Matthew 20

CHAPTER XX

Matthew 20:1

1 The connection with 19:30, or rather with 19:27–30, is made by γάρ, “for,” in the sense of, “in order to elucidate.” And v. 16 seals this connection by repeating 19:30. For like is the kingdom of the heavens (3:2) to a houselord who went out at once at early morn to hire laborers for his vineyard. “Is like” means in one respect, the one stated in 19:30; and “the kingdom” is the rule and operation of God’s grace. The resemblance runs through the entire story that is told as a parable. Moreover, the story is purposely molded so as to reflect what occurs in God’s rule of grace. The addition of ἀνθρώπῳ to οἰκοδεσπότῃ is pleonastic (R. 120) and may be omitted in translation, as was done in 13:52. In 10:25 οἰκοδεσπότης is used with reference to Jesus, and in 13:27 it is used in a parable. “Houselord” is a property owner, one who is the possessor of a homestead, here one whose holdings include also an extensive vineyard to which he devotes especial care. This “houselord” pictures God in his grace, and his lordship appears throughout the story. “His vineyard” is his visible church on earth where the work of his grace appears.

The figure of the vineyard is Old Testament imagery. When the question is asked as to why the vineyard is thus used, no one point furnishes the answer, such as that it is symbolic of peace, of hard labor, of drawing wine out of the earth. The image is used in a variety of ways. Here the point is the dealing of the owner with his laborers. Thus nothing is said concerning the vines or the harvest of grapes.

The owner is represented as being grand and wealthy; he has an ἐπίτροπος or “steward” and hires a large number of laborers and does none of the work himself. So the whole work of the church is turned over to Christ (note the meaning of ἐπιτρέπειν), and the. actual tending of the vineyard or church is done by means of men, the Christians, who are called and appointed to this work. The middle μισθώσασθαι is causative: “to let out for wages” and thus “to hire,” R. 809. The owner is such a man, ὅστις, one of this type, R. 728, thus picturing God. Although he has his steward he hires the laborers himself and has so great a personal interest in his vineyard that he goes out “at once” (ἅμα) “at early morn” (πρωΐ) to hire laborers. We need not object that Christ or the Spirit calls men into the work of the church, for all the opera ad extra sunt indivisa aut communa and are thus ascribed to any one of the Persons.

But right here at the start we must note that Jesus is speaking of our work (“laborers”) in the church and of our wages for that work (“hire”). On this feature of the kingdom we are to be enlightened, for in 19:27 Peter betrayed his ignorance regarding this point.

Matthew 20:2

2 And having agreed with the laborers on a denarius for the day, he sent them into his vineyard. “With the laborers” refers to the ones hired so early. The denarius is equal to seventeen cents but at that time constituted the regular wage of a day laborer, also the day’s pay of a Roman soldier; and ἐκ has the idea of cause which is here modified to price, R. 599. Extent of time is expressed by the accusative τὴνἡμέραν, R. 470. But the chief point is that these laborers insist on a definite wage, so much per day; and not until this agreement is reached do they go to work. Such a contract was not demanded by the other laborers who went to work later. These first laborers thus manifest a mercenary spirit. We hear the voice of Peter in 19:27, “What, then, shall be ours?”

Since this is a parable which was composed in order to teach certain facts about the kingdom, the entire first group of laborers is pictured as being mercenary. This is done, not only to show how in the end some first shall find themselves last, but also to accord these laborers the highest justification, such as it is, for their mercenary expectation that they ought to receive more pay than the rest (v. 12). Jesus lets this group alone work the entire day.

The moment we ask what is meant by the denarius we must consider a variety of interpretations. The interpretation of this detail necessarily involves the entire parable and centers in the main thing Jesus intends to teach. Thus, if the denarius is Christ himself as our sacrifice, the parable merely says that in the end all workers will be alike, no matter whether some were mercenary and murmured when they received their pay. We have the same result when the denarius is thought to mean the image of God, or as many still think, eternal life. This view leads those who interpret thus to dissociate the words about the first and the last spoken in 19:30 and 20:16 from the parable, or they interpret these words so that the first become last only by receiving a rebuke, and the last first by receiving no rebuke. Then Jesus should have said, “Thus there will be neither first nor last, but all will be alike.” It should not be difficult to see that these interpretations are unacceptable.

How can anyone who has Christ, the divine image, or eternal life, murmur in the end? What can any man expect to receive more (v. 10) than these treasures? If this “more” is to be an especial degree of glory in heaven, the parable itself in no way mentions this glory. Then, too, these interpretations teach that by our labor we earn Christ, the image, or life eternal, a doctrine that is contrary to the teaching of Christ and of the Scriptures.

