Matthew 20
BolesMatthew 20:1-28
- IN THE
AGAIN HIS DEATH; REBUKES SELFISH
OF JAMES AND JOHN
1-16 For the kingdom of heaven is like.—“For” not only introduces this parable, but connects it to what has just preceded; the parable is an explanation of the last words of the last chapter; it explains one of the principles of “the kingdom of heaven” or church that God would not so much regard the privileges of the Jews, nor the riches of the powerful, as the industry and zeal of his people. The parable has very differently been explained; few commentators are agreed as to the meaning of it. Some see in it the principle that God is no respecter of persons in the gifts of honor in his church; that the awards given are not by accidental circumstances as wealth or priority of time. Verse thirty of the last chapter and verse sixteen of this chapter seem to indicate that the parable is an explanation of the thought in these verses. The disciples were expecting great honors in the kingdom of heaven because they were first who were called; the Jews were expecting exclusive honors in the kingdom of heaven, but they are to learn that, because they are Abraham’s seed, the blessings of the spiritual kingdom of God are distributed even to the Gentiles.
“The kingdom of heaven” or the church, in some particular, “is like unto a man that was a householder.” “Householder” is the owner of fields who had need of many laborers. “Vineyard” was a field or plantation of vines, hedged in by walls, ditched, cleared of stones and cultivated. (Matthew 21:33.) There were many vineyards in Judea; the figure of a vineyard was used by the prophets in which Jehovah had bestowed care upon the Jews as the vinedresser. (Isaiah 5:7; Jeremiah 12:10.) The householder went out “to hire laborers” to work in his vineyard; he promised them the usual wage or reward for their services. The amount agreed upon was “a shilling a day.” This coin was worth about fifteen to seventeen cents. This seems to us a small sum for a day’s work, but when labor and provisions were equally cheap, it may have been a liberal pay for the day’s work. At any rate, this was the sum agreed to. He went out “about the third hour, and saw others standing in the market-place idle.” The Jews divided the day into twelve equal parts, beginning at sunrise. (John 11:9.) These parts were longer in summer than in winter, as the days were then nearly four hours and a half longer. Their nights were divided in the same way; both day and night were then divided into four parts each. (Mark 13:35.) The days were distinguished by the “third hour” (9:00 o’clock), “the sixth” (noon), “the ninth” (3:00 o’clock in the afternoon), and “sunset.” It was customary for laborers to go to the market place and there wait until someone came to employ them; this custom both with the laborers and householders was understood.
And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing.—This was about five o’clock in the afternoon, or one hour before the day ended. At this time he found men standing in the market place, and he asked, “Why stand ye here all the day idle?” They readily answered, “Because no man hath hired us.” They seemingly had been ready for work, but had not received an invitation or an opportunity to work. The householder employed them and sent them “into the vineyard.” At the close of the day the householder sent his steward to “call the laborers, and pay them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first.” He followed the custom of the Jews in obeying the law of Moses. (Leviticus 19:13; Deuteronomy 24:15.) Jesus is the steward set over the house of God to order all things and give all their wages. (Matthew 11:27; John 5:27; Hebrews 3:6.) There may be encouragement for those that have delayed to enter the service of God till late in life, but surely not encouragement to any one to delay entering the service of God; there are numerous scriptures instructing all who are capable of service to enter now and not delay.
All received equal amount; each received a shilling. “And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a shilling.” As they began with the last who were hired and approached to the first, the first hired observed that those who went in the eleventh hour received the same as the earliest hired. When they saw this, they “murmured against the householder” and said, “These last have spent but one hour, and thou bast made them equal unto us, who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.” They were not willing for others to receive an equal amount; they thought that it was unfair, as they had worked all day and the others had worked but one hour. The householder kindly answered them, “Friend, I do thee no wrong didst not thou agree with me for a shilling?” This was the sum that the laborers agreed to work for when they were hired in the early morning; they should now be satisifed with that amount. The householder dismissed them by saying, “It is my will to give unto this last, even as unto thee.” If the householder chose to show considerations and liberality with charity to these last, why should the first object to it? They were envious their eyes were evil. Envy is spoken of as dwelling in the eye and giving to it a malignant power. (Deuteronomy 15:9; Proverbs 28:22; Mark 7:22.) Jesus makes his own application of the parable when he says, “So the last shall be first, and the first last.” The householder told the steward to begin with the last and end with the first (verse eight).
