Matthew 17

CHAPTER XVII

Matthew 17:1

1 And after six days Jesus takes with himself Peter and James and John, his brother, and brings them up into a high mountain in private. This is one of the narratives which answers the hypothesis of those who make Matthew dependent on Mark, for Matthew adds points that are not found in Mark. The complete independence of Matthew is the more assured when we note that Matthew was not one of the three disciples who were with Jesus but that Peter was, from whom Mark obtained his information. Evidence for the complete independence of Matthew such as this is found in many parts of his Gospel. This in passing.

The exact interval of time is stated, “after six days,” in order to connect the new occurrence with what is recorded in 16:13–28. Jesus is preparing his apostles for the close of his earthly life and work. So after the great confession of his divinity in 16:16, the announcement of his passion, etc., in 16:21, and the words regarding the coming judgment in 16:27, 28, Jesus reveals his divine glory. Luke gives only the approximate interval, “about eight days,” meaning “about a week.”

The verb παραλαμβάνω is to be understood in the same sense as in 1:24 and 2:14, 21, “to take to oneself.” Jesus asks these three disciples to go with him and takes them up into a high mountain, away from everybody else, including their own companions, κατʼ ἰδίαν, “in private,” where they will be by themselves. Peter, James, and John constitute the inner circle among the Twelve. They were selected by Jesus himself as special witnesses in Mark 5:37, here, and again in Matt. 26:37. Only these three were to see and to hear what was now to be revealed, for the testimony of two or three witnesses is sufficient. Peter, speaking for all of them, had called Jesus the Son of God. They are now to see Jesus in the glory of the Son of God.

To him that hath shall be given. In addition to all the evidence of his divine Sonship which the disciples had already received Jesus will now reveal himself to them in actual heavenly glory. In 2 Pet. 1:16–18 Peter himself stresses the great revelation thus vouchsafed to him. The attempts to identify the “high mountain” are quite futile. Not until v. 24 are we told that Jesus went back to Capernaum, which makes it quite certain that he had not already gone as far south as the old traditional site of the transfiguration, Mt. Tabor.

Others think of one of the slopes of the great Mt. Hermon, which, however, seems entirely too far north. It is sufficient to think of one of the high ridges in the mountainous region not far from Caesarea Philippi where we know that Jesus was at this time (16:13).

Matthew 17:2

2 And he was transformed before them. And his countenance shone like the sun; moreover, his garments became white like the light. Luke adds the detail that this happened while Jesus was praying, and we may note that many of the great moments in the life of Jesus are marked by prayer. The transfiguration was a transaction between the Father and his beloved Son incarnate, who always received everything from that Father. Jesus did not ask to be transfigured just as he did not ask to have the Spirit descend upon him as a dove. But, knowing the Father’s intention, Jesus ascended the mountain and brought the needed witnesses with him.

The passive aorist μετεμορφώθη simply records the fact and involves the Father as the agent. Moreover, the noun μορφή, from which the verb is derived, always denotes the essential form, not a mask or a transient appearance but the form that expresses the very nature. So here the actual μορφή of Jesus was changed; he underwent a metamorphosis.

This God did to him “before them,” in the actual presence of the disciples. Luke 9:29–31 records the facts of the transfiguration and in v. 32 states that the disciples were heavy with sleep yet carefully adds that, having been aroused and being wide-awake, they saw his glory and Moses and Elijah standing with him. Perhaps the communing of Jesus with the Father in prayer continued awhile, so that the three disciples sat down and began to doze, entirely unconscious of what was about to transpire. Then suddenly, as with sleepy eyes they looked up at Jesus standing a short distance from them, they beheld the change.

This was astounding. The body and the human nature of Jesus were glorified. Mark says nothing about the countenance, and Luke only that it came to be other (ἐγένετοἕτερον). It is Matthew who reports that “it shone like the sun.” This is often passed over lightly by the commentators. The aorists μετεμορφώθηἔλαμψε, and the following ἐγένετο with reference to the garments report objective facts, actual changes in Jesus himself, and not something subjective only that appeared to the eyes and the minds of the three disciples. The explanations of rationalists, that the rays of the sun lighted up the face and the clothes of Jesus while he was standing on a higher elevation than the disciples, are efforts to evade the acceptance of another miracle.

When the disciples looked at the countenance of Jesus they looked at a refulgence that was as brilliant as the sun itself. This extended to Jesus’ entire form, for his very garments had the translucent whiteness of pure light. Instead of thinking of the radiance that shone on the face of Moses (Exod. 34:29; 2 Cor. 3:13), we have far more reason to think of John’s vision of Jesus in Rev. 1:13–15.

The philosophizings regarding this transfiguration are of little value. As one such we mention the misleading alternative as to whether the transfigured body was a donum superadditum or a donum naturale, which introduces a dogmatical distinction that applies to the image of God in the creation of man but does not apply to the transfiguration. Peter writes (2 Pet. 1:16): “We were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (μεγαλειότης). John 1:14 adds: “We beheld his glory, glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father.” It was the same body and human nature that the Virgin bore but joined by that birth to the nature and the person of the Second Person of the Godhead. By virtue of this union the human nature shared in the divine attributes but, during the days of the humiliation, used these attributes only on exceptional occasions, for instance, in the performance of the miracles. One of these occasions was the transfiguration when for a brief time the whole body of Jesus was permitted to shine with the light and the refulgence of its heavenly divinity.

