. 20) on the front of the coin, assuming it was a Roman denarius, would be the image of Emperor Tiberius with a wreath on his head, with the inscription “TI CAESAR DIVI AUG F AUGUSTUS” (“Tiberius Caesar Augustus, Son of the Divine Augustus”). On the back was the abbreviation “PONTIF MAXIM,” or “High Priest” of the ancient Roman religions, with a picture of a seated woman (“peace” personified). It was clearly an idolatrous coin, deifying Caesar. The coin had Caesar’s image on it, suggesting that he “owned” it and that it should be given back to him in the appropriate tax amounts. Render (v. 21) was used in 21:41, translated pay. Jesus’ point there and here was that the Jewish leaders in particular failed to render to God what He required, namely, spiritual lives expended for Him and His glory, and the kind of leadership that would result in similar fruit from the entire nation.
22:23-33. On that day was still Tuesday of Passion Week (cf. the comments on 21:23-27). Sadducees did not believe either in a disembodied existence after death nor in the resurrection, so their question was not intellectually honest. They cited Dt 25:5 (v. 24) concerning Levirate marriage (see the comments on Dt 25:5-10). The Sadducees set up a scenario that was designed to make Jesus look either completely arbitrary (how could He pick one out of the seven when they all had married her [lit., “had her” in a conjugal way] in this life? v. 28), or to trick Him in to conceding that resurrection was an impossible doctrine, thereby alienating the Pharisees who cherished the belief. But the Sadducees were mistaken about the resurrection (v. 29). They assumed wrongly that Jesus believed it would be the continuation of a bodily existence like the present life, where marriage, intercourse, and procreation would continue. Jesus corrects them, saying that in the resurrection (v. 30) there will be no marriage (for which having children was a crucial component; Gn 1:28), for people will be like angels in heaven, that is, they will live forever. Hence procreation to perpetuate the race will be unnecessary. Note that He did not say that people become angels. Jesus responded further by citing Ex 3:6, which indicated that ABRAHAM, ISAAC, and JACOB were still alive as disembodied souls and eventually would be resurrected. God’s covenantal promises to the patriarchs were largely unrealized at the time of their deaths, so their eventual resurrection is necessary for God to fulfill those promises (for these points and many more, see N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003], 416-29).
22:34-40. The Pharisees once again went on the offensive. The responsibilities of a pharisaic lawyer (v. 35; synonymous with “scribe,” Mk 12:28, and “teacher of the law,” Lk 5:17) included studying the Law to derive legal principles from it, teaching it, and administering the Law as a counselor and judge in local courts (see Geza Vermes et al., ed., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ [175 BC–AD 135] [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987], 330). Testing him once again indicates the diabolical intent of the question, this time posed by one with impressive biblical savvy. The test may consist in duping Him into demeaning some aspects of the Law in favor of others, or in expressing a firm opinion on the great commandment when the very question was hotly debated (see Hagner, Matthew 14-28, 646 for the evidence). He cited Dt 6:5 and Lv 19:18 (vv. 37-40). HEART … SOUL … MIND indicate that love for God is to come from every facet of one’s constitution. It is unlikely that the Pharisees would have taken exception to this part of His answer. YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR means taking delight in meeting the needs of others. Sometimes the phrase AS YOURSELF is used to prove the need for cultivating a positive self-image before being able to love others. But Moses and Jesus assume self-love as the basis for the comparison of loving one’s neighbor. When one is cold, he puts on a sweater; when he is hungry, he eats. As one happily meets his own needs, i.e., “loves himself,” he should similarly meet the needs of his neighbor. These two great commandments are not mutually exclusive, for if one loves God he will love what God loves, and God loves people (cf. Mt 25:31-46; 1Jn 4:20).
22:41-46. Jesus went on the offensive here. He tested their understanding of the Messiah, perhaps to expose their superficiality, but perhaps also to help them understand more completely who He was. The stock answer to the question, “Who is the Messiah?” was “The son of David.” But the answer is deficient. Jesus cited Ps 110:1 (in v. 44) as proof that the Messiah was more than a human descendant of David. In Hebrew, the first occurrence of LORD (the Hebrew word often transliterated YHWH or Yahweh) is a clear reference to God, but the second occurrence is a different word (’adoni), usually referring to human authorities (e.g., Gn 18:12; 40:1; but cf. Jos 5:14; Jdg 6:13, where it is used for the angel of the Lord). However, the LXX (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, ca. 200 BC) uses the same word (kyrios) for both God and for David’s Lord, suggesting that the translators saw ’adoni as a reference to a divine being. Furthermore, the word ENEMIES is used seven times in Psalms, six of them for God’s enemies, not those of a human ruler (8:2; 21:8; 66:3; 74:23; 89:10, 51; 92:9 twice). When footstool (Hebrew and LXX in Ps 110:1; BENEATH YOUR FEET in Mt 22:44) is used elsewhere in the OT (1Ch 28:2; Ps 99:5; 132:7; Is 66:1; Lm 2:1), it is God’s footstool. These points together suggest that while the Messiah was not less than the son of David, He was much more than that (for more details, cf. Barry C. Davis, “Is Psalm 110 a Messianic Psalm?” BibSac 157 [April-June, 2000]: 162-63). In verse 43, Jesus asked the question, “If the Messiah is David’s son, then how can David call Him ‘Lord’?” In v. 45, the flip side is asked: “If David called the Messiah ‘Lord,’ then how can He be David’s son?” The answer to both questions is that the Messiah has dual natures and dual paternity. As a result of the incarnation, Jesus is fully human, and descended from David, and He is also fully God, and therefore, He is David’s Lord.
G. The Messiah Condemned the Leaders (23:1-39)
Jesus excoriates the Pharisees in Mt 23, but He was not alone in doing so. Others within Judaism were critical of Pharisaism. For example, in m. Sotah 22b, seven different kinds of Pharisees are discussed, six of which are portrayed negatively. They are: (1) The “shoulder” Pharisee wore his good deeds on his shoulder so everyone could see them. (2) The “wait a little” Pharisee always found an excuse for putting off a good deed. (3) The “bruised” Pharisee shut his eyes to avoid seeing a woman and knocked into walls, bruising himself. (4) The “humpbacked” Pharisee always walked bent double, in false humility. (5) The “ever reckoning” Pharisee was always counting up the numbers of his good deeds. (6) The “fearful” Pharisee always quaked in fear of the wrath of God. (7) The “God-loving” Pharisee was a copy of Abraham who lived in faith and charity. What Jesus does here is akin to other in-house criticism by some Jewish people against other Jewish people.
1. The Leaders Craved Acclaim (23:1-12)
23:1-12. Chapter 23 is a separate discourse, serving as an apt conclusion to Jesus’ running dispute with the religious leaders. In vv. 1-12 Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples about the improper actions of the scribes and the Pharisees, especially related to their thirst for acclaim. In vv. 13-36, He pronounced seven “woes” upon them (23:13, 15, 16, 23, 25, 27, 29) because of their hypocrisy and corrupt influence upon the people. And in vv. 37-39, He expressed a lament regarding the desolation that will come upon Israel. Verse 39 does, however, conclude with a note of hope.
In light of Jesus’ positive injunction in v. 3a, the chair of Moses probably does not refer to the leaders’ role as teachers of the Law. It probably reflects Moses’ role as a judge for the Hebrews (Ex 18:13, Moses sat to judge the people), a role that was largely delegated to faithful leaders (Ex 18:21-27). Moses commanded the people to do [same word in the LXX as in Mt 23:3] according to the terms of the verdict handed down by a judge, usually a priest or another notable leader, and to be careful to observe that decision (Dt 17:8-10). Scribes often filled the role of judges in their towns (cf. Sir 38:33—39:11). When they rendered a judicial verdict, they sat in a special chair in the synagogue to do so (a “chair of Moses” was found in the ruins of several synagogues, including Chorazin). Jesus taught that those verdicts were binding. But His followers were not to do according to their deeds, that is, imitate their religious practices. For the heavy burdens (v. 4), cf. 11:28-30. Phylacteries (v. 5) were small leather containers worn on the arm or forehead as an application of Ex 13:9 and Dt 6:8; 11:18; the tassels were worn on the corners of their clothes to remind the Jewish people to obey the Law (Nm 15:38-40), but many religious leaders enlarged them simply to impress others. The place of honor at banquets (v. 6) was always the seat closest to the host and signaled the importance of the guest. Chief seats in the synagogues were usually on a raised platform close to where the Scriptures were read. The respectful greetings (lit., “a greeting that reflected homage or acclaim”; cf. Lk 1:28-29) (v. 7) often followed a set formula with the one of lower status saluting the superior. Rabbi was a transliteration of a Hebrew word that meant “my teacher” or “my master,” carrying considerably more prestige than “reverend.” Verses 8-12 indicate that Jesus’ followers were to eschew such titles. One is your Teacher (v. 8) refers to Jesus, as in v. 10. The authority possessed by contemporary ministers is derived from Jesus, and humility dictates that they be cautious about self-aggrandizement, for … you are all brothers (there is equality among God’s people). Father (v. 9) was used for great leaders and for respected elderly male acquaintances. Leaders (v. 10) means “a guide, instructor,” perhaps “mentor.” On vv. 11-12, see the comments on 20:26-28 and Jms 4:10, respectively. In light of these verses, it seems inappropriate for church leaders to oblige others to call them by these honorific titles (“Reverend,” “Doctor,” “Father,” “Bishop,” even “Pastor”).
2. The Leaders Corrupted the People through Their Hypocrisy (23:13-36)
23:13-15. Woe is an exclamation that approximates “How sad!” or “Alas!” because of coming distress. As such it is a statement of lament but it also entails the future judgment of these leaders. The word hypocrites was used for the work of an actor. But here it means “pretending to be what you are not.” Jesus’ opponents put on a facade of pious conduct (though it really was not all that pious, v. 23) that cloaked a fundamental failure to do God’s will sincerely, all to enhance their reputation. Judgment would come on them because, by their opposition to Jesus (9:33-34; 11:19; 12:23-24; 21:15), they kept people from entering the kingdom (cf. the comments on 7:21-23). The better manuscripts omit v. 14, which was probably borrowed by some impulsive scribe from Mk 12:40 or Lk 20:47 for harmonization purposes. Proselyte usually referred to a Gentile who fully converted to Judaism. A son of hell here probably means “a follower (of Pharisaism) destined for hell” because, like the Pharisees, the proselyte is unwilling to welcome Jesus as the Messiah.