The last were first in a very important sense; they received a reward much greater in proportion to the labor which they had performed. Jesus says “so,” that is, as in the parable, so it shall be in the kingdom of heaven. Some versions add “for many be called, but few chosen.” Many, in fact all, have the gospel invitation, but not all accept it and live faithful through life.
There are many lessons that may be drawn from this parable. It seems to have been occasioned by Peter’s question (Matthew 19:27), “What then shall we have?” This expresses about the same spirit that those in the parable had who had worked twelve hours. Again those coming in the eleventh hour may be compared to the Gentiles, who came in to the kingdom of God long after the Jews had been the favorite people of God. There is also the lesson of mercy taught; God exercises mercy toward those who have not had advantage equal to those of others. The laborers were all equal in that each was ready to work when called; the eleventh hour men responded at the first opportunity.
17-19 And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem.—Parallel records of this may be found in Mark 10:32-34 and Luke 18:31-33. Jesus had now about finished his work in Perea, and it is supposed to be in December, the time of the Feast of Dedication he has been in Perea about five months teaching and working miracles. The time is at hand in which, by the shedding of blood, there must be the remission of sins. Jerusalem is the place where for ages the typical sacrifices had predicted the real sacrifice which was now to be made once for all. Jesus crosses from the east side to the west side of the Jordan and his disciples follow him. They are afraid; in fact, as Mark states it, they were “amazed” that he would go to Jerusalem at this time. So it becomes necessary for Jesus to explain to them in further detail the death that he was to die.
To quiet them and to remove their fear, “he took the twelve disciples apart” and as they went along the way he explained to them again the death that he must die. Mark tells us that Jesus “was going before them,” “and they that followed were afraid.” The signs of enmity against him began to thicken and the disciples knew that their Lord was in great danger should he go to Jerusalem. However, Jesus said, “We go up to Jerusalem” and there “the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and scribes; and they shall condemn him to death.”
“The chief priests and scribes” represent the Sanhedrin; he was to be betrayed into their hands by Judas. (Matthew 26:15.) They would condemn him to death, but could not inflict it, hence he should be delivered “unto the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify.” This is a graphic description of what the Gentiles or Roman authorities would do to him. This was a strange cruelty that the Jews should give up a prophet to the Gentiles whom they hated; yet they were to deliver Jesus to Pilate and the Roman soldiers. These would “mock,” treat with derision, this prophet of the Jews. We are told that the eastern nations have a singular power of this kind and great sensitiveness to such contempt. (Judges 16:25; Jeremiah 38:19.) “To scourge” was a cruel punishment of which whipping is a very mild definition; it was a terrible laceration by the severest thongs that could be devised, and inflicted only upon the lowest criminal; it was done by placing iron spikes or sharp stones in the lashes of whips and applied to the bare back of the victim. “To crucify” was to nail and suspend one to a wooden cross until he died; this was a Roman mode of punishment for slaves and vile criminals. Luke adds “shamefully treated, and spit upon.” Jesus hastens to direct the minds of his disciples from this cruel treatment to the fact that “the third day he shall be raised up.” As if the picture were too dark for them to look at, Jesus hastens to tell them of his resurrection. This is the third record that Matthew has given of Jesus telling his disciples of his death. (Matthew 16:21; Matthew 17:22-23.)
20-28 Then came to him the mother of the sons of Zebedee. —Mark 10:35-45 gives a parallel record of this. “The mother of the sons of Zebedee,” Salome, and her sons were James and John. Salome was in some way connected with other women to the company of the disciples in some of their journeys, as we find her one of those who were last at the cross and earliest at the grave. (Mark 15:40; Mark 16:1.) Mark tells us that James and John joined their mother in the request that she made at this time; they were eager to be first in obtaining a promise. It may be that they regarded the prophecy of Jesus of his death as a crisis and they wished to take advantage of the situation on this visit to Jerusalem. She came “worshipping him” before she made the request of him. “Worshipping,” that is, kneeling and doing honor to him as a king. (Matthew 8:2; Matthew 18:26.) The father, Zebedee, though named, never appears in gospel history after the call of his sons; from this it is inferred that he was either dead or an insignificant character. However faulty the conduct of Salome may appear to be on this occasion, she manifested an undying love for Jesus in the most trying times of his subsequent suffering; she also showed a mother’s devotion and consecration to the welfare of her sons. The mother and sons were inspired by a common ambition.