So Jesus now shines in heaven forever. Of the holy city (heaven) it is said: “The Lamb is the light thereof,” Rev. 21:23. The remarkable thing is that the earthly clothes Jesus wore were transfigured in the same manner as his countenance.

It may sound learned and impressive to speak of a process operating from the spirit of Jesus upon his body, a process that was now so far advanced as to permit his divine spirit (he had only a human spirit!) to shine out through his body. Of such speculation the Scriptures know nothing. The disappearance of the glory after the transfiguration weakens this theory of a process and does so in spite of the explanation that this disappearance was only an element in the process and in the final result of permanent glorification to be achieved. Jesus came to his final glorification through no process between his spirit and his body, or between his divine and his human nature. From his conception onward he was the very Son of God, and here on the mount his divine glory was permitted to shine out through his body for a little while.

Matthew 17:3

3 And lo, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah in company with him, speaking together. The verb ὄπτομαι is used with reference to the appearance of angels (Luke 1:11; Acts 7:35), to God (Acts 7:2, 30), to Jesus to Paul (Acts 9:17), and to other manifestations; Young, Concordance, lists all the passages. The passive with the dative means: “was seen by them.” Also these two appeared (were seen) “in glory” (Luke 9:30). The effort to make this appearance merely subjective is as ineffectual as was the same effort regarding the glorious appearance of Jesus. Moses and Elijah stood beside Jesus, talked with him, and were seen by the three witnesses just as they saw Jesus himself. They were sent from heaven by God and thus “in glory,” as the saints appear in heaven.

As regards all three, Jesus, Moses, and Elijah, their glorious appearance was made in a form that was sufficiently subdued so the earthly eyes of the disciples could behold it without being blinded. Here again a spiritual process is introduced by some commentators: the three disciples advanced sufficiently in this process to see this vision, i.e., this inward picture not realities. This opens the door to all manner of religious hallucination on the part of those who deem themselves sufficiently advanced in holiness.

The question is inevitable, “Why just these two, Moses and Elijah?” The best answer seems to be, “Moses was the great representative of the law, Elijah the great representative of prophecy.” Both are outstanding figures of the Old Testament, and both represent prophecy as well as law. Moses stands at the head of Israel’s history, Elijah appears when Israel had declined so that only 7, 000 were left who had not bowed to idolatry. The days of Elijah were like those which Jesus found when all the rulers and the great mass of the people had lost the true faith and had departed far from God. The observation that the appearance of these two with Jesus (μετʼ αὐτοῦ) intended to assure the disciples that the death of Jesus (16:21) was in perfect accord with the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah, may be accepted as correct; the disciples had other ideas and found the death of Jesus a great σκάνδαλον.

How did these three disciples recognize Moses and Elijah? Certainly not by the correspondence of their features and their dress to ideas the disciples and the Jews had formed concerning their appearance. Nor do we hear that the disciples had to wait until Jesus told them who these two glorified men were. A far better answer is that the saints in heaven need not be introduced and named to us but are at once known through heavenly intuition. If anything is needed beyond this, it is the fact that, when God makes a revelation, he makes it fully by conveying to the beholder all that he is to know. Elijah ascended to heaven bodily and thus undoubtedly appeared in his own glorified body.

There is much speculation in regard to Moses. According to Deut. 34:5, 6 he died, and his body was buried in an unknown place by God himself. We read of no transfer of his body to heaven. Only the soul of Moses has entered heaven.

Here we must brush aside all the speculative assertions that prior to the final resurrection the souls of the saints in heaven are clothed temporarily with some kind of heavenly body; 2 Cor. 5:1, etc., furnishes no support for this view, for note v. 8, “absent from the body.” Like the angels, the saints in heaven have no bodies of any kind, yet, when an angel is sent to men on earth, he is seen and heard (28:2–5) and performs other acts. In the same way God sent Moses who was both seen and heard and then departed with Elijah.

Μετʼ αὐτοῦ combines Jesus with Moses and Elijah and makes συλλαλοῦντες mean that the three were speaking together. Mark writes, “Together they were speaking with Jesus.” Luke adds the subject of their conversation: “the ἔξοδος (outgoing or final outcome) which he was about to fulfill (πληροῦν) in Jerusalem,” which is usually understood to mean “the decease” or death, yet the word includes all that Jesus indicated in 16:21, including also the resurrection, as his death and resurrection also always go together. We fail to see why some think that the disciples only saw Moses and Elijah talking with Jesus but did not hear what was said but later learned this from Jesus. There is nothing in the three records that would indicate this. It was God’s intention that these three disciples should be witnesses of this transfiguration and, as all that precedes (16:13–28) and the following (v. 9) show, this transfiguration was intended to cast light on the death and the resurrection of Jesus. Why, then, should the conversation have been withheld from the disciples?

Matthew 17:4

4 Now Peter, responding, said to Jesus: Lord, it is excellent that we are here. If thou art willing, I will make three booths here, for thee one, for Moses one, for Elijah one. Here we have one of the plain instances in which ἀποκριθείς is used in the wide sense. No one has spoken to Peter, all three disciples merely watch with great intentness; then Peter speaks. He merely responds to the situation; what he says indicates his reaction to his great experience. He addresses only Jesus, his beloved and now so glorious Master.

Mark indicates that Peter’s words are rather foolish; he does not know what he is talking about. Mark had no doubt received this information from Peter himself, as also the additional fact that that he and his companions were under the spell of great fear or awe, as certainly they had reason to be. Naturally also Peter receives no answer; perhaps Jesus does not even look at him; other more important things are now transpiring. It is, of course, like Peter to speak when he should have kept still.