23:16-22. In these verses, Jesus attacked those who drew distinctions between binding and nonbinding oaths. In 5:33-37, Jesus’ teaching focused on the avoidance of volunteering oaths, while here it is on the question of how binding certain oaths were. The leaders were blind guides (v. 16) (see the comments on 15:12-14). The verb swears means “to promise a course of action by calling upon an important entity (God, or “the soul of my mother”) to witness it and to punish if it does not come about.” Someone spared no expense to give gold items, or the offerings on the altar, to the temple. Thus they were korban, wholly dedicated to the Lord’s use. On the other hand, some of the Jewish people and the leaders may have viewed the temple and altar as the more constant and less dramatic components of worship. If this reflects their thinking (and it is impossible to say with any certainty that it does), what they failed to grasp was that the gold was dedicated to the Lord (sanctified) precisely because of its connection with the temple, otherwise it would be no more important than any other gold. The altar made the mundane things on it extraordinary. Jesus evened out the prominence of the entities used in making oaths. By doing this, He removed the loophole whereby one might renege on an oath simply because it did not invoke something foremost in their estimation. He went further, emphasizing that because the altar, temple, and heaven all pertain to God, then making an oath in reference to any of them was tantamount to invoking God. Therefore, all oaths are binding.
23:23-24. The Law commanded that virtually everything be tithed to support the Levites (Lv 27:30-33; Nm 18:21-32; Dt 12:5-19; 14:22-29), and the Pharisees included even mint and dill and cummin. But they neglected the more serious aspects of the Law (justice, mercy, faithfulness; cf. Mc 6:8). Jesus graphically and proverbially makes the same point in v. 24. Some would pour wine through a strainer to avoid accidentally ingesting an unclean gnat (Lv 11:23, 41), a minor infraction of the Law compared to swallowing a camel (also an unclean animal; Lv 11:4). Jesus’ followers need to guard against being fixated on gnats (like not smoking, drinking, dancing) to the neglect of bigger issues (like controlling lust or curbing materialism).
23:25-26. The cup and the dish are metaphorical for the religious leaders who presented the image of well-scrubbed piety that concealed robbery (“the strong craving to obtain things, even by violent or deceptive means”) and self-indulgence (“lack of self-control,” used in 1Co 7:5 for sexual excess).
23:27-28. The metaphor changes in vv. 27-28, but the point is much the same as in vv. 25-26. A tomb might be attractive when painted, but that did not change what was inside. For hypocrites, cf. 23:13-15. Jesus drew attention to the irony of the religious leaders who claimed to keep the Law but, because of their inattentiveness to the more important aspects of the Law, were actually engaged in lawlessness.
23:29-33. The figure of tombs was applied in a different way in these verses. Jesus’ point may be that the leaders were proud of their forebearers and of their connection with them, and yet did not want to identify with their abuse of the prophets (v. 31). Nevertheless, these leaders were planning His death, an act that forged a strong link to their murderous progenitors. Verse 32 puts in narrative form the parabolic prophecy of 21:35-39.
23:34-36. Therefore, to facilitate the leaders’ filling up the measure of the guilt of their fathers (v. 32), Jesus will send them Christian prophets, wise men and scribes whom they will persecute. Like the generation exiled in Babylon, the Jewish leaders not only were accountable for their own sinfulness, but rode a wave of evil created by those who preceded them who killed Abel (Gn 4:8-10) and Zechariah, and they would experience the full expression of God’s wrath, which had been building through the years. Abel and Zechariah are mentioned by Jesus because they encompass the entire Hebrew canon (Genesis being the first, 2 Chronicles being the last book in the Hebrew order of the OT). Berechiah is probably a scribal error here but found also in two ancient Jewish texts (Tg. Lam. 2:20; Midr. Eccles. 3:16), and Jerome (Comm. in Matt. 4.23.35–6) mentions a book called “The Gospel of the Nazarenes” (which may have been the Gospel of Matthew, but there is no certainty of this) that has “Jehoiadah” instead of “Berechiah,” in keeping with the details of 2Ch 24:20-22.
3. The Leaders Faced Judgment (23:37-39)
23:37-39. Jesus reiterated the fate awaiting the Jewish people because of the disobedience of the leaders. Judgment, however, is not the last word, for Jesus will come again to a repentant people. At some time in the future, as a virtual prerequisite for the second coming, the Jewish people will recognize that Jesus of Nazareth is their Messiah, and will express a Ps 118:26-like confession. Only then will He come (cf. also Ac 3:19-20) and be seen by them in fulfillment of Zch 12:10. Cf. the comments on Mt 21:4-9 for the significance of Ps 118:26.
XI. The Future Coming of the King-Messiah (24:1–25:46)
The Olivet Discourse. There are several different approaches to this often disagreed upon discourse. Preterists (from the Latin “praeteritus,” “that which has passed,” “bygone events”) maintain that these chapters were fulfilled in AD 70, with Jesus’ second coming being a coming only to Israel (not for the whole world) in judgment. But the view is extremely unlikely. David Turner (Matthew, 584) writes, “One difficulty with preterism is its truncation of Jesus’s eschatology, which brings the reign of heaven to earth (6:10) and renews the world (19:28). If all this has already occurred, one wonders at the underwhelming denouement of the glorious future promised by the biblical prophets, John, and Jesus himself. It is very doubtful that the global language of Mt 24 (e.g., 24:3, 7, 14, 21-22, 27, 30-31, 40-41; see also 25:31-32) can be satisfactorily explained by a local event in 70 CE, as significant as that event was….”.
Partial preterists see the structure of Mt 24 in a number of ways. One view is that 24:4-25 (or 28) is about AD 70, and 24:26 (or 29; or 36) is about the second coming of Christ. But Jesus weaves the mention of His coming into this whole section (cf. v. 14, where the end should probably be connected with His coming on the strength of v. 3; cf. also vv. 27, 30), and the extreme conditions of vv. 21-22 make it unlikely that AD 70 are in view.
Another approach held by some futurists is that vv. 4-28 refers to hardships throughout the Church Age, as do vv. 32-35, with AD 70 a notable example of them in vv. 15-20. This period is then followed by the second coming, seen in vv. 29-31. But this view requires the reader to shift his historical and chronological understanding from the expanse of the entire Church Age (vv. 4-13), back to AD 70 (vv. 15-20), then to the second coming (vv. 21-22), then back to AD 70 (vv. 23-28), then to the second coming again (vv. 29ff.), then to the entire Church Age yet again (vv. 32-35), though “this generation” in v. 34 refers to the generation of Jesus’ day that experienced AD 70. How vv. 32-35 can refer to the entire Church Age but “this generation” in v. 34 only to Jesus’ contemporaries is not made completely clear. All of this chronological shifting is expecting a lot, perhaps too much, of Jesus’ hearers and Matthew’s readers.
An attractive alternative is offered by other futurists. They maintain that the events associated with AD 70 serve as an attesting sign that some day the events of the great tribulation will also take place, followed by the second coming. Verses 32-33 indicate that vv. 4-31 are the signs about the end of the age and the second coming but do not actually include those end time events. “This generation” (v. 34), many of those alive in Jesus’ day, will see all the events associated with AD 70, and that guarantees that there will be a tribulation period followed by the Parousia in the future. But this view falls prey to the objections leveled against the preterist views.
Still other futurists maintain that Mt 24 has a dual fulfillment, so that it speaks both of the events of AD 70 and of the second coming. But neither Jesus nor Matthew give any clear clues that this is the case, and without them it is difficult to conclude that the original hearers or readers would have understood that this one text presented twofold layers.
The approach adopted here is to view Mt 24–25 from a consistently futurist and pretribulational position. The first question in 24:3c, When will these things happen? (24:3c), is answered second by Jesus in 24:36-44, and His answer describes the surprise commencement of the day of the Lord (also known as “the great tribulation” [Dn 12:1; Mt 24:21] and “the time of Jacob’s trouble” [Jr 30:7]) which is initiated by the rapture of the Church. The second question in 24:3d, what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?, is answered first in 24:4-35, in which Jesus describes the various signs that arise during the day of the Lord. The various time references move back and forth during the seven-year tribulation period (v. 14 mentions the end of the tribulation; v. 15 describes events occurring in the middle of it; vv. 29-31 the end and the second coming; vv. 32-35 the entire tribulation period and the second coming; vv. 36-44 the startling commencement of the tribulation, including the rapture). This is a common dispensational interpretation, and for the best defense of it, see John F. Hart, “Should Pretribulationists Reconsider the Rapture in Matthew 24:36-44?”, Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 20 (Spring 2007), 51-75.
The weakness of this approach is that it does not adequately account for 23:38, where Jesus is surely referring to AD 70. It also requires that the first question of 24:3 receives an answer that is about an eschatological molestation of Jerusalem and the temple and not about its destruction in AD 70. Another weakness is that it sees “this generation” in v. 34 as a reference to people other than those alive in Jesus’ day who saw the events of AD 70. See the comments below for the responses to these issues. There are other weaknesses as well, but overall the consistently futurist view handles the text less awkwardly at key points than the other approaches.
Since AD 70 figures prominently in how some interpret Mt 24–25, a brief review of the revolt is in order. The Jewish people had endured religious insults and monetary pilfering under corrupt Roman governors for some time, and when they reacted negatively to it Rome countered brutally. Governor Gessius Florus killed over 3,000 people, and Jewish zealots wrested control of Jerusalem away from the Romans in an effort to inspire its inhabitants to join in their revolt. Nero dispatched General Vespasian to deal with the uprising which had spread into Galilee in the north. But in June, 68, Nero committed suicide to avoid being assassinated by subordinates. In the ensuing year, Servius Sulpicius Galba and Marcus Salvius Otho successively took the throne and were promptly terminated. Vitellius (Aulus Vitellius Germanicus) took the throne but lost the support of the Roman army. The eastern Roman legions backed Vespasian as the new emperor, who abruptly departed for Egypt in late 69 and orchestrated the demise of Vitellius from there. Vespasian left his son, Titus, about 30 at the time, in charge of subduing Jerusalem, which was finally accomplished in September, 70, after a seven-month siege that left the temple burned, much of the city destroyed, and a majority of the populace of Jerusalem dead because of starvation.
A. The Beginning of the Great Tribulation (24:1-14)
24:1-2. Matthew 23 is a stand-alone discourse because, as with the other discourses, when Jesus concluded it Matthew recorded that He departed from the place the discourse was given (cf. 8:1; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; and 24:1). But 24:1-2 are closely connected thematically to 23:37-39, describing further the desolation of Jerusalem. Going away indicates that at the end of Tuesday of Passion Week, Jesus returned to Bethany with His disciples. The slope of the Mount of Olives affords a panoramic view of the Temple Mount and engendered the disciples’ observation (v. 1). Not one stone here will be left upon another may refer to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70, but the events described by Jesus in vv. 4-28 do not fit what is known of those days. Cf. the comments on vv. 15-16. If Matthew’s gospel was written before AD 70, and the evidence indicates that it was, then a reasonable understanding of v. 2 is that He was referring to the trauma that would be incurred by the Holy City during the future tribulation period (cf. Mc 4:11–5:1; Zch 12:1-3; 14:1-2). This well-known end-times event would have been readily familiar to Matthew’s readers and Jesus’ disciples, but the same cannot be said for AD 70 as it had not yet occurred.