Salome very tactfully approached the subject while kneeling before Jesus by telling him that she wanted to make a certain request of him; we are not to infer that she wanted him to promise to grant it before he knew what request she would make. Jesus asked her what she wanted and she answered, “Command that these my two sons may sit, one on thy right hand, and one on thy left hand, in thy kingdom.” She asked Jesus to pass the other disciples by and exalt these two disciples to the highest honor in the palaces of Jerusalem; she wanted one to be prime minister to rule the state, and the other to share the chief favors of all private thoughts. Her request was that James, the Boanerges, or son of thunder, flash like a meteor in splendor over thy kingdom, and the gentler John be thy bosom friend. It seems that the vision of the transfiguration still lingered with James and John and that this request is an explanation of it. Jesus replied, “Ye know not what ye ask.” The question was propounded in ignorance of the real facts. They still misunderstood the nature of his kingdom, and the principle which makes people great in his kingdom.
How often the disciples of Jesus today make requests in prayer which they do not understand! Our false conception of things and our worldly ambitions prompt us to make requests which are not pleasing in the sight of God; we should rejoice that Jesus, our High Priest and the Mediator, will not present such prayers to our Father; he understands our weaknesses.
Jesus answered by asking them, “Are ye able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?” They answered him. “We are able.” The Jews often described abstract things by images; “to drink the cup” denoted the affliction and punishment by a cup of bitter ingredients, maddening and horrible to drink. (Psalms 11:6 75:8; Isaiah 51:17; Jeremiah 25:15.) One of the modes of punishment by death was to cause the victim to drink a cup of poison. Socrates was caused to drink the fatal hemlock. If James and John understood what they answered, they meant to say that they were ready to brave all the bitterness and hardships of Jesus’ lot. Jesus often spoke of his passion under this image. (Matthew 26:39; John 18:11.) Jesus replied to their answer with a prophetic statement that “my cup indeed ye shall drink:but to sit on my right hand, and on my left hand, is not mine to give.” This belonged to the Father to bestow such honors and it had not been committed to him at this time. Mark adds another question, “Are ye able to drink the cup that I drink? or to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” (Mark 10:38.) Jesus here paints by another striking word his coming sorrows and sufferings as if a great wave of the sea were burying him, in their confusion and uproar, as if he were to be drowned in a terrible baptism in them. (Psalms 42:7; Psalms 69:2; Luke 12:50.) This is a graphic picture of the agonies of the soul of Jesus, yielding to the tremendous tides of human sin, passion, hate, and rage, and sinking alone, out of sight, in the gloomy waves of death. Incidentally we see what is meant by baptism; it is not a mere “sprinkling” of suffering, but an overwhelming of suffering in death; so baptism in water is not a sprinkling, but is a dipping, submersing, or overwhelming, or burial in water.
And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation concerning the two brethren.—The other disciples were indignant because they thought that James and John with their mother were taking advantage of them and the situation; they were jealous of each other and angry at these two brothers. However, Jesus called them to him and said, “Ye know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.” He rebuked the indignation and anger of the ten as he had rebuked the request of James and John; again he taught them the spiritual nature of his kingdom. His kingdom was of a different kind from that of the temporal kingdoms; in the earthly kingdoms the rulers exercised oftentimes tyrannical wills over their subjects, but in his kingdom it should not be that way, for “whosoever would become great among you shall be your minister” or servant. “Gentiles” as here denotes those who are not Jews, or “all nations” other than Jews. Greatness in this kingdom is determined by service and not by official rank. This lesson was taught in Matthew 18:1. The one who should stand the highest in this kingdom or “would be first among you shall be your servant.” Jesus cites himself as an example as “the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” It is strange that his disciples could see his examples of service so long and still entertain the notions that his kingdom would be an earthly kingdom.
Jesus served the poorest and lowliest of men; he gave up time, convenience, everything to the sick and poor; he took no reward. What right had his disciples to claim that there was any merit in them that caused him to choose them? If he had intended to establish an earthly kingdom, surely he would have chosen men of wealth and political power instead of some obscure fishermen as they were. Jesus showed himself greatest of all by the greatest service, greatest sufferings, and greatest sacrifices of all. He is the example of greatness to his disciples. Jesus gave his life “a ransom for many.”