What he says is valuable in one respect. He feels it καλόν to be here, and the simple positive “excellent” is more expressive than the comparative or superlative would be, R. 661. Peter felt as though he and his fellow-disciples were very near to heaven. Though they were filled with deep awe they felt themselves in the presence of heavenly glory, with Jesus being glorified so unspeakably in divine majesty (2 Pet. 1:16), and two dwellers of heaven also appearing in glory (Luke 9:31). Peter’s one desire is to prolong this experience; hence his foolish suggestion that, if it please Jesus, he will erect three booths, one for each of the three glorious persons. The foolishness lies in the idea that beings who are in such an exalted state would need shelter for the night like men in the ordinary state of human existence.

He says nothing of a shelter for the disciples; perhaps he felt so humble that he and the other two disciples would lie out in the open. The idea that Peter is here placing Moses and Elijah on the same level with Jesus and is thus introducing saint worship could hardly have entered his foolish head.

Peter’s words are misunderstood when ἡμᾶς is made emphatic: “It is a good thing that we (disciples) are here”—we can build booths for you. Since καλόν is impersonal, the subject εἶναι must be written. Peter addresses Jesus, and that fact makes “we” include him and not merely the disciples. Finally, Matthew undoubtedly has the exact wording in ποιήσω, which indicates that Peter alone desires the task of building the three booths; therefore he also adds εἰθέλεις, “if thou art willing.” Mark and Luke combine this in the volitive subjunctive ποιήσωμεν, “let us make three booths” (R. 931), which tacitly asks the consent of Jesus but thus includes Jesus in the “us” of the verb form.

Matthew 17:5

5 He still speaking, lo, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and lo, a voice out of the cloud, saying: This is my Son, the Beloved, in whom I was well pleased! Be hearing him! The cloud did not come slowly but suddenly, before Peter’s words were out of his mouth, which fact explains Matthew’s exclamation “lo!” Matthew is here more exact than Mark, and his ἔτι is better even than Luke’s statement. So also Matthew alone remarks about the brightness of the cloud, which symbolizes the beneficent (and not the threatening) presence of the Father. He it is, as his words show, who speaks from this bright cloud. The words uttered are the identical attestation given Jesus after his baptism 3:17, where they have been explained in detail.

We need to note only that Luke has ὁἐκλελεγμένος in place of ὁἀγαπητός; and in our discussion of 3:17 these terms are shown to be identical in sense. The addition with a second article makes an apposition of the verbal adjective (or of the perfect passive participle in Luke) and thus lends the term great emphasis, R. 776.

The aorist εὐδόκησα is historical not gnomic nor timeless and thus equal to the present tense. The only alternative to the historical aorist, both in 3:17 and here, is the Greek idiom of using an aorist to express something that has recently happened, the English equivalent of which is the perfect: “in whom I have been well pleased,” R. 842. But in the present instance, where Luke can render ἀγαπητός as ἐκλελεγμένος, “the one I have chosen, who is such now,” εὐδόκησα is undoubtedly the simple historical aorist.

All three synoptists have the durative command, “Him do you hear!” i.e., always, and σὐτοῦ is the genitive of the person; an accusative would indicate the thing that is to be heard. On this command, as already transmitted through Moses, compare Deut. 18:15, last clause, and especially v. 18, 19 with their threat against those who fail or refuse to hear Christ. “Him be hearing!” is in effect to this day. This is God’s own confirmation of Peter’s great confession 16:16, and God’s own seal upon the deity of the Son who is to die and to rise again. As far as Jesus and God were concerned, they certainly left nothing undone to prepare the disciples for what was impending.

Matthew 17:6

6 And when the disciples heard they fell on their countenance and were exceedingly afraid. And Jesus, having come, touched them and said, Arise and stop being afraid! And having lifted up their eyes, they saw no one except Jesus alone. The question is asked why, when the voice is heard in 3:17, no one falls upon his face in great fear, while here, when the same voice is heard, this occurs. The situations are very different. Here Jesus is transfigured, his countenance is shining like the sun, etc., Moses and Elijah are present in glory, then comes the sudden shining cloud and the voice of God out of that cloud—all this proved too much for mortal, sinful man. It is Matthew who reports this prostration of the disciples.

Matthew 17:7

7 Matthew also states that Jesus went to them and touched them, bidding them to rise and to stop being afraid. The former is an aorist imperative to indicate the single art of rising, the passive being used like the middle in the active sense; the latter, a present imperative, as so often in prohibitions, forbids what has already begun, R. 851, etc.

Matthew 17:8

8 Now the three disciples raise their eyes and see that Moses and Elijah have departed, the bright, super-earthly cloud likewise, and that Jesus alone is with them, and in his natural state. All that Luke adds is that Jesus was alone when the voice spoke out of the cloud. So we need not ask as to who is referred to by αὐτούς: “the bright cloud overshadowed them.” It overshadowed all that were present, nor did it envelop Moses and Elijah and thus allow them to disappear. These were taken away in the same manner as they had suddenly appeared, by the power of God.