24:3. It is likely that the disciples’ questions do not have AD 70 in mind. When will these things happen? (answered in vv. 36-44) should be understood in light of the dual-sided question, What will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age? (answered in vv. 4-35). The twelve apparently envisioned a connection between “when” these things happen and the sign(s) that culminate in the end, which makes it somewhat difficult to see AD 70 as playing much of a role in His answer. The syntax of the question, What will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age? suggests that the disciples inquired about a sign that forecast both the coming of Jesus and the end of the age, two matters that are distinct, closely-related, but not identical (see Daniel B. Wallace, Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance [Studies in Biblical Greek] [New York: Peter Lang, 2009], 185–93). For the sign, see the comments on 24:30. Your coming (parousias, from which the word Parousia, a technical term for Christ’s second coming, is derived) signals that the disciples finally grasped, at least to some extent, that Jesus was leaving (16:21; 17:9, 12, 22-23; 20:17-19; 21:38-39), and that His return would involve cataclysmic events.
24:4-8. Beginning in v. 4 and running through v. 35, Jesus answers the question in 24:3 regarding the sign of His coming and the end of the age (see the recurrence of sign in v. 30). He gave several signs, not just one, indicating that His answer to their question was somewhat unexpected. Verses 4-14 summarize the entirety of the tribulation period including its end (v. 14). The events of vv. 4-8 are part of the seal judgments early in the tribulation. See the comments on Rv 6:9-11. I am the Christ (v. 5) is often viewed as a reference to the presence of messianic claimants before AD 70, the most likely candidates being Judas of Galilee (Ac 5:37), Theudas, who led a short-lived revolt c. AD 43-46 (Ac 5:36; Josephus, Ant. 20.97-98), an unknown Egyptian (Ac 21:38), Simon bar Giora, a leader of one Jewish faction at AD 70 (Josephus, War, 2.521-522; 7.26-32), Menahem, another leader in the war c. AD 70 (Josephus, War, 2.433-448). But there is no clear indication that any of them applied the title to himself, as v. 5 requires, until Simon bar Kokhba at the time of the second revolt (c. AD 132–135). It is preferable to see Jesus referring to a phenomenon during the great tribulation (cf. the comments on Rv 6:2). For vv. 6-7, see Rv 6:4-6 for these same events being part of the seal judgments during the tribulation. That is not yet the end (v. 6) and the beginning of birth pangs (v. 8) are cited in support the view that this part of the discourse is about the trials of the Church Age, or events culminating in AD 70, and not the Parousia. Perhaps more likely is that they refer to events early in the tribulation period (the seal judgments), and indicate that other eschatological events with greater severity will follow them before the end. Birth pangs is a technical expression for the upheaval associated with the day of the Lord (Is 13:8; 26:17; 66:7-8; Jr 4:31; 6:24; 22:23; 30:5-7; 48:41; Hs 13:13; Mc 4:9-10; 1QH 3:7-10; 1 Enoch 62:4; 1Th 5:3; Rv 12:2), and their beginning more easily supports the idea of events early during those end-times woes than they do a reference to AD 70 or the span of the Church Age. These things picks up these things in v. 3.
24:9-14. The events in this paragraph describe conditions that arise later in the tribulation period, with then (v. 9) signaling this transition. The one who endures … will be saved (v. 13) is found verbatim in 10:22. See the comments there. And then the end will come (v. 14), in connection with Your coming in v. 3, must refer to the end of the age, which makes it difficult to understand vv. 9-14 as referring to conditions around AD 70 when the gospel can hardly be said to have been preached in the whole world … to all the nations (though cf. Rm 10:18 and the comments there).
B. The Middle and End of the Great Tribulation: The Abomination of Desolation (24:15-28)
24:15-16. 1 2 Verse 15 shifts from the end of the tribulation described in v. 14 to consider one of the key signs in the middle of the tribulation period, namely, THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION. It is mentioned in Dn 9:24-27; 11:31; 12:11; see the comments there. According to Daniel, the abomination takes place half-way through the 70th week of Daniel. The abomination of desolation should not be associated with the destruction of the temple in AD 70, for a number of reasons. The abomination of desolation in Mt 24:15 seems to take people by surprise, but there was no surprise when the Romans came under General Titus, who laid siege to the city for seven months before its fall in September, AD 70. In 24:16, the people could flee, but could not with Titus since the Romans built a siege wall all the way around Jerusalem’s walls to prevent this. In addition, the siege left enormous numbers of the residents of Jerusalem dead or severely weakened, and when the Romans finally took the city, there was virtually no one who fled. According to Mt 24, the temple will be desecrated. However, with Titus, in AD 70, it was destroyed before it could be desecrated (though the Roman soldiers raised their ensigns in the temple, sacrificed to their gods, and sang in honor of Titus. Cf. Josephus, War, 6.316). In short, if Jesus is giving a prophecy of AD 70, He was wrong about much of what actually happened—which is somewhat problematic for one’s Christology. Let the reader understand was probably a comment made by Jesus rather than an editorial aside by Matthew, challenging His followers to read Daniel 9 in light of His reference to it here. Flee to the mountains (v. 16) is also unlikely to refer to AD 70, since the Judean mountains were crawling with the soldiers from four Roman legions.
24:17-20. Verses 17-18 indicate that people should flee without giving any thought to getting things from their homes. During the winter (v. 20), roads were wet, muddy, and could be extremely hard to travel on. On the Sabbath, they might be more reluctant to flee as it would violate the command to rest, or they might not find much help along the way.
24:21-22. This is probably a reference to the future tribulation period, and not to AD 70. As bad as the Jewish war with Rome was, it does not match the severity of the language Jesus employed here. The phrase unless those days had been cut short means that God would not allow the days to go on for an undetermined time. This shows He is sovereign over the length of the great tribulation. Elect (v. 22; cf. also 24:24, 31) is often applied to Christians (cf. Rm 8:33; Col 3:12), and it is usually assumed that the word here refers to believers. At this point in the Olivet Discourse, the apostles function as representatives of the nation of Israel, not necessarily the Church (see Bruce A. Ware, “Is the Church in View in Matthew 24-25?”, BibSac April-June 1981, 158-172), and, more precisely, as the leaders of the remnant of Israel during the tribulation. David K. Lowery (“A Theology of Matthew,” in A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, Roy B. Zuck and Darrell L. Bock, eds. [Chicago: Moody, 1994], 44, 60) points out that Jesus’ disciples serve as a model of future disciples in 10:17-22, where they and the subsequent disciples whom they represent will suffer for their testimony, and in 10:23, where their mission to reach Israel will be continued by others after them. It is plausible that the disciples here serve as a model of the experience of future Jewish believers and those who lead them during the tribulation. Furthermore, Dn 9:24, which introduces the abomination of desolation prophecy, says, “Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city….” indicating that Dn 9 was intended for, and was primarily about, the Jewish people. Jesus’ reference to Daniel in Mt 24 probably carries over the same focus, so that at least in 24:4-15 the experience of believing Israel during the tribulation is in view here, not that of the Church, while the experience of the Church is found in 24:36.
24:23-28. The main difference between this warning (v. 23) and the one in 24:4-5, 11, is that here the claim to be the messiah is made by one on behalf of another. False leaders arise calling attention to themselves in the earlier section, but here they garner support from many others. In contrast to Jesus, the false messiahs and false prophets will freely work miracles to promote themselves (v. 24), whereas Jesus insisted on secrecy about most of His acts. On the miracles of the antichrist, cf. 2Th 2:8-9; Rv 13:13. Unlike the first advent, the second will be as sudden and unmistakable as a flash of lightning (vv. 26-27). All doubt will vanish, and all false messiahs will be unmasked. No one will have to say, “Look here, look there.” These verses make the preterist position (that Jesus’ second coming to judge Israel happened in AD 70) more difficult to defend. Verse 28 is puzzling, but by this Jesus may mean that in the same way vultures inevitably find carrion, so also it is inevitable that everyone alive in those days will see the second coming.
C. The Second Coming (24:29-35)
24:29-31. It is possible that there is a gap between v. 28 and v. 29 to accommodate enough time for AD 70 to transpire and the Church Age to run its course before the second coming. “Prophetic foreshortening” is a phenomenon found in biblical prophecy where eschatological events are presented as if happening one immediately after another when in fact there may be centuries between them (cf. Is 9:6a,b, with 9:6c; Dn 9:24-25, with 9:26-27). If there is such a gap here, that would fit nicely with the unknowability of the time of the Parousia. If vv. 4-28 are about events surrounding AD 70 (the preterist and partial-preterist view) or about the entire Church Age (some futurists) followed by a time gap after which the events of vv. 29 transpire, then no one could know when He will come. The main problem with this understanding is that it seriously minimizes the force of the phrase immediately after the tribulation of those days. Jesus gives a clear chronological marker that does not easily allow for prophetic foreshortening here, and immediately connects the temporal proximity of the signs of the tribulation to the second coming. The darkening of the heavenly bodies (v. 29) signals the arrival of the day of the Lord, the great tribulation. For other passages that refer to cosmic disturbances at the end of the tribulation, cf. Ezk 32:7; Jl 2:31; 3:15; Rv 6:1-14. The two occurrences of then (v. 30) make it likely that the sign is distinct from, and chronologically follows, the phenomena in the sky (v. 29) and is distinct from but immediately precedes the coming of the Son of Man mentioned in the last half of v. 30. The word sign (see 24:3d) could be translated “ensign, standard, flag.” When ancient Israel’s troops were mustered, a ram’s horn was blown (note the TRUMPET in 24:31; cf. Ex 19:16) and an ensign with a crosspiece at the top was raised, to which an animal (usually a snake) was affixed. There is an end-times context in Is 11:10-16, where God raises His flag as He begins His campaign to crush Israel’s enemies and regather His people to their land. The sign of the Son of Man, then, is some kind of visible militaristic portent that indicates the commencement of Jesus’ campaign. The appearance of this sign causes the tribes of the earth to mourn, an allusion to both Dn 7:13 and Zch 12:10 but with world-wide application. Sometimes v. 31 is interpreted as a reference to a posttribulational rapture, and while possible, it is unlikely that this is the case. The phrase WILL GATHER (episynago) is used in the LXX in Ps 105:47 (English translations 106:47) and 147:2 (English translations 146:2) for the regathering of the Jewish people to the Holy Land following God rescuing them (also the point of the sounding of the trumpet in Is 27:13, cited by Matthew in v. 31). In the OT, this regathering was not a “rapture” in which God’s people would receive their resurrected, glorified bodies but appears to be an event experienced in natural bodies in which God gathers them into the millennial kingdom.
24:32-35. All these things (vv. 33, 34) refers to the signs mentioned in vv. 4-31. When these signs begin to come to pass, the people alive at that time can be assured that they will see His second coming as well. All these things (plural adjective and pronoun; see “these things” in 24:3c) is distinct from He [or “it”—probably the Parousia] is [the verb is third person singular] near, so that the Parousia is not included in all these things. This generation (v. 34) is almost universally taken as a reference to the people alive in Jesus’ day, and generation usually means this in Matthew (cf. 11:16; 12:41; 17:17). However, this is often assumed rather than argued, and the context of v. 34 points in another direction. The generation in v. 34 will pass away only after all these things take place. All these things probably include the world-wide preaching of the gospel message followed by the end (v. 14), the future abomination of desolation (vv. 15), the unparalleled world-wide tribulation for which God limits the days (vv. 21-22), the increase of false messiahs (vv. 24), followed immediately by cosmic upheaval (v. 29), the militaristic sign of Jesus’ coming (v. 30), and then, presumably, His second coming which follows hard on the heels of these signs (v. 30; probably v. 33). The near-demonstrative pronoun this often refers to that which is near in the mind of the writer or speaker (cf. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996], 325), and to assign to this generation the referent “those living in the disciples’ day who survive until AD 70” is somewhat ungainly in light of the contextually-immediate discussion of the events associated with the end (especially vv. 30-31, all these things in vv. 33 and 34). Another interpretation which understands the meaning of generation as “family” or “race” (“this family—the Jewish people—will not pass away,” even though it might seem like they will because of the severity of the tribulation) is an unlikely sense based on Jesus’ and Matthew’s other uses.