In the face of this Luther gives up the effort to interpret the denarius: Man muss nicht achten, was Pfennig oder Groschen sei. Few have cared to follow him. Melanchthon, Luther’s associate, found the solution. The denarius stands for the temporal blessings, the bona temporalia, of the work in the church; and the goodness (“because I am good,” v. 15) is life eternal and grants the bona spiritualia. The laborers who regard themselves first receive only the former and thus become last; the rest, who are considered last, receive both bona and are thus made first. No man who enters the visible church and accepts the call to work in this church shall be left without his due pay.

The Lord will not have it said that any man worked for him without pay. The blessings of even an outward connection with the church are many. All her associations and her influences are highly beneficial. They shield us against evils that ravage the world and cause endless harm; they surround us with the highest morality and with all that is best for mind and for heart in this life. And often the church offers social, business, and other advantages of no mean value. They are all included in the denarius of the parable.

But eternal life is not one of these.

“He sent them into his vineyard,” and this made them κλητοί, placed them among the called. In the epistles the called are always those who truly believe, but in the Gospels those who are invited to believe, who thus, after all, may not believe. These laborers are the members of the church who join her ranks and aid in her work, who thus have every opportunity to become true believers but who also may remain only lip Christians, mere outward adherents. These first laborers picture members of the latter type. They worked beside the other laborers as though they, too, were believers, but what they really were the end of the parable reveals.

Matthew 20:3

3 And having gone out around the third hour, he saw others standing in the market place idle, and to those he said, Do you, too, go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you. And they went on. Again having gone out around the sixth and the ninth hour, he did likewise. Now around the eleventh, having gone out, he found others standing, and he says to them, Why are you standing the whole day idle? And they say to him, Because no one did hire us. He says to them, Go you, too, into the vineyard.

All these laborers who were hired from the third to the eleventh hour form one class, for in the end none of these murmur. In the evening there are only two groups: one that murmurs, and one that does not. This brings up the question regarding the hours, on which again we find a most serious difference of views which interlock with the various interpretations of the denarius and affect the gist of the entire parable and greatly multiply the interpretations. The hours have been referred to the eras of the kingdom beginning with Adam and extending to the apostles, or to the conversion of the Gentiles. Luther calls this Geschwaetz with which to kill time. Often the hours are regarded as the different periods in an individual’s life, childhood being the early morning, and so on.

But many die in childhood and in youth and never get to bear the burden and the heat of the day. The parable certainly also applies to the apostles and to them as “first” and thus as the laborers who were hired in the early morning. But they were of different ages and many far younger persons had been led to follow Jesus. So this interpretation breaks down.

The parable speaks of only a single day, and the hours are viewed in relation to the evening. Into this brief day with its daylight of twelve hours all the workers in all the ages of the Christian Church are placed. The one or more hours they work do not refer to time but to accomplishment. The hours thus measure the amount of each man’s labor. Nor does this indicate mere quantity over against quality. Some do more that is of value in a single day of their lives than others do in a whole year. A person who suffers martyrdom as a child endures more of the burden and the heat of the day than a church member who lives long, quiet years entirely undisturbed. The ἀγορά is necessarily the world, for what is not in the kingdom is outside of it.

Matthew 20:4

4 The second group of laborers is sent to the vineyard as was the first; the call of God is always the same. But in the parable the stress is laid on the work which this call involves. A point worth noting, however, is the fact that beginning with this second group of laborers, no contract is made regarding wages. This belongs to the chief point of the parable, namely that even the first shall be last if they work in the kingdom with the spirit voiced by Peter, “What shall we get for what we do?” Without themselves mentioning wages, the owner promises to give them what is δίκαιον, “right” when judged by the proper standard. Even in connections such as this δίκαιος is always forensic. Without saying another word these men go to work.

Matthew 20:5

5 This action is repeated at the time of the sixth and the ninth hours. God keeps calling laborers into his vineyard of the church. But he has his fixed hours for this. The owner does not stay in the market place all day. We are called when God is ready not when we decide to be called.

Matthew 20:6

6 Even at the eleventh hour, when only one short hour of the workday is left, the owner goes out and for the last time finds laborers “standing,” i.e., idle and not yet employed in his vineyard. As in v. 3, the perfect participle ἑστῶτας has its present sense. Since this is a parable, a story arranged solely for the purpose of illustrating something, it allows such improbabilities as that laborers should be hired for only part of a day, down to a part as short as one hour. Whenever such improbable points appear in parables (and they certainly appear often) they serve to turn the mind the more to what the parable seeks to convey and to keep before us the fact that the parable is only a parable that has been composed for no other purpose.