Matthew 17:9

9 Luke reports only the silence of the three apostles regarding what they had seen. Matthew and Mark tell us that this silence was ordered by Jesus. And while they were coming down out of the mountain, Jesus ordered them, saying, Tell to no one the vision until the Son of man is risen from the dead. We cannot agree that they were allowed to tell the rest of the Twelve; for why, then, had the latter not also been allowed to be present? We now see why Jesus took only these three—the rest were not to know as yet. The reason for this restricting of the witnesses of the transfiguration is not far to be sought.

Even the disciples had wrong expectations concerning the Messiah. These wrong, fleshly expectations, if the news of the transfiguration had been spread abroad, would have been fanned into flames and would have caused a great deal of harm. The lips of the chosen witnesses were sealed regarding this revelation for the very same reason that Jesus so constantly avoided the use of the title “Messiah” because it had become connected with fanciful and extravagant political ideas of earthly grandeur. Yet the transfiguration and what accompanied it took place as a part of the great foundation of faith. It is one of the major acts of our salvation. It established the fact that Jesus was the Son of God and did this, not by word alone, nor by an inference from deeds (miracles), but by with drawing the veil from his divine glory.

He who would die and rise again for our redemption, who thus walked in lowliness in the fashion of man, for a little while let the divine majesty (2 Pet. 1:16) and glory which belonged to his person and through it also to his human nature and body, shine forth to be seen by these witnesses. Heaven sent its great saints to confer familiarly with him. The Father came and sealed the scene with his personal attestation.

The time to tell it all was fast approaching. Peter has made his record in 2 Pet. 1:16, 17. Jesus calls what had been seen τὸὅρομα, “the vision.” But this term does not warrant reducing this event to a mere subjective experience. For Mark calls this vision ἃεἶδον, “what they saw,” and Luke τὰἑώρακα, “the things they have seen.” This “vision” is like that which Moses had (cf. Acts 7:31; Exod. 3:2). The open and waking eyes beheld the actual realities. This alone agrees with the narratives of the three Gospels. Note that Jesus here calls himself “the Son of man” (see 8:20). His resurrection, when it finally occurred, made this vision and many other things plain. Until that time the lips of the three disciples were to remain sealed.

The phrase ἐκνεκρῶν denotes separation and nothing more, R. 598. The absence of the article points to the quality of being dead not to so many individuals left behind in death; and the sense of the phrase is “from death.” In the interest of the doctrine of a double resurrection the effort is made to obtain the meaning: “out from among the dead.” Linguistically and doctrinally this is untenable. When this is applied to the unique resurrection of Jesus, it is at once apparent, the idea being, not “that he left the other dead behind, but that he passed “from death” to a glorious life. No wonder ἐκνεκρῶν is never used with reference to the ungodly. The misinterpretation of this phrase is like the Jewish misunderstanding of the phrase “in three days.” This phrase is used 35 times with reference to Christ, a few times figuratively with reference to other persons, and twice with reference to the resurrection of many, Luke 20:35; Mark 12:25. In 16:21 Jesus uses the passive: “to be raised up,” ἐγερθῆναι; now he uses the active “is risen,” ἀναστῇ. For both are true, he rises and he is raised, the opera ad extra being indivisa aut communa.

Matthew 17:10

10 And his disciples inquired of him, saying, Why, then, do the scribes say that Elijah must first come? In regard to the rising from the dead Mark reports that the disciples questioned only among themselves. We see that this point was by no means clear to them. But what engaged them to the extent that they made inquiry of Jesus was the matter concerning Elijah. For a brief moment this great prophet had appeared and then disappeared. Was this the fulfillment of Mal. 4:5, 6?

Was this what the scribes taught in the synagogues? It did not seem to be sufficient—and yet, Elijah had appeared to them in his own person and had talked to Jesus. What adds to their perplexity is the fact that they are to say nothing about what they had seen, nothing about Elijah. It is to this that οὖν refers, namely to the command of silence. If the appearance of Elijah, which the disciples had just witnessed, was the one expected by Israel according to prophecy, it would seem that it should be publicly proclaimed instead of being concealed in silence. With τί they thus inquire whether there is real reason or not for the teaching of the scribes, the men who were skilled in the interpretation of the Torah or Old Testament Scriptures, that Elijah must first come, πρῶτον, before the Messiah.

It was the popular expectation that Elijah would first teach the Jews, settle all their disputed questions, again give them the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod which blossomed, etc.

Matthew 17:11

11 That this is the meaning of the inquiry is evident in the answer which Jesus gives. But he, answering, said: Elijah is coming and will restore everything. But I say to you that Elijah did already come, and they did not recognize him but did in his case whatever they willed. Thus also the Son of man is about to suffer at their hands. Then the disciples understood that he spoke to them concerning John the Baptist. In his answer Jesus, first of all, adopts the doctrinal formula of the scribes regarding the coming of Elijah as being quite correct.

This explains the prophetic present tense (R. 870): Elijah “is coming.” Jesus also adopts the second statement of the scribes, which has the prophetic future: “and will restore everything.” The scribes, of course, understood this in their own way, as indicated above, Jesus referred it to the work of the Baptist, which brought about a spiritual restoration and returned the hearts of the people to God in true repentance and faith. “Everything” is mended and restored when this spiritual renewal is wrought. Without it all outward reforms and restorations are in vain.