D. Instruction Urging Readiness for the Day of the Lord (24:36–25:30)
24:36-41. These verses answer the first question in 24:3c, “When will these things happen?” But (v. 36) is actually two words, “but concerning” (peri de; see the ESV), and frequently indicates a move to a new thought (Mt 22:31; Mk 12:26; 13:32; Ac 21:25; 1Co 7:1; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12; 1Th 4:9, 13; 5:1). In this case the shift is away from the discussion of Jesus’ coming during those days (note the plural; see vv. 19, 22, 29) at the end of the tribulation (vv. 29-31) to the suddenness of the beginning of the day of the Lord (that day, v. 36—note the singular) including the rapture of the Church which commences it. Of that day [the day of the Lord; 1Th 5:4] and hour [used for end-time woes in Jn 16:21-22; Rv 3:10] no one knows is highly problematic for every eschatological school, for Jesus claims that one can know that His coming is near based upon observable signs (24:4-35, especially vv. 29-35), and yet says that no one can know that day and hour (vv. 36, 39, 42, 43, 44, 50 twice; 25:13) (for the issue, see Douglas J. Moo, “The Case for the Posttribulation Rapture Position,” in Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Paul D. Feinberg, Douglas J. Moo, and Richard R. Reiter, The Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Post-tribulational? [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1984], 209). The problem stems from the failure to note that the events of vv. 29-35 and vv. 36-44 are different events. The second coming will be recognizable (v. 33), but the beginning of the day of the Lord will be a complete surprise unknown to all (v. 36) (Robert L. Thomas, “Imminence in the NT, Especially Paul’s Thessalonian Epistles,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 13 [Fall 2002], 193; Hart, “Should Pretribulationists Reconsider the Rapture in Matthew 24:36-44? Part 1 of 3,” 71-74). Similarly intriguing is that Jesus claims to have no knowledge of the time of His own second coming, leading some to question His omniscience. It is important to remember that Jesus had both a human and a divine nature. In His humanity, He grew tired, hungered, and could be tempted – and apparently could choose to be ignorant of things not necessary or profitable for Him or others to know. Robert H. Gundry (Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982], 492) notes, “Theologically we may say that just as Jesus did not exercise his omnipotence except to further the kingdom …, so he did not exercise his omniscience except to further the kingdom. To have known and made known the exact time of his coming [better, the beginning of the day of the Lord and the rapture of the Church] would have damaged the work of the kingdom by encouraging carelessness during the interim.” On this occasion, Jesus chose not to “access” knowledge about the timing of the Parousia, something He could have done through His divinity. The analogy with Noah (vv. 37-39) is detrimental for a preterist view of the discourse, for the flood, like the Parousia, had world-wide effects and did not just affect the Holy Land. It will be “business as usual” in the world when Jesus returns, suggesting similar conditions before the flood and before the start of the day of the Lord (the tribulation), and the pretribulational rapture which designates its inception (v. 38; see the comments on 1Th 5:1-3). They did not understand (lit., “know,” v. 39) reflects the surprise coming of the day of the Lord (v. 36). The flood came and took them all away (v. 39) does not refer to Noah and his family being taken away safely by the ark. The plural pronouns and verbs in these verses relate to those who perished in the flood. In addition, Matthew’s the flood came and took [airo] them all way (v. 39) in Lk 17:27 is the flood came and destroyed them all, indicating that the rapture (whether pre- or post-tribulational) is not in view in v. 39. The verb will be taken (paralambano) in vv. 40-41 can have sinister overtones in Matthew (27:27; cf. also Jn 19:16). But it also has a positive sense, “to receive to one’s self, to take to safety” (Mt 1:20, 24; 2:13, 14, 20, 21), and in Jn 14:3 it is used in reference to the rapture of the Church. These points support the idea that the man and woman who are taken in vv. 40 and 41 are raptured out of the world before the start of the tribulation, just as Noah was taken out of harm’s way before the coming of the flood. The verb will be left (aphiemi) (vv. 40, 41), when used in reference to people in Matthew’s gospel, connotes abandonment (e.g., 4:11, 22; 8:15; 13:36; 19:29; 22:22, 25; 26:56), and in Jn 14:18 Jesus uses the verb to promise that He will never “abandon” believers. The man and woman who are left will face God’s wrath in the tribulation, just as those left on the earth in Noah’s day underwent God’s judgment in the flood. The separating of the righteous and unrighteous for judgment is a theme seen elsewhere in Matthew (cf. 8:12; 13:39-43, 49-50; 24:48-51; 25:30, 41-46). This passage, in connection with the transition in v. 36 (see the comments there) does not readily support the concept of a post-tribulational rapture (for a helpful treatment of the analogy of the flood and its relationship to the rapture and the tribulation, see John F. Hart, “Should Pretribulationists Reconsider the Rapture in Matthew 24:36-44? Part 2 of 3,” 45-63; and Hart, “Should Pretribulationists Reconsider the Rapture in Matthew 24:36-44? Part 3 of 3,” 43-49).
24:42-44. The suddenness and unexpectedness of the day of the Lord, and the need to be ready for it, is the focus of this and the remaining sections. Since no one knows during what time of the night (literally what “watch” of the night) a thief might strike, constant vigilance is required. Similarly, the start of the day of the Lord will be completely unexpected, as indicated by vv. 36-39 (see the comments there). For the imagery of a thief in connection with the rapture, see 1Th 5:2, 4; 2Pt 3:10; Rv 3:3; 16:15. To be on the alert (gregoreo, vv. 42, 43) refers to living in a way that pleases the Lord at all times so that there is no shame when He comes for the Church (1Jn 2:28). See the comments on 24:45-47 regarding the characteristics of being alert. A homeowner suffers loss when a thief burglarizes his home. The follower of Christ who does not live for Him will suffer loss of rewards when He comes unexpectedly (see the comments on 1Co 3:10-17). Being on the alert also means living differently from the behavior of those in the world (for the verb, see 1Th 5:6, 10; for the behavior, see 1Th 5:4-8).
24:45-47. Jesus spends the rest of the discourse describing what being on the alert (vv. 42, 43) for the coming of the Lord looks like. The slave in this parable (vv. 45-47) is the head over all the other domestics. Some think this might limit the parable to church leaders, but the application is wider. Readiness involves being faithful and sensible in one’s interaction with others. Readiness means being kind to others (give them their food). There are rewards for caring for others. One is blessed (v. 46; see the definition at 5:1-6), and is given an enlarged capacity to serve Him (v. 47). The Parable of the Talents (25:14-30) unpacks the latter point.
24:48-51. The Parable of the Unrighteous Slave typifies the lack of readiness for the rapture. The wicked servant uses the Master’s delay to abuse his fellow servants and carouse. Beat his fellow slaves and eat and drink with drunkards suggests that the evil slave begins to act as if he were his own master and could abuse the other slaves as many masters did. But he was not a master, and he would be held accountable for his actions. So, here is the flip side of being ready for the Parousia—being sure to avoid mistreating others. On v. 51, cf. the comments on 8:5-13.
25:1-4. Then (v. 1) looks back to the conditions associated with that day and hour in 24:36. The phrase the kingdom of heaven will be comparable to (homoiothesetai he basileia ton ouranon) is similar to 13:24 (homoiothe he basileia ton ouranon) which refers to the “mysteries of the kingdom” during the present age (see the comments on 13:10-17). Michael J. Wilkins writes, “This indicates that this parable (and the next) points explicitly to conditions during this age, the age in which the kingdom operates in a ‘mystery’ manner” (Matthew, NIVAC [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004], 804), suggesting that the Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins relates to the theme of readiness for the beginning of the day of the Lord and the rapture of the Church. The virgins, unlike the wicked slave (24:48), had no prior knowledge of a delay. These virgins assembled near the groom’s home to which the wedding party would venture after the groom collected the bride (see the comments on 1:18-21). For (v. 3) explains what constituted the foolishness of the five. The oil could stand for numerous things, but because the main point of the parable is readiness, it is unnecessary to be specific. The key is not what the oil is but the lack of readiness in the form of insufficient foresight by the foolish virgins (cf. vv. 10, 13 with 24:42, 44, 50-51).
25:5-13. The bridegroom is Jesus, the delay is the time between the ascension and His coming, the wise and foolish virgins are true or false disciples, and the exclusion of the foolish virgins from the wedding feast represents the judgment of unbelievers on earth during the day of the Lord, while believers participate in the heavenly “marriage supper of the Lamb” (Rv 19:7-10; see the comments there) following the rapture, and later in the millennial kingdom on earth. They all got drowsy and began to sleep (v. 5) does not mean that even the wise virgins had some moral lapse or that they had all died. Their sleeping simply functions to indicate the length of the delay. For the shout (v. 6), see also 1Th 4:16. All those virgins rose (v. 7) likewise does not depict the resurrection of dead believers, nor do vv. 8ff. indicate that people will have a second chance to enter the kingdom after their resurrection. The phrase those who were ready (v. 10) reveals the main point of the parable, namely, that here readiness is preparedness before He returns. One cannot leave “getting ready” to the last minute. If one seeks to get ready while He is coming, it is too late (similarly 22:11-14; and see the comments on 23:39). The coming of the Lord in the rapture and the start of the day of the Lord will be completely unexpected, and unless one is prepared before that time, he will face the hardship of the tribulation period (vv. 11-12). See the comments on 7:21-23, where, like the unwise virgins, false teachers say, “Lord, Lord,” Jesus responds with “I do not know you” and exclusion from the kingdom also occurs. Those excluded from the kingdom are those who failed to prepare for His coming well in advance of it. Then (v. 13) should be translated “therefore,” and introduces the application Jesus intends His followers to grasp from the parable. The verb be on the alert means “to be alert, watchful” as it does in 24:42, 43. For the day and the hour, see the comments on 24:36. Both passages encourage spiritual vigilance to be ready for Christ’s coming.