[How and why the shedding of the blood of Jesus was essential to the salvation of man is, and has been, a trouble to many. The blood is the life. The shedding of the blood is the giving of the life. When we say Jesus shed his blood for the sins of the world, we mean Jesus gave his life for the sins of the world. The blood is the material abiding place of the immaterial principle of life, so that if we take the blood from the body we take the life. Since the blood can be seen by our fleshly senses, and the immaterial principle of life cannot, it is probable that the blood is spoken of to represent the life, the shedding of the blood, the giving up the life. When it is said he shed his blood for the forgiveness of sins, it means he gave up his life to provide for the remission of sins; he became a ransom for many.]
Matthew 20:29-34
- TWO BLIND MEN HEALED AT JERICHO
29-30 And as they went out from Jericho.—Jesus had left Perea, crossed the Jordan, and was again in Judea. The record by Matthew omits much of the work that Jesus did in Perea. Luke’s record is fuller as may be seen from Luke 17 to 18:14; John’s record is much fuller as perhaps all from John 7-11 treats of matters pertaining to his Perean ministry. “As they went out from Jericho.” See parallel records in Mark 10:46-52 and Luke 18:35 to Luke 19:1. “Jericho” was the second city in size in Palestine; it was situated on the west banks of the Jordan, about two miles from it and about seventeen miles east-northeast of Jerusalem. It was situated on the road from the “region beyond the Jordan” to Jerusalem. It was famous in Old Testament history. (Joshua 6:20; Joshua 6:26; 1 Kings 16:34; 2 Kings 2:21.) As they departed from Jericho “a great multitude followed him.” Luke represents a blind man coming to Jesus “as he drew nigh unto Jericho” (Luke 18:35), while Matthew states that “two blind men” were sitting by the wayside “when they heard that Jesus was passing by.” Some have explained the difficulty of the seeming contradiction between Matthew and Luke by saying that there were two towns, the old and the new; that Jesus passed through one and was entering the other. Others explain it that he healed one blind man when he drew nigh to Jericho and that these two mentioned by Matthew were healed in the city or just as he left the city.
The two blind men who sat by the wayside heard the multitude as Jesus passed by and in the midst of the noise and confusion “cried out, saying, Lord, have mercy on us, thou son of David.” One of these was Bartimaeus, a man not so well known in Jericho, as Mark and Luke mention him only; but the mention of him does not exclude another, and Matthew tells us that there was another to share the blessing. It was customary for the poor people to take their station at the gate of the town in order to obtain help from those who passed by. There was an unusual crowd of people passing out the gate at this time and the blind men lifted their voices above the noise of the multitude and “cried out” to Jesus, calling him. “thou son of David.” This meant that they recognized in him the Messiah. Frequently Jesus was called “the son of David” since he was a descendant of the house of David.
31-34 And the multitude rebuked them.—The multitude “rebuked them” by asking them to “hold their peace.” But the rebuke of the multitude did not quiet the blind men, for “they cried out the more” and begged the son of David to have mercy on them. Jesus stopped in the midst of the multitude when he heard the entreaties of the blind men and “stood still”; he then called to them and asked, “What will ye that I should do unto you?” When they understood. that Jesus recognized them, Mark, who mentions but one, describes him as flinging off his loose outer garment, which might impede his running, to come up with the Lord before he should depart. They had uttered a general cry for mercy, but Jesus calls for a specific statement of their desire. Not that Jesus was ignorant of their real need, but that he would develop their want into a special prayer or request. They at once replied to his question, “Lord, that our eyes may be opened.” We know not how long they had been blind, we know definitely that they wanted to be healed and had faith in Jesus’ power to heal them. Jesus was “moved with compassion, touched their eyes.” Immediately they received sight “and followed him.” It may be that they only followed him up to Jerusalem to the Feast of Dedication;that is, they swelled the multitude which was following him; some think that they became his disciples as they had faith in him as the Messiah, or “son of David.” Jesus had bidden them “go thy way,” but with an affectionate disobedience “they followed him” as their benefactor.
It was their way to follow him, since they were obedient after all. The blessing which they sought in receiving sight may have led them to become his disciples and receive spiritual blessings.