Matthew 17:12

12 The scribes were right, and yet they were sadly wrong. With the voice of authority, “But I say to you,” Jesus states the facts concerning Elijah’s coming: He “did already come,” using the aorist ἦλθε, whereas we prefer the perfect: “he has already come.” From 11:10–14 the disciples knew whom Jesus had in mind. Then Jesus adds how this “Elijah” fared. The plural subject of the verbs is purposely left indefinite because the disciples knew only too well who was referred to. “They did not recognize him.” The nation as such and especially as represented in its leadership, the Sanhedrin, the whole party of the Pharisees, including the scribes mentioned in v. 10, together with Herod and his court never as much as realized that the Baptist was the promised Elijah, the Messiah’s forerunner.

Accordingly “they did in his case,” ἐναὐτῷ (R. 484), which is almost like an indirect object (R. 588), “whatever they willed,” paying no attention to the God who had sent them this Elijah. The expression is purposely veiled and thus quite broad so as to include 3:7, etc., and John 1:19, etc., the treatment accorded him by the Sanhedrin and by the Pharisees in particular, as well as 14:3, etc., the wilful murder by Herod. The fact that the latter is included is evident from the addition: “thus also,” etc. The Baptist’s bloody fate is only the preliminary to the fate of “the Son of man” (see 8:20). He, too, unrecognized as the person that he is, shall in the same way suffer “at their hands,” ὑπʼ αὐτῶν, “by them,” regarding πάσχειν as though it were a passive, which it is in sense. Thus once more Jesus speaks of his passion and his death as impending (μέλλει).

Matthew 17:13

13 Jesus has more than answered the inquiry addressed to him. He has cleared up the entire question regarding Mal. 4:5, 6 and the coming of Elijah. The prophecy, already fulfilled, is now being carried out with regard to Jesus himself. Matthew adds that the disciples understood what had been told them about the Baptist. The restriction, however, intimates that as yet they did not understand and grasp what Jesus had added about himself.

Matthew 17:14

14 All three synoptists follow the account of the transfiguration with that of the healing of the epileptic demoniac boy. The miracle itself is evidently not the chief point of the narrative but the unbelief of the disciples which prevented them from curing the boy. Note the contrast: Jesus transfigured in his divine glory; the nine disciples still hampered by unbelief. Poignant is the complaint of Jesus, which permits us to see under what discouragement he had to approach his passion. This burden, too, he had to bear. Jesus heals the boy and then speaks the mighty word regarding faith, the full realization of which would come to pass after his resurrection. His sadness of the moment is relieved by the prospect of the future now near at hand.

And when they came to the multitude, a man approached him, kneeling to him and saying: Lord, show mercy to my son since he is epileptic and is in a bad state; for often he falls into the fire, and often into the water. And I brought him to thy disciples, and they were not able to heal him. It is the day after the transfiguration (Luke). Matthew’s narrative concentrates and yet presents all the essentials; Mark is more descriptive. Yet Matthew writes independently and has features of his own.

A crowd of people is gathered about the nine disciples, also some of the scribes, all are disputing (Mark). Thus Jesus gets to hear from the father of the afflicted boy what the disturbance is about. The man kneels before Jesus and presents his earnest petition to him.

Matthew 17:15

15 The address; “Lord,” must always be gauged according to the person who uses it; here it expresses deep reverence and high honor but is not intended in the sense of divine Lord or God’s Son. The aorist imperative begs for an act of mercy for the man’s son, namely that Jesus heal him. Since the appeal is made to the mercy of Jesus, the pitiful state of the child is described. Luke adds the detail that it is the man’s only child, and Mark puts the demoniacal possession forward and adds that it renders the child dumb. But the worst feature of the affliction is the epilepsy brought about by the demon. This puts the child into a bad state, the texts varying between πάσχει and ἔχει with κακῶς.

Both amount to the same thing and indicate an exceedingly bad condition: “he is badly afflicted” (B.-P. 1013), or “he is in a bad condition.” The fits to which the boy is subject are then described. He often falls into the fire or into the water. These symptoms are still to be found in such cases. Mark adds the foaming at the mouth, the gritting of the teeth, and the pining away, all of which accompany severe epilepsy.

Matthew 17:16

16 While Jesus was on the mountain, the father brought his boy to the nine disciples who had remained behind. He then tells Jesus that they had been unable to heal him. This is one of the chief features of the narrative which is unlike anything that had happened before.

Matthew 17:17

17 And Jesus, answering (i.e., responding to the situation thus presented to him), said: O generation unbelieving and having been perverted, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I bear with you? Bring him here to me! This is one of the instances in which the deep feeling of Jesus is permitted to express itself. Pain and disappointment wring these words from his lips. It is true enough that γενεά means “generation” and thus applies to the people of Jesus’ time. As. a generation they deserved the characterization ἄπιστος, “faithless,” and διεστραμμένη (perfect participle of διαστρέφω, having been twisted and still being thus), “perverse,” their hearts always being turned in the wrong direction. Ὦ is seldom used with vocatives, and when it is used it expresses a certain solemnity (R. 463) and deep emotion (R. 464). Note that γενεά has the same form in both the vocative and the nominative, ἄπιστος also remains unchanged (R. 464),

But the point is the failure of the nine disciples to drive out the evil spirit. Nowhere does the narrative stress the unbelief of the multitude. It is unfair to charge the boy’s father with unbelief, for he brought his boy to the disciples and then to Jesus with an appeal for mercy. From Mark 9:24 we see that there was some faith in his heart. The disciples are rebuked by Jesus. They are the ones “with whom” Jesus has been so long in a special way, and with whom he has borne for nearly three years. Yet here the old unbelief (see v. 20) which marked their entire generation again cropped out, so that because of it they had failed to heal this child. From his own disciples Jesus had a right to expect something better.