25:14-18. The word for (v. 14) introduces an expansion on the concept of readiness found in 24:36–25:13. Being ready for the return of the Lord at the rapture means being industrious for Him. The man in the parable represents Jesus, the journey is His absence during the Church Age, the productive slaves represent faithful disciples who are ready, and the third slave an unfaithful (false) disciple. A talent (Gk. talanta) was the largest denomination of money in the Greco-Roman world and is estimated to be worth as much as 6,000 days’ wages, or about 20 years of income for an average laborer. Each slave was given a different amount, each according to his own ability, but the same expectation appeared to go with each: Gain something for the master while he was gone. The talents are often identified as the gospel, the Word of God, one’s spiritual gifts, or stewardship of “time, talent, and treasure.” None of these work especially well in the parable (Did the first slave gain five more gospels? Did the second slave gain two more spiritual gifts?). In light of the reward consisting in greater responsibility (vv. 21, 23), the talents should be understood in the most general terms, such as a disciple’s fulfillment of his or her responsibilities, whatever they might be. The third slave (v. 18) hid his master’s money by burying it, which was not a bad measure in those days to ensure security. As a result, however, he gained nothing for the master, in contrast to the other two slaves (vv. 16, 17).
25:19-23. After a long time (v. 19) indicates a delay in the start of the day of the Lord and the rapture. Settled accounts refers to the judgment following the rapture, perhaps at the bema seat judgment (see 1Co 3:10-17; Rm 14:10-12). The two slaves were given differing amounts and their returns reflected that. But the master said identical words to both (You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master, vv. 21 and 23) in connection with the reward, which included a slice of the master’s own joy. This implies that whatever level of abilities Jesus has given, His followers will be held responsible for faithfully making gains corresponding to the amount entrusted to them – no more, no less. Scripture is muted about future rewards, but this parable suggests they involve enlarged opportunities to serve Him when the millennial kingdom is established and to experience the joy of the master as it is done. But it also ties those rewards to what the believer does presently, during the time the Master is away. While works will not save a person, one must never think that works are inconsequential.
25:24-25. These verses provide the motivation for the third slave’s inappropriate actions. I knew you to be a hard man is not repeated by the master when he reiterates the slaves comments in v. 26, and this may be part of the point of the parable. Nothing in the master’s interaction before this suggested that he was hard (“harsh,” “severe,” “demanding,” possibly “violent”).
25:26-28. But (v. 26) indicates a contrast between the treatment of the other two slaves and this one. Lazy means “being timid about or shrinking from accomplishing a task.” The knowledge of his master’s characteristics should have motivated the slave to be industrious for him. Assuming that the reaping and sowing are fittingly applied to Jesus, the sense may be that He looks for returns on work which He has not performed. Granting that a believer’s fruitfulness for Jesus is a mark of His power and grace (“by the grace of God I am what I am,” says Paul in 1Co 15:10a), nevertheless this fruitfulness is a result of the believer’s work for Him as well (“I labored even more than all of them,” 1Co 15:10c), and from the work of His followers He expects returns for Himself.
25:29-30. For begins to explain the main principle of the parable. The two faithful slaves are in the category of those who make gains for the master (everyone who has [made gains]) and thus, they shall be given more (probably more “rewards” consisting in responsibility and joy). But the evil slave is in a completely different category, being one who does not have anything for the Lord. Even what he does have does not suggest that the third slave had either fruit for the Lord or rewards, but that whatever he appeared to have was forfeited by his inactivity (cf. also 7:21-23, where the alleged good deeds of false teachers are regarded by Jesus as “lawlessness”). It is true that the third slave is counted among the slaves (v. 14), but he cannot be understood to portray a true but perhaps carnal follower of Christ, especially in light of v. 30 (for which see the comments on 8:5-13). He is a counterfeit disciple, one who never actually knew Him. In Matthew’s gospel one finds true and false prophets, sheep and wolves in sheep’s clothing, houses built on sand and houses built on rock, wheat and tares, wise and foolish virgins, righteous and unrighteous servants; not all who are associated with Jesus are true disciples.
E. The Judgment Following the Second Coming (25:31-46)
25:31-33. Matthew 24:36–25:30 is about His people being ready for the rapture and day of the Lord. In 25:31, the scene shifts to the judgment that will take place after the tribulation, following His second coming, when He begins to reign in His earthly kingdom (when the Son of Man comes in His glory … then He will sit on His glorious throne, v. 31). All the nations (v. 32) indicates that Jews and Gentiles alike are included and that this is a universal judgment.
25:34-40. The altruistic actions are done by the sheep who are called righteous in vv. 37, 46 (see the comments on 5:20). This text is sometimes seen as a support for works salvation, but several factors weigh against this. First, it is out of step with the rest of the NT. Second, it is the righteous who do these deeds. There is no indication that they are righteous because they do righteous deeds. Third, these sheep will be in the kingdom, for which see the comments on 7:21-23. Fourth, the sheep are called blessed (v. 34), and while there is nothing in the immediate context that develops the concept, see 5:3, 5, 10; 11:6; 13:16 and the comments there, which indicates that those who are poor in spirit and hunger and thirst for righteousness are blessed (see the comments on 5:3, 5, 10; 11:6; 13:16). Fifth, the righteous sheep inherit the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world. Their inclusion in the kingdom cannot be contingent upon their works, for that destiny was settled before doing any works. Finally, the sheep were surprised regarding the reasons for their admission into the kingdom (i.e., good deeds; vv. 37ff.). This indicates they were not doing them in an attempt to gain admission into the kingdom. The implication from the passage is that while the good deeds do not produce righteousness, those who are righteous do good deeds. Conversely, the lack of good deeds indicates that one is among the goats. You did it to one of these brothers of Mine (v. 40) indicates that Jesus had in mind especially Jewish believers who suffer persecution during the tribulation and who receive help from Gentile believers at that time. It is good and proper that believers should be involved in prison ministries, but it must be noted that v. 40 indicates that these acts of kindness are rendered especially (not exclusively) to the Jewish followers of Jesus (see Gl 6:10). On vv. 34-40, D. A. Carson (“Matthew,” 520) writes, “Good deeds done to Jesus’ followers, even the least of them, are not only works of compassion and morality but reflect where people stand in relation to the kingdom and to Jesus himself. Jesus identifies himself with the fate of his followers and makes compassion for them equivalent to compassion for himself….”
25:41-46. Those who are not true followers of Jesus will not show kindness to believers (whether they are Jewish or Gentile believers), and will also thereby indicate that they have no connection with Him (cf. 1Jn 3:14-15; 4:7-14). The goats are destined for eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels, but which is also enlarged to accept all who are apart from Jesus (Rv 12:9-12; 20:11-15).
In the Parable of the Sheep and Goats, Jesus reiterated the themes from the previous three parables but applies those themes to the demonstration of righteousness and being prepared for the kingdom during the tribulation. One shows he is destined for the kingdom by being kind to others, as the sheep were here. In 25:1-13, being ready meant one must be ready before He returns, and the sheep had a lifestyle of care demonstrated over some time even during the tribulation. In 25:14-30, the labor of the good slaves, like the assistance rendered by the sheep, was ultimately for the Lord. “Readiness” is the key to the Olivet Discourse, and Jesus provided concrete examples of readiness so that His followers would not be left in the dark.
XII. The Death of the King-Messiah (26:1–27:66)
A. The Hateful Plot Against Jesus (26:1-5)
26:1-2. As He was leaving the Mount of Olives, Jesus gave clear instruction about His impending death. The One who will judge will Himself be judged. He mentioned His impending crucifixion (cf. 20:19), suggesting that He knew exactly what was going on. He was no victim (in the truest sense) in what would transpire. After two days the Passover is coming (v. 2) indicates that Matthew is narrating events from late Tuesday afternoon or early evening that, in Jewish reckoning, would have been the start of Wednesday. Note the deliberate effort on Jesus’ part to tie His death to the celebration of the Passover (see the comments on Ex 12–13). He is the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world (Jn 1:29). For a harmonization of the various chronological problems associated with the timing of events around Good Friday, see Carson, “Matthew,” 528-32.
26:3-5. Jesus’ teaching became so caustic against the leaders that they saw the need to kill Him. The high priest (v. 3) was appointed by the Romans to four-year terms, and one of his primary responsibilities, for which he also utilized his family, was to direct the affairs of the temple. The temple cleansing was a frontal attack against them. Caiaphas (a name that means “Inquisitor”) was appointed by procurator Valerius Gratus and held the position from AD 18–36, a much longer tenure than traditionally was allowed, attesting to his political finesse. His father-in-law Annas served before him and continued to wield considerable authority (cf. Lk 3:2; Jn 11:47-53; 18:13-24). Their plot would not be carried out until after the festival (v. 5), the weeklong celebration of Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. By then the pilgrims, who were enthusiastic about Jesus, would have returned to their homes.
B. The Act of Kindness for Jesus (26:6-13)
26:6-13. The episode at Bethany is a remarkably tender demonstration sandwiched between the most reprehensible deeds. The alabaster vial (v. 7) was probably a fine, translucent white gypsum bottle. Costly perfume was typically made by combining exotic oils and extracts of various spices and flowers. Mark 14:5 and Jn 12:5 indicate that it was worth about 300 denarii, or about 300 days’ wages. The disciples reacted so strongly (vv. 8-9) because, during Passover, it was customary for affluent Jews to offer financial help to the poor. The perfume could have been sold for that. But Jesus defended the woman (vv. 10-13), saying that her act would serve to prepare Me for burial (v. 12). When a rich person died the body was doused in perfume then wrapped in a burial shroud. More spices were placed in its folds, not to mummify the body but to cut the odors of decomposition for tombs were not airtight. However, crucified criminals did not receive such treatment. After a body was left to putrefy on a cross, it was usually cast into the city dump, in Jerusalem’s case the Hinnom Valley on the southeast edge of Jerusalem, and received no burial at all. What this woman did honored Jesus and gave Him burial preparations that, under normal circumstances, He otherwise would not have received.
C. The Plans Judas Formed (26:14-16)
26:14-16. These verses contain the one event Matthew recorded that took place on Wednesday of Passion Week. Judas’s motivation remains one of the biggest enigmas in NT studies. Perhaps Judas wanted to betray Jesus in order to hasten His establishment of the kingdom, and the disciples’ privilege in it, as well as the overthrow of Rome. But there is not a whisper of this in the Gospels. The best evidence is that he was greedy (see the comments on Jn 12:4-6) and betrayed Jesus for the money. Matthew makes more of the thirty pieces of silver (v. 15) in 27:9-10.
D. The Objective of Jesus’ Death: Inauguration of the New Covenant (26:17-29)
26:17-19. Verse 17 introduces Thursday of Passion Week. It was customary for the citizens of Jerusalem to provide accommodations for the Passover pilgrims (many of them family and friends). It cannot be known if Jesus made some previous arrangements with this man who would become His host for Passover or if this was an exercise of His divine omniscience. Mark 14:13 and Lk 22:10 both mention that this man would be carrying a pitcher of water. It was typically woman’s work, so he would have been easy to spot. My time is near (v. 18) notes again the theme of Jesus’ death, His knowledge and God’s sovereignty over it, and its connection here with the Passover celebration.
26:20-25. That Jesus knew what was in Judas’ heart but never let on to the other disciples is a remarkable testimony to His patience and self-control. Judas was assigned the place of honor closest to Jesus during their celebration (v. 23). Verse 24 presents the mysterious balance between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Cf. also Ac 2:23-24; 4:27-28. God determined the time and circumstances of Jesus’ death, and brought them about through the sinful actions of Judas. But this neither absolved Judas of guilt nor placed upon God the moral culpability of Judas’s treachery.