The pained lament, so fully justified, is followed by the prompt action of Jesus: “Be bringing him here to me!” The command is already a promise. The plural φέρετε is not addressed to the father but, it seems, to the nine disciples who had tried to heal the boy. At this point Mark adds to the narrative, but Matthew omits these minor details and confines himself to the main issue as is his constant practice.

Matthew 17:18

18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon went out from him, and the boy was healed from that very hour. Mark records the words Jesus spoke, also the facts that the boy was thrown into a paroxysm by the demon and that Jesus raised him from the ground. On the subject of possession see 4:24. But the man point is that the lad was perfectly healed by Jesus after the disciples had failed so completely. The multitude, mentioned before, is a side issue; only Luke records that the people “were all astonished at the majesty of God” manifested in this deed of Jesus’.

Matthew 17:19

19 Then, the disciples having come to Jesus in private, said, For what reason (διατί, “because of what”) were we not able to throw it out? And he says to them: Because of your unbelief. For, amen, I say to you, if you shall have faith as a mustard kernel you will say to this mountain, Remove from here to there, and it will remove; and nothing shall be impossible for you. The fact that the disciples failed to expel the demon (αὑτό, neuter since δαιμόνιον is referred to) is in the foreground, hence this sequel to the miracle deals with this point alone. The matter is on the minds of the nine disciples, and so they ask Jesus, when at last he and they are by themselves, just why they had failed. The objection that they would not have asked thus if in v. 17 they had been referred to by the “generation unbelieving,” etc., does not hold good.

For this pained lament is expressed in a broad way and combines the disciples with their generation. So their question, “for what reason,” is quite natural.

Matthew 17:20

20 The answer is straight to the point: “Because of your unbelief!” The reading ἀπιστίαν seems to have been supplanted by the milder term ὀλιγοπιστίαν since “unbelief” seems to be too strong a term to apply to these nine disciples, and “littleness of faith” seems more fitting. That, too, is one reason why in v. 17 “generation unbelieving” is often regarded as leaving out the disciples. But v. 20 implies that when the nine disciples dealt with this possessed boy they lacked the faith that was equal to a mustard kernel. So the reading ἀπιστίαν must be preferred.

We may puzzle about this unbelief in view of the command given in 10:8, but the heart is deceitful above all things (Jer. 17:9) and proved itself so in this instance. But this “unbelief” must not be understood as the complete loss of the faith confessed for all the disciples by Peter in 16:17, i.e., faith in Jesus in general. It is the lack of faith in the promise given in 10:8: “Cast out demons!” From 7:22 and 1 Cor. 13:2 (also 12:9) we see that Jesus had in mind charismatic faith, which one may have even without having saving faith and may lose or be without though saving faith remains. In the case of the disciples even this type of unbelief was a serious fault, for Jesus was sending them out with this very power, to work miracles and thus also to cast out demons.

But while Jesus minces no words when pointing out the grave cause of the disciples’ failure, he at the same time stimulates the faith of the disciples, including their charismatic faith in particular. In 10:8 he had simply given them his commands with the implication that, if they acted on them, the miracles would follow. Now he adds a mighty assurance and promise that, if only they believe him, the impossible itself will become possible to them. The γάρ makes plain that their failure was due to their unbelief and not to a lack in Jesus or in his empowering of them. The formula “amen,” etc., see 5:18, seals the statement with the seal of verity and of authority. It is truly so because Jesus says so.

The regular conditional sentence of expectancy does not present an impossible case but one whose repeated occurrence Jesus expects. The language is figurative: telling this mountain to remove from its place to another and instantly having it do so—a supreme example of what is impossible to a human being; yet, let it not be overlooked, the easiest thing for God.

Jesus himself interprets this figurative language: “And nothing shall be impossible for you.” He means, of course, for his disciples and in their calling as disciples. Infidelic literalism may challenge a disciple to transfer a mountain or two and laugh at him when he is unable to do so; blind fanatics may tempt the Lord to keep his Word, to do what that Word never promised, and may even persuade themselves that their folly has come to pass. But neither of these aberrations affects the promise as it stands. God does no silly things, no useless things, and it is his power (19:26) that he places behind Jesus’ disciples when they are charged to do the things he commands them to do.

The vital thing is this “faith as a mustard kernel.” The reason this and not some other seed is here named appears already from the parable recorded in 13:31, etc. First, the tiny size of this mustard seed; then, its ability to shoot up into a towering plant. This is the tertium comparationis. Even a little faith in the divine promise, when it is genuine in quality, will at the critical moment shoot up into a mighty power and accomplish wonders. Such was the faith of Gideon, such that of the apostles after Pentecost, and such that of a large number of God’s saints. As far as the miracle to be performed upon the boy is concerned, this depended entirely on the faith or lack of faith of the nine disciples.

It was not dependent on the faith of the boy, of his father, or of the multitude. Here we must remember that not all miracles are alike. In some instances Jesus seeks to instil faith prior to the miracle, while in other cases he is content to have faith follow the miracle (8:28, etc.; John 5:5, etc.; 9:1, etc.; and others).

Matthew 17:21

21 Textual criticism cancels this verse on the ground that it was interpolated from Mark 9:29. This leaves it as a part of the story of the healing that shows how faith must be stimulated by fasting and prayer, but removes it from Matthew’s narrative.