26:26-29. For the treatment of the Lord’s Table in the other gospels, see the comments on Mk 14:22-25; Lk 22:17-20; and 1Co 11:23-26. Jesus altered the traditional celebration of Passover so that it would commemorate His death. This is My body (v. 26) was a metaphor, not unlike the metaphors by which He likened Himself to a vine, a shepherd, or a door. The text gives no hint of any miraculous transformation as they ate the bread. As a Passover meal, it included many symbolic elements. The unleavened bread represented the haste to depart from Egypt, and the bitter herbs represented the bitterness of slavery. When these elements were discussed and consumed in the traditional Passover meal, there was no expectation that they would be mystically transformed. In the same way, when Jesus held up the elements and declared they were His body and blood, no listener would have expected it to refer to a mystical transformation. Rather, they would have understood it to mean a symbolic representation of Jesus body and blood.
The Mishnah, which is the recorded traditions of the Jewish people collected around AD 200, prescribes how Passover should be observed (though there is no way to be certain that it reflects how it was practiced in Jesus’ day). See specifically m. Pesach. 10. They enjoyed four cups of wine at different points in the Passover meal, corresponding to the four promises of God in Ex 6:6-7. Jesus may have introduced the Lord’s Table after the third cup, called “the cup of redemption.” This is My blood of the covenant parallels Ex 24:8: Behold the blood of the covenant [LXX to haima tes diathekes], which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words. When God made the covenant of Law with the Jewish people, the blood of bulls was used to institute it (Ex 24:5-6). But in Mt 26:28, Jesus said, for this is My blood of the covenant [to haima mou tes diathekes, emphasis added]. The wine is a symbol of His shed blood through which He inaugurated the new covenant, a covenant forecast in the OT. God would transform the hearts of His new covenant community, forgive their sin (Jr 31:31-34), and give them the Spirit (Ezk 36:25-27). See the comments on Jr 31:31-34 and Heb 8–9. The Lord’s Table is also a symbol of the messianic kingdom, which is compared to a great feast (v. 29) (see 8:11; 22:2; 25:10; Is 25:6-10; Rv 19:7-9). While the disciples would engage repeatedly in the Lord’s Table, Jesus would not again until He joins them in the consummated kingdom. The Lord’s Table is a profound memorial (not “just” a memorial!), and conveys sanctifying (not saving) grace, strengthening the believer who reflects upon the tortured body and spilled blood of the Son of God.
E. The Boast of Jesus’ Disciples (26:30-35)
26:30-35. Judas took the steps to betray Him apparently when they left the upper room for the Mount of Olives (v. 30). Jesus predicted that the disciples would flee from Him at His arrest (v. 31), and cited the messianic passage Zch 13:7, which prophesied their dispersion (for the details, see Craig Blomberg, “Matthew,” 91-93). In contrast to the evil shepherds in Zch 13:1-6, the “Good Shepherd” would be struck down. God calls that Shepherd “My Associate,” a word used for one’s blood relatives, for those who shared ancestral ties or ethnic background (Lv 6:2; 18:20; 19:11, 15, 17; 24:19; 25:14, 15, 17). This suggests that the SHEPHERD is more than a mere mortal but God’s equal. Jesus reassured them that He would go ahead of them into Galilee, where they would again regroup after being scattered and once again be with Jesus.
F. The Anguish in Gethsemane (26:36-46)
26:36-46. Gethsemane (v. 36), which means “olive press,” was located in the Kidron Valley at the foot of the western slope of the Mount of Olives. Above it was the Temple Mount. John 18:1-2 indicates that Jesus spent time there occasionally with His disciples, perhaps debriefing at the conclusion of the stressful days of Passion Week. Judas knew the place, and this may explain how he found Him. The word cup is sometimes a metaphor for God’s judgment in the OT (cf. Ps 11:6; Is 51:22). But why did Jesus request to not undergo His ordeal when He knew He would die that way (20:19)? Matthew does not say. He was not close to dying in Gethsemane because of the stress, as some teach, and knew that He would die of crucifixion (26:2). The phrase to the point of death (v. 38) very likely means something like, “I am so sad, I feel like dying.” A more likely possibility is that before Gethsemane, in His humanity, He did not fully comprehend the extreme entailments of His death. God may have given Him an exhaustive view of what was before Him so that His sacrificial death could be fully obedient and fully voluntary. To go blindfolded is to go as a victim, not a gracious, obedient volunteer. In Gethsemane the blindfold came off. It was when Jesus saw the full force of His suffering that He exercised full obedience, offered with full freedom, with full knowledge, with full willingness (credit Jonathan Edwards, in his sermon “Christ’s Agony,” for these ideas). See the comments on Heb 5:7-10. In His human nature, He recoiled from the prospect and prayed for deliverance from it. But since God the Son came to do the will of God the Father, He obeyed His Father.
When He found the three sleeping (v. 40), He addressed Peter in light of his boast in v. 33, but the verbs in vv. 40-41 are second person plural and include James and John. The temptation (v. 41) probably related to denying Him. He wanted the disciples to escape when His captors came (cf. Jn 18:8), but denying Him was unacceptable (cf. the comments on 10:32-33). The spirit probably refers to the immaterial part of one’s nature favorably disposed to God when the Holy Spirit influences it (Ac 17:16; 1Co 7:34). The flesh probably refers to the immaterial part of man typified by human weakness and values (see, e.g., Rm 7:5 and the comments there), and is weak when it comes to doing what is right. On three occasions Jesus found Peter and the others sleeping, and Matthew probably intends his readers to connect Peter’s threefold denial to that. Peter serves as a warning about the dangers of prayerlessness in the lives of Jesus’ followers. In contrast, Jesus’ second and third times of prayer (vv. 42, 44) reflected a deeper resolve to obey His Father’s will regardless of the extreme test that was coming.
G. The Incarceration at Gethsemane (26:47-56)
26:47-50. Judas (v. 47) came with a large crowd with swords and clubs. Jn 18:3 says that a “cohort”—about 600 Roman soldiers when full—was sent “from the chief priests and Pharisees” presumably with Pilate’s approval, and included some Jewish officials (v. 51). A cohort was garrisoned in the Antonia Fortress adjacent to the temple complex, making their dispatch to Gethsemane uncomplicated. The sign of a kiss, and the greeting (vv. 48-49) were necessary because many of the soldiers would have been unfamiliar with Jesus. Judas may have gone ahead of the larger group to give them the cues. The betrayal in Gethsemane afforded the Jewish leaders an ideal opportunity to apprehend Jesus sooner than they planned but without Jerusalem knowing it (26:3-5, 14-16). Friend means “companion,” though not always with a sense of warmth, or “comrade.” John 18:3 says that they came “with lanterns and torches,” making it likely that Jesus could see their approach from a distance. He showed remarkable courage. A twenty-minute walk up the Mount of Olives, a couple miles down the opposite slope, and He would have been in the Judean wilderness with a good possibility of escape.
26:51-54. John 18:10 names Peter as the disciple who cut off the ear of the slave of the high priest (v. 51) and names the slave (Malchus). Only Luke (22:51) records that Jesus healed the slave. All those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword (v. 52) is less a slogan supporting pacifism than it is a proverbial statement about how violence in a fallen world tends to breed more violence. If Peter had persisted in his fierce reaction, the soldiers would have killed him. Verse 53 indicates, among other things, that Jesus did not need Peter’s help. Twelve full Roman legions would have contained 72,000 soldiers. Angels will participate in eschatological events (13:41; 24:31), but Jesus, who here functioned as the sovereign director of this sad scene, kept them off stage. It is difficult to say which Scriptures were being fulfilled (vv. 54, 56) by Jesus’ ordeal, but cf. Zch 13:7 in Mt 26:31; Ps 22:1 in Mt 27:46; Is 52:13–53:12 (especially Is 53:9, 12 in Mt 27:38, 57-61).
26:55-56. Jesus rebuked the soldiers and Jewish officials (v. 55). He taught openly in the temple, implying that He had nothing to hide. The leaders did not move to incarcerate Jesus during Passion Week (I used to sit in the temple teaching and you did not seize Me, v. 55), adopting that strategy to avoid incensing the people who favored Jesus. But in the privacy of Gethsemane there was no longer any need to restrain themselves. They accosted Him as if He were a terrorist (a better translation than the word robber) though He was not, and came blanketed by darkness to conceal their obscene conspiracy from the masses. Ironically, they were the ones guilty of duplicitous behavior. But their conduct did fulfill the Scriptures (v. 56), and Jesus was clearly aware of God’s supervision of these events.
H. The Jewish Phase of Jesus’ Trial (26:57-68)
26:57-58. On Caiaphas, cf. 26:3-5. Scribes and elders refer to the makeup of the Sanhedrin—71 men from both the Pharisees and Sadducees. The Romans recognized it as a self-governing body with judicial and religious authority over Judea under the leadership of the high priest. The Mishnah tractate m. Sanhedrin 4:1 forbade trying such a case at night, but the Mishnah was codified later than these events and it does not necessarily reflect the protocol from Jesus’ day. Additionally, the courtyard of the high priest was an equally bizarre place to conduct such a trial. According to the record left in the Mishnah 200 years later, capital cases could be tried only within the confines of the temple complex (m. Sanhedrin 11:2). Such irregularities show the leaders’ rush to judgment against Jesus.
26:59-64. Note that false testimony (v. 59) was a violation of the Law (Ex 20:16) and one who gave it was to be severely punished (Dt 19:16-19). The testimony eventually given misrepresented Jesus’ statement, I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days (v. 61) (reflected in Jn 2:18-22; see the comments there). On the cleansing of the temple and its significance for His trial, cf. the comments on Mt 21:10-13. Jesus kept silent (v. 63; cf. also 27:12-14) while being questioned for at least two reasons: First, it showed his willingness to die in fulfillment of Is 53:7. Second, Jesus was brilliant, as demonstrated by His skill in debating His opponents (Mt 22:15-46). If He would have spoken in His own defense, He could have procured His own acquittal. The only times He spoke were to answer questions related to His identity (Tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God, v. 63; Are you the King of the Jews?, 27:11). For Him to remain silent on these questions would have been to deny Himself. You have said it yourself (v. 64; cf. 26:25; 27:11) was an affirmative response to Caiaphas, and the reaction of the members of the Sanhedrin indicated that they took it that way. Many critical scholars deny that Jesus ever actually claimed to be the Messiah, the Son of God, but Matthew indicates otherwise. For the force of Dn 7:13-14, see the comments there.
26:65-68. When the high priest tore his robes (v. 65), he violated Lv 21:10. This act by Caiaphas was apparently intended to incite the Sanhedrin against Jesus even more. On the verb blasphemed, see the comments on 9:1-8. Blasphemy was considered a capital offense in the OT, deserving stoning (Lv 24:16). Once again, m. Sanhedrin 4:1, written much later, required that the rights of the one being tried be protected, and the authorities were supposed to safeguard the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. His “trial” was a mockery of justice.