Matthew 17:22

22 Jesus returned to Galilee from the extreme northern territory of Caesarea. While moving about in Galilee, Jesus said to them: The Son of man is about to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised up. And they were grieved exceedingly. The correct reading in the genitive absolute is ἀναστρεφομένων, “wandering about,” and not συστρεφομένων, “gathering themselves together,” which seems rather out of place. At some unnamed place before he reached Capernaum (v. 24) Jesus repeats the announcement made in 16:21. It is in substance the same.

This time he calls himself “the Son of man” (see 8:20) and says that “he is about to be delivered into the hands of men,” those already named in 16:21, the Sanhedrin. A new point is found in the verb which is passive and hints at some agent (Judas) who will hand Jesus over to the supreme Jewish authorities. In this way the strange thing will happen that he who is “the Son of man,” true man and yet more than man, namely God’s very Son, shall be placed into the murderous power of mere “men.” And even God will not intervene (δεῖ in 16:21).

Matthew 17:23

23 The rest of the announcement is the same. These men will execute their will upon Jesus and “will kill him,” yet, again naming the exact time, “on the third day he will be raised up,” i.e., by God, who will more than nullify this bloody deed of men (Acts 4:10; 5:30, where the contrast is powerfully brought out: you killed him, but God raised him up). Although Jesus no doubt journeyed about in Galilee for a considerable time before he returned to Capernaum, Matthew has recorded only this incident of the extended tour. We see that Jesus is intent on preparing his disciples for the coming events. This announcement again plunged the disciples into great sorrow. Mark adds that they really did not understand and were afraid even to inquire further; and Luke is still more emphatic.

Jesus could not spare the disciples this sorrow; it would have been cruel to be silent and to give them no warning. We are too familiar with the crucifixion and the resurrection of Christ properly to place ourselves into the position of the disciples when he foretold these things. His words concerning his resurrection seemed as strange and as incredible to them as those regarding his death. To the last their minds struggled against the plain meaning of what was dinned into their ears, and thus what they did not want to know they actually did not understand.

XIV

Christ at Capernaum, Instructing His Disciples, Chapter 17:24–18:35

Matthew 17:24

24 The visit to Capernaum is brief, indeed. It is the last time that Jesus visits his own city. Nothing of a public nature takes place. Jesus deals with his disciples alone, and the time spent with them is less than one day. The subject matter of this section makes it stand apart: offenses are to be avoided, and after they occur are to be removed in the right way.

Now when they came to Capernaum, they that collect the double drachmas came forward to Peter and said, Does not your Teacher pay the double drachmas? While Jesus is absent, Peter is accosted on the street by the collectors of the Temple tax. Since the return from the exile every Israelite, after reaching the age of twenty, was required (Exod. 30:13, 14; 2 Chron. 24:6; Neh. 10:32; 2 Kings 12:4) to pay half a shekel toward the support of the Temple; in Greek coin this was a δίδραχμον or double drachma, which amounted to about 40 cents. The very term δίδραχμα, plural, came to mean Temple tax in the expression “to pay the didrachma.” The effort to make didrachma a secular tax that was levied in Galilee by Herod has failed and is contradicted by what follows.

The collection of this tax began outside of Jerusalem on the fifteenth of Adar, our March, and the collection in the capital followed ten days later and thus occurred a short time before the Passover. The fact that Jesus at once paid the tax leads to the conclusion that it was being collected at this time. Yet the plural in the question: “Does not your Teacher pay the double drachmas?” refers to the payment of this Temple tax in general (Jesus also speaks of it in this way) and not merely to the tax that was due during the present year. Moreover, οὐ is not an interrogative particle and does not imply an affirmative answer; it is simply construed with the verb, and the question merely asks whether Jesus is accustomed to pay this tax.

The motive for the question seems to be simply the desire for information. It was not a demand for the payment of this year’s tax, for then the singular δίδραχμον would have been used. The local collectors, residents of Capernaum where Jesus had his home, knew that in many matters he acted in a manner that to them seemed contrary to the Jewish law. They were also conversant with his superior claims and thus inquired about his attitude regarding the tax. It seems also that the priests were exempted from payment although the rabbis differed regarding that question, some contending that the priests were to be exempted, others that they were at least to be allowed to pay. The collectors probably thought that for some reason or other Jesus, too, might consider himself exempt. The idea of forcing payment as our government and law does with regard to the secular taxes, is not involved in the question addressed to Peter.

Matthew 17:25

25 He says, Yes. And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke first to him, saying: How does it seem to thee, Simon? The kings of the earth, from whom do they collect custom or poll tax? from their own sons or from the outsiders? And he having said, From the outsiders, Jesus said to him, Then the sons are free. Peter knew that Jesus always paid the Temple taxes and answers accordingly. As regards this year’s tax, the time for its payment had evidently not yet expired.

Peter was accosted on the street, most likely while he was on his way to Jesus’ home in Capernaum. When he comes to the house and before he is able to say a word, Jesus speaks to him and reveals that he knows all about the conversation with the tax collectors. To deny that this indicates supernatural knowledge is unwarranted. The claim that, if such knowledge were implied, the fact should have been stated is met by the verb προέφθασεν: Jesus “spoke first.” This power Jesus exercised, not absolutely or always, but, like all his other powers, when and to the degree that his work required. Peter must have been surprised to learn that Jesus knew about the conversation on the street.