I. The Denials by Peter (26:69-75)
26:69-75. See the comments in 10:32-33 for the relationship between “denying Christ” and Peter’s denials. Jesus predicted that both Judas (Mt 26:25) and Peter (Mt 26:34) would deny Him. Matthew says that both were overcome by remorse. The main difference between the two, aside from Judas being an unbeliever (Jn 6:64, 70-71)—an important distinction—is that Jesus prayed for Peter (Lk 22:31-32), just as He does for all His true followers (Rm 8:34) who are thereby kept forever in God’s love. The way you talk gives you away (v. 73) reflects Peter’s Galilean accent, which led the bystanders to connect him with Jesus. The denials were solemnized with an oath (v. 72), cursing and swearing (v. 74). On oaths, see the comments on 5:33-37 and 23:16-22. To curse means “to invoke God to bring harm upon one’s self if what he said were not true, or if he failed to do what he promised.” When Peter wept bitterly, some of the anguish may have stemmed from the prospect of God afflicting him for making these false statements.
J. The Remorse of Judas (27:1-10)
27:1-2. When morning came introduces the final part of the all-night phase of Jesus’ trial. Conferred together reflects the Sanhedrin’s deliberations regarding how to enlist Pilate’s assistance to execute Jesus. “Blasphemy” was not a charge for which the Roman government would have executed someone. Pilate was a prefect (a military leader) who received his appointment in AD 26 from Sejanus, the powerful leader of the Praetorian Guard in Rome. Sejanus was both a friend of Emperor Tiberius and a known hater of the Jewish people, and Pilate probably was influenced by his anti-Semitism. Pilate’s tenure was immediately beset with problems. He brought into Jerusalem army flags embossed with the emperor’s figure, infuriating the Jewish leaders as it bordered on idolatry. Later he confiscated money from the temple treasury to build an aqueduct into Jerusalem, and when a crowd protested, he had soldiers, disguised among the crowd, club many of them to death. After his brutal suppression of the followers and leaders of a (supposed) Samaritan prophet, he was dismissed from his post and sent home to Rome in late AD 36 or early 37. By all accounts, he felt nothing but repugnance for the Jewish people.
27:3-10. On the basis of pure chronology, Judas probably acted after Pilate’s decision, but Matthew may have included it here to contrast Judas and Peter. Judas felt remorse (metamelomai), but did not sincerely repent. In contrast, Peter did indeed repent, and his restoration to Jesus and the leadership of the early church demonstrated his genuineness. Judas may have sought forgiveness from the chief priests and elders (v. 3), but their response indicated that they had no more interest in the one who betrayed Jesus. See the comments on Ac 1:18-19 for the harmonization of the accounts of Judas’s suicide. The use of funds gained illicitly could not be used to benefit the temple (v. 6; cf. Dt 23:18). The leaders once again “strained out a gnat” in their caution to use Judas’s blood money correctly, but “swallowed a camel” by orchestrating Jesus’ death. They bought an unclean piece of property in the Hinnom Valley, according to tradition, where those who died while visiting Jerusalem could be buried. Matthew spliced together several OT passages in vv. 9-10, but which ones, and the point he makes with them, is not altogether clear (see the comments in the relevant OT passages). For the view that Zch 11:4-14 is a direct messianic prophecy, see the comments there. Both Zechariah (out of anger) and Judas (out of despair) threw the money into the temple. Jeremiah bought a field (Jr 32:6-9) as a prophetic sign that God would judge, then restore, the nation (Jr 32:23-36). Long before Zch 11, Jeremiah used the metaphor of a potter for God’s right to judge Judah (Jr 18:2, 9-12; 19:2-13) in part because of atrocities done in the Hinnom Valley (called “Topheth” in Jr 19:6, 14). As in Jeremiah’s day, the leaders preferred to buy an unclean field in the Hinnom Valley rather than embrace the Son of God, an atrocity for which God would judge them. Matthew referred to Jeremiah (v. 9) probably because Matthew’s immediate intent was to show that the purchase of the Potter’s Field fulfilled prophecy, and possibly because Jeremiah was the more prominent prophet who originated the potter imagery long before Zechariah mentioned it.
K. The Roman Phase of Jesus’ Trial (27:11-26)
27:11-14. The governor questioned Him. In provinces like Judea the governors investigated charges and tried cases by themselves without juries in a procedure called cognitio extra ordinem. Hence Pilate acted alone. According to custom, the governor would sit on the tribunal seat (bema) to try the case (cf. Bruce Corley, “Trial of Jesus,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, eds. Joel B. Green and Scot McKnight [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992], 852-53).
Are You the King of the Jews? (v. 11) was the charge submitted by the Sanhedrin. They shifted the charge from “blasphemy” to “sedition.” Only Caesar was king. The charge amounted to sedition, a crime that would deserve the death penalty. But the Romans would not have executed someone over a religious dispute. So the Sanhedrin adjusted the charge against Jesus, hoping to manipulate Pilate into executing Him. For Jesus’ silence (v. 14), see 26:59-64.
27:15-23. According to the Mishnah (m. Pesach. 8:6), it was customary for amnesty to be granted a prisoner at Passover. In an attempt to remove from himself the responsibility for dealing with Jesus, Pilate sought to get rid of Jesus through this privilegium paschale. But this backfired. Matthew called Barabbas a notorious prisoner (v. 16; see also Mk 15:7; Lk 23:19; Jn 18:40). Envy (v. 18) indicates that the leaders were threatened by Jesus’ miraculous power and charisma, and sought to get rid of Him though they had no legal grounds for doing so. Pilate understood this, and was apparently hoping that the crowds, which so enthusiastically received Jesus earlier in the week, would prevail over the leaders and insist on Jesus’ release. Once again, his plan backfired. The warning from Pilate’s Gentile wife (v. 19) heightened her husband’s guilt.
27:24-26. Pilate washed his hands (v. 24), indicating that he would not be liable for whatever happened to Jesus. His act, however, does not absolve him of his guilt. It was Pilate’s job to investigate the charges, try the accused, render a verdict, and ensure that justice was accomplished. He was grossly irresponsible and therefore, guilty (cf. Ac 4:27). Romans often scourged criminals as part of the execution and this treatment of Jesus (v. 26) was undoubtedly gruesome. They used the dreaded flagellum whip, consisting in leather strips braided with sharp pieces of bone and metal. Scourging could tear the flesh down to arteries and veins, and even internal organs (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 4.15.3-5; Josephus, War, 2.611-612). It was not unusual for one to die while being scourged. All the people (v. 25) describes only the mob, not all Jewish people. The phrase and on our children can no more bring perpetual guilt on all the Jewish people for Jesus’ death than can Pilate’s hand washing absolve his guilt. Human culpability for Jesus’ death rests upon the Jews and Gentiles, then, at that time, who conspired against Him (cf. Mk 10:33-34; Ac 4:27-28), not upon all Jewish people forever.
L. The Ridicule and Torture of Jesus (27:27-32)
27:27-32. A Roman cohort (v. 27) had 600 soldiers when full, which was unlikely inasmuch as the Holy Land was more or less at peace during this time. Nevertheless, there would have been a large gathering of men who mocked Jesus. The color scarlet (v. 28; “purple” in Mk 15:20, 17; Jn 19:2, 5) could be a sign of wealth, though the same word was used for the color of a soldier’s tunic (the likely meaning of robe). The crown of thorns may have been a parody of the images of the emperors who were often depicted in art and on coins with rays of light emanating from their heads. Reed was often used for the material to make the shaft of an arrow or a stake for supporting vines. Following this abuse, they led Him away to crucify Him (v. 31). In a typical crucifixion, the execution squad consisted of four soldiers. They marched the condemned to the site, forcing him to carry the crosspiece (patibulum) to which he would be nailed. The scourging left Jesus so weakened that a man of Cyrene, a city in northeastern Africa, named Simon (v. 32) was drafted to help him carry the crosspiece.
M. The Crucifixion of Jesus (27:33-37)
27:33-37. Golgotha (v. 33) means “skull,” and “Calvary” comes from the Latin word calvaria, also meaning “skull.” Both the reason for its name and its location are uncertain, but the Church of the Holy Sepulchre commemorates the most likely place. Golgotha was outside the northern wall, probably alongside a busy road (Mt 27:39) near the city (Jn 19:20). Wine mixed with gall (v. 34) was offered to Jesus before the crucifixion by the soldiers, as Jesus’ friends were not close by (27:55). Mark uses the word “myrrh” to describe the ingredient (Mk 15:23), and Matthew uses gall to describe the taste and provide a link with Ps 69:21. The blood loss from scourging resulted in severe dehydration not unlike profuse perspiration, and intense thirst was the result. Offering the wine appeared on the surface as an act of kindness, but He was mercilessly taunted since it was undrinkable. In addition, on the basis of the use of the same word (LXX chole) in Ps 68:22 [English 69:21] and Jr 8:14, this drink may have been poisonous. The soldiers’ duty required them to remain at the site until those crucified had expired, and that could take days. It is possible that they offered Jesus this poisoned wine to hasten His death. Casting lots for the clothing of the condemned (v. 35) was customary, providing partial compensation for the soldiers due to the repulsiveness and length of their assignment (cf. also Ps 22:18). They began to keep watch over Him there (v. 36) because part of their duty was to ward off any rescue attempts by the associates of the crucified and to verify when death occurred. The inscription (v. 37) reflected the charge levied against Jesus by the Jewish leaders.
N. The Cruelty Against Jesus (27:38-44)
27:38-44. Robbers (v. 38) means “insurrectionists,” “revolutionaries,” a capital offense in Roman law—mere banditry was not. While there are no linguistic connections with it, Matthew may have presented this detail to forge a connection with Is 53:12. Three groups deride Jesus, each challenging Him to come down from the cross (vv. 40, 42, suggested in v. 43). The derision Jesus underwent had a typological connection with Ps 22:7-8. The words If You are the Son of God are found verbatim in Jesus’ temptation (Mt 4:3, 6), and may hint at the diabolical source of the words of those who mocked Him. This may have been the Devil’s last attempt to keep Him from fulfilling His role as the unblemished sacrificial lamb. The references to Jesus destroying the temple (v. 40), being the Son of God (vv. 40, 43), and being King of Israel (v. 42) reflect the accusations leveled against Him during the various phases of His trial (see 26:61, 63-64, and 27:11 respectively). Ironically, they spoke the truth about Him as the King and the Son of God, and even as the one who would destroy the temple, a feat He would accomplish in AD 70. The connection with Ps 22:8 becomes stronger in v. 46 (see comments below).