Jesus asks Peter for his opinion on a question that is quite easily answered. The address, “Simon,” has no special significance in this connection; it seems to have been the ordinary name used regarding him in the circle of the Twelve (note, for instance, Luke 24:34). To be sure, earthly kings do not make their own sons, the princes of the royal house, pay taxes, for the entire royal family is supported in regal state by taxing the people. Kings collect taxes only “from outsiders,” i.e., the ἀλλότριοι, other than their own immediate families, i.e., the people of their nation. Τέλη are “customs,” taxes on wares or goods, while κῆνσος is a tax on the person, a “poll tax.”

Matthew 17:26

26 The genitive absolute εἰπόντος (the noun being understood) makes Simon’s correct answer a minor part of the narrative. The main point is the deduction made from Simon’s answer (ἄραγε), which Jesus emphasizes: “Then the sons are free,” i.e., from any taxation. The entire conversation with Peter is in the nature of a parable or at least furnishes an analogous illustration. The whole is so lucid that no explanation is added by Jesus. It is beyond question that he and the disciples are sons of “the great King” (5:35) for whose Temple the tax is collected; Jesus is the essential Son, and through him his disciples are sons by adoption. This they are irrespective of their national connection and not merely as Jews for whom the Temple was built.

The sonship of Jesus and his disciples in no way emanates from or depends on the Temple at Jerusalem. John 4:20–24. Thus, like the sons of earthly kings, these spiritual sons of “the great King” are, therefore, “free,” and no one can with divine right levy any Temple tax upon them. Since Jesus, nevertheless, intends to pay this tax as he has always done, he wants it thoroughly understood that by doing so he is not placing himself and his disciples on a common level with the Jews.

Matthew 17:27

27 The reason that he submits to this tax is quite another. Nevertheless, lest we entrap them, having gone to the sea, throw a hook and take up the first fish that comes up; and having opened the mouth of it, thou shalt find a stater. Having taken this, give it to them for me and thee. The principle which Jesus follows in consenting to pay the tax is the one enunciated in 3:15; 5:17, and indicated in 8:4. It is the consideration for others as imposed by their great mutual calling that prompts Jesus also in this matter. They must not “entrap them.” On the verb σκανδαλίζειν see 16:23. It goes beyond the idea of causing one to stumble, for such a person may rise again, but to catch one in a trap is always fatal. The two ideas are by no means identical though they are often so regarded.

If Jesus and his disciples refused to pay the Temple tax, the people, unable to understand the true reason, would conclude falsely that Jesus and the disciples despised the Temple and its worship and would thus reject them and their gospel message. The refusal to pay this tax would be equal to baiting the crooked stick in a trap by which it is sprung; simple-minded people would bite at that bait and be hopelessly caught in the trap thus set for them. With hypocrites, who make traps for themselves of the words and the acts of Jesus, he has no patience (15:12, etc), but he is always considerate of ordinary and sincere souls.

The way in which Jesus orders the tax to be paid by miraculously providing the money again gives evidence of his divine Sonship as well as of the connection of Peter and the disciples with him as the Son who makes sons also of them. Peter is the one who is to catch this fish with the stater in its mouth, Peter at the order of Jesus and thus connected with him. Since he is to catch only one fish he needs only “a hook” not a net. How this fish would come to have a stater in his mouth is left unsaid, also how it would come to be the first fish Peter would catch (πρῶτον is to be construed with ἰχθύν, R. 657), because these are both miraculous. “Thou shalt find” is futuristic. The finding is assured by Jesus’ word.

A stater is the equal of four drachmas, hence is also called tetradrachmon and would be sufficient to pay the tax for two persons. Peter is to hand this stater over “to them,” the collectors, “for me and thee,” the Greek preferring this order of the persons. The ἀντίχ does not suggest the idea of substitution; the entire context deals with the ordinary annual Temple tax and does not say anything about an expiatory sin offering. R. 573 finds a compression of statement in “for me and thee,” the stater strictly corresponding to the tax that is due to be paid by Jesus and by Peter rather than money that is due to the persons of Jesus and of Peter. Since Peter is to catch the fish, the amount of the coin will pay the tax also for him. The other disciples, Jesus indicates, are to pay their tax from their own resources, which shuts out the idea that they are never to pay out their own money for such a tax.

How one can read this narrative, in particular also the order to pay the stater as a tax, and then say that Peter never caught this fish, that Jesus never paid this tax, is rather beyond comprehension. One may call the whole story “a sea tale” (why not “a fish story”?), and dismiss it as fable; but what Matthew writes is plain beyond question. Peter caught the fish and paid the tax as directed. Matthew does not need to elaborate, he has a right to assume some intelligence on the part of his readers. Moreover, throughout his Gospel he is content to bring out the essentials, and here the essentials are the words of Jesus regarding the Temple tax. His followers are to pay that tax as long as the Temple shall stand. The conclusion is warranted that Matthew wrote his Gospel before the destruction of the Temple in the war of the years 66–70.

Modernism treats this narrative in a rather derogatory fashion. We are reminded of the ring of Polycrates and of other stories of fish that were caught with some valuable object in them. Matthew’s account is classed with these. Yet, even then, his record is misunderstood; for Jesus would then say: “Your only chance for paying this for us would be to find the coin in the mouth of a fish—you know what the probabilities are. If you could do that, it would be a sign that, after all, we were really liable for the tax.”

Some think that Peter sold the fish. Blass arrives at this meaning by changing εὑρήσεις, “thou shalt find,” to εὑρήσει, the fish “will bring” when it is sold. But this involves an unwarranted change of the text.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handworterbuch, etc.