O. The Death of Jesus (27:45-56)
27:45-50. The sixth hour … until the ninth hour (v. 45) was noon to 3:00 p.m. Darkness sometimes suggested God’s judgment (Ex 10:22; Jl 2:2, 31; Am 8:9), and its presence here shows the upheaval in creation that took place when God poured out His wrath upon His Son who was dying as a sacrifice. Jesus’ cry (v. 46) was a citation of Ps 22:1, and by citing it Jesus was probably calling attention to His fulfillment of all that is contained in Ps 22:1-18, and not strictly 22:1 alone. This is supported by Matthew noting several connections with Ps 22 in the immediate context (Ps 22:7, 16 in Mt 27:39; Ps 22:8 in Mt 27:43; Ps 22:18 in Mt 27:35). Jesus’ cry, ELI, ELI (MY GOD, MY GOD) was mistaken as a cry for Elijah (v. 47). The drink He was given (v. 48), judging from vv. 47 and 49, was, once again, not an act of compassion but of mockery. The sour wine (usually wine mixed with vinegar, a common drink of soldiers) was administered to improve His enunciation and enhance their sadistic amusement. Matthew probably intended his readers to view this in connection with Ps 69:21b. And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit [or “gave up breath”] (v. 50). That He still had a loud voice is remarkable, for people who died of crucifixion usually did so in such a weakened condition that they had no voice left. Yielded up is an active-voice verb, putting into grammatical form Jesus’ sovereignty over His own death and the voluntary surrender of His life. His spirit is ambiguous, and could refer either to Jesus’ immaterial nature (His “soul” or “spirit,” but probably not “the Holy Spirit”), His “life,” or His “breath” (“spirit” and “breath” employ the same word, pneuma, in Gk.). However it is understood, life went out of His body.
27:51-56. Matthew gives no clues regarding the significance of the tearing of the veil of the temple (v. 51). However, many of Matthew’s fulfillment verses (e.g., 5:17-20; 11:11-13), including those related to the new covenant (26:26-29), suggest that it served as a sign of the obsolescence of the Mosaic covenant’s sacrificial system and the free access of humankind to God through Jesus’ blood. The earthquake and cracking of rocks also sometimes functioned as a display of God’s coming in the OT (Jdg 5:4; Ps 18:6-8; 77:18), frequently associated with judgment (Is 5:25; 24:17-18; 29:6; Ezk 38:19) or great tragedy (1Sm 14:15). Bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep (on “sleep,” see 1Th 4:13-18) were raised (vv. 52-53) but only after His resurrection. Matthew may have included this occurrence here, rather than in chap. 28, to connect it to the other effects of Jesus’ death mentioned in 27:51 and to avoid distracting from the more important narrative elements about the resurrection in chap. 28. It is impossible to say from Matthew’s account if the saints were resuscitated and subsequently died or actually received their glorified resurrection bodies and somehow ascended into heaven with Jesus. Matthew may have referred to this episode to ground the resurrection of OT and NT saints in the death and resurrection of Jesus. The Son of God! (v. 54) was the title used to ridicule Jesus in vv. 40, 43, but here was spoken with sincerity by the centurion (see 8:5-13), his rank lending credibility to his observation. The mention of many women (v. 55) provides continuity with 27:61 and 28:1. For a suggestion on how to harmonize 27:56 with Mk 15:40-41 and Jn 19:25, cf. Carson, “Matthew,” 583.
P. The Burial of Jesus (27:57-61)
27:57-61. Arimathea (v. 57) was located at the site of modern Ramathain, about 20 miles east of modern Jaffa. Joseph is known only from the other gospels (Mk 15:43; Lk 23:51; Jn 19:38). Usually the body of one who was crucified was left on the cross as a graphic warning to any who would challenge Rome. That Pilate allowed Joseph to take Jesus’ body (vv. 57-58) was another indication that Pilate believed Jesus was innocent. Joseph laid Jesus’ body in his own new tomb (v. 60). It was expensive to fashion a tomb, and only the rich had them (providing the fulfillment of Is 53:9). A large disc-shaped stone usually sat in an inclined groove at the mouth of the tomb, making it easy to roll the stone into place but difficult to move it from the opening. The mention of the two Marys (v. 61) adds credence to their testimony of the empty tomb, and a note of pathos as they grieved for their fallen Master.
Q. The Securing of Jesus’ Tomb (27:62-66)
27:62-66. The day after the preparation (v. 62) was Saturday, the “preparation day” being Friday before sundown during which Sabbath preparations were made. The Pharisees (vv. 62-64) may have been thinking of Jesus’ words concerning the sign of Jonah (Mt 12:38-42, see the comments there). Debate exists regarding the nature of the guard to which Pilate refers (v. 65). He may have granted permission for the leaders to use the Jewish temple guard for this duty or approved the use of a contingent of Roman soldiers, the more likely possibility because of the following. The soldiers went to the Jewish leaders after the resurrection, possibly because they feared Pilate, and these leaders promised to protect them if Pilate found out about the missing body (28:14). This would not have been necessary if they were the temple guard, making it more likely that they were Roman. The seal on the stone (v. 66) was not placed there to make the tomb air tight, but to warn those who came to the tomb that the seal could only be broken, and the stone moved, by the Roman authorities. All others who would seek to do so would bring upon themselves the wrath of Rome.
XIII. The Resurrection of the King-Messiah (28:1-20)
A. The Angel Announced the Resurrection (28:1-8)
28:1-8. After the Sabbath (v. 1) was early Sunday morning. For “three days and three nights,” see the comments on 12:38-42. Matthew did not explain why Mary Magdalene and Mary came to the tomb, but it was probably to anoint Jesus’ body further (Mk 16:1), augmenting what Joseph did (Jn 19:39-40). It is not clear if the women felt the earthquake (v. 2), but the narrative seems to indicate that they were close by when the angel arrived and the soldiers became like dead men (vv. 3-5), implying that the women did feel it. An empty tomb may have meant several things, so the angel explained the reason for the missing body: He has risen, just as He said. Galilee was considered the “last stop” in Israel before entering Gentile lands (Is 9:1; Mt 4:15). It is significant that Jesus would give the Great Commission, targeting “all the nations,” to His disciples there. For the best harmonization of all the resurrection appearances of Jesus, see Murray J. Harris, Raised Immortal: Resurrection and Immortality in the New Testament, (n.p.: Marshall Morgan & Scott, 1983), 69-71.
B. Jesus Announced the Resurrection (28:9-10)
28:9-10. When the women encountered Jesus, they took hold of His feet, indicating, among other things, that Jesus was raised bodily and was no ghost. My brethren (v. 10) probably encompassed more than the eleven remaining disciples, and may accommodate those who had doubts in v. 17.
C. The Guards Were Bribed to Lie about the Resurrection (28:11-15)
28:11-15. That the guards told the Jewish leaders all that had happened (v. 11) heightened the guilt of those leaders, who bribed the soldiers to lie (vv. 12-13). Moreover, it was not even a good lie, for if the soldiers had actually been asleep, how would they have known that the disciples stole His body? It defies credence to argue that the disciples, who hid during Jesus’ execution, marshaled enough courage to raid a tomb sealed with a Roman brand, guarded by Roman soldiers. This story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day (v. 15). Justin Martyr (in Dialogue with Trypho, 108, c. AD 155, a Christian response to Jewish objections to Christianity), Tertullian (in De Spectactulis 30, c. AD 200, a treatise warning Christians not to attend gladiatorial games), and Toledoth Yeshu (an anti-Christian Jewish work extant from AD 826 but existing much earlier) refer to the claim that Jesus’ disciples stole His body.
D. The Disciples Saw Jesus in His Resurrection (28:16-17)
28:16-17. No certainty exists regarding the mountain in Galilee where Jesus met the eleven disciples (v. 16). On some were doubtful, cf. vv. 9-10 above. Their doubts may have been allayed by the actual appearance of Jesus (v. 18).
E. The Great Commission Flows from the Authority of the Resurrected One (28:18-20)
28:18-20. The word all occurs in each of Matthew’s last three verses, indicating the comprehensive nature of the scope of Jesus’ power and His ongoing mission. As the Second Person of the Godhead, Jesus always possessed all authority (v. 18), but at the resurrection God vindicated Jesus and demonstrated that Jesus’ claims were true (e.g., He had authority to forgive sins, 9:6, and judge the world, 26:63-64). Therefore (v. 19) indicates that the sole ground for the disciples’ success is His authority. The only imperative in the verse is make disciples, whereas the other verbs, go, baptizing, and teaching are adverbial participles. Go, however, should not be understood in a temporal sense (“When you go”) as some have argued. In Greek, when an aorist adverbial participle precedes an aorist imperative (command) verb, the participle usually takes on the force of a command as well (see Mt 9:13; 11:4; 17:27). Go becomes a virtual second command along with make disciples (see Constantine R. Campbell, Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008], 126-27; Wallace, Greek Grammar, 642, 645; K. L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach, Studies in Biblical Greek vol. 5, ed. D. A. Carson [New York: Peter Lang, 1994], 82-84). The disciples must go and make disciples. Make disciples means “to become a follower, a pupil, an apprentice” of Jesus, including doing what He teaches and furthering His cause. The verb here has a slightly causative force: “Urge them to become disciples.” All the nations encompasses the Gentile world as well as Israel. The verb baptizing means “to dip” or “immerse.” Cf. the comments on Rm 6:2-4. Name is a singular noun (not “names”), giving an implicit witness to the tri-unity of God. None of the baptisms in Acts utilizes the Trinitarian formula (cf. Ac 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5) perhaps because Jesus was not imparting a baptismal formula at all. He was describing Christian baptism as demonstrating belief in the triune God as its fundamental referent. John’s baptism referred instead to repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Teaching (v. 20) is a present participle that, along with the present participle baptizing, gives the primary means whereby Jesus’ followers make disciples. Jesus is so intent on the members of His redeemed community fulfilling the Great Commission that He promised to be with them, in all His authority, as they go and make disciples.
Conclusion
How does one sum up the content and implications of Matthew’s Gospel? Darrell Bock provides some helpful words. “Although Jesus did point out the way to God and urged disciples to have integrity and show love even to those who hated, that character was to be the product of a life resting in the divine hope and promise that Jesus brought. Jesus’ ministry was about the new era that he inaugurated along with the opportunity for forgiveness and enablement that he represented and supplied. That ministry compelled a choice. Had the new era come? Was the unique anointed one present? If he was, then embracing him and his message becomes an imperative from God. Death’s inability to hold Jesus and devour him showed the way to the answer. The Synoptics together are telling us that anyone with ears to hear and eyes to see should use them to find forgiveness in Jesus and enter into his promise. They also tell us that having responded, we should stay the course until he completes what he started, no matter how rough the world’s rejection of him becomes” (Jesus According to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002], 405).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Broadus, John A. Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Valley Forge: Judson, 1886.
Bruce, A. B. “Matthew.” In The Synoptic Gospels. Vol. 7 of The Expositor’s Greek New Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicole, 61–340. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1951.
Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew. In The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1992.
Carson, D. A. “Matthew.” In Matthew, Mark, Luke. Vol. 8 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, 3–599. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984.
France, R. T. The Gospel of Matthew. In New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007.
MacArthur, John. Matthew 1-7, Matthew 8-15, Matthew 16-23, and Matthew 24-28. In The MacArthur New Testament Commentary. Chicago: Moody, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989.
Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to Matthew. In Pillar Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992.
Turner, David L. Matthew. In Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2008.
Wilkins, Michael J. The NIV Application Commentary: Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004.