In the case of these laborers the hiring is accompanied by a rebuke: “Why are you standing the whole day idle?” Eleven hours out of twelve wasted. Through a fault of theirs they will be able to do so little for the kingdom. Here especially we must remember that the hours refer to the measure of accomplishment. The figure of the hours will lead into insuperable difficulties when this is not done. The rebuke is pronounced only on these laborers who are the worst idlers. This is another feature of parables that should be noted.

The rebuke administered to the last laborers is intended also for the others who idled, but not for so long a time. The parable would be overloaded with detail, and its main point would thus be obscured if every minor point were actually illustrated. So some points are left to inference. None of us are justified in decreasing our accomplishment by as much as one hour’s idleness would picture.

The owner at last “found” these idlers. He found them, which means that all the credit for even the little work they did belongs to him and not to them. If he had not gone out at this late hour when no ordinary employer goes out to hire workmen, these laborers would never have accomplished anything. Grace is so wonderful that any human illustration must be strained in its portrayal.

Matthew 20:7

7 The question asked by the owner of the vineyard really has no answer. Yet these idlers offer a reply. They present an excuse where no real excuse can be made. They shift the blame from themselves to the owner of the vineyard. In the parable he is the only employer and not one among several. “No one hired us” means, “neither thou nor any of thy agents.” The reason this statement receives no answer is due to the fact that it has already been most thoroughly answered by this owner’s going out to his laborers in the early morning and then at three additional times. The fault, then, for not finding these idlers sooner is evidently not his.

Here the parable stops. It does not say where these idlers had spent the eleven hours, so that they were not “found” before this time. We have no right to extend the story beyond the limits set by Jesus as is done when some say that the owner passed these laborers at three different times and that they refused his call to work until the eleventh hour. We cannot regard the reply of these laborers as being quite in place. This view assumes that the hours picture the time of our present lives, which has already been shown to be untenable. We are pointed to the heathen who can enter the vineyard only after the gospel reaches them, which is, perhaps, late in their lives.

What are we to say about Christian lands where the gospel is constantly preached? What is the situation concerning the children in heathen lands who were, perhaps, brought into the church in infancy? Even by making the hours picture various periods in an individual’s life it is quite impossible to defend the excuse of these laborers and to say it really exonerates them. In all the parables the excuses made never excuse but do the reverse.

Just as this owner hires the laborers who insist on making a verbal contract for their wages, so he hires those who offer an empty excuse for their long idleness. This pictures God’s grace, who takes us into the work of his church despite many a fault. The idea is not that we may continue our faulty ideas and ways, but that the actual contact with him and his blessed church and work will remove such initial faults. The best texts omit the clause, “and whatever is right you shall receive.” So we have this gradation: a fixed contract (v. 2), a general promise of what is right (v. 4), the mere order to go to work. We shall see that already the latter is more than sufficient, and that insistence on the first is a serious mistake.

Matthew 20:8

8 Now, evening having come, the Lord of the vineyard says to his steward, Call the laborers and duly give them the pay, beginning from the last to the first. Now the climax of the parable begins. The evening is a natural accompaniment of the hours and thus is neither the last judgment nor the end of each individual’s life. The fact that the hours plus the evening do not refer to time becomes evident when payment is made. The denarius paid at evening constitutes the temporal blessings connected with our Christian profession and work, and these blessings are made ours already during the entire time that we work. That is why the parable condenses everything into a single day.

The hours that end at evening represent what each of us does in the work of the church, and certainly our accomplishment varies greatly (irrespective of the actual time spent in our efforts). But what does God do? Every one of us gets his denarius; every one enjoys the same temporal benefits that are connected with life in the church. They come to the new convert exactly as they do to the old, to the preacher as well as to the layman, to the child as well as to the octogenarian.

All interpreters recognize that Christ is the ἐπίτροπος. All God’s blessings come to us through this one and only Mediator. Throughout the Scriptures he is presented as the Judge of our work, hence also here. Those who think that the denarius is eternal life, of course, regard the evening as the final judgment or the hour of death. Even in this verse this cannot be the sense, for eternal life is never earned by any man’s work. The combination of ἀπό with δός (δίδωμι) means, “give what is due.” Eternal life is never due anyone either at the time of its first bestowal in conversion or at the time of its full enjoyment when the believer enters heaven. “Duly give” seems to apply only to the first group of laborers with whom an explicit contract was made; but it really applies to all the rest, too, because the owner of the vineyard (now called its “lord” because he decides everything) bound himself to do what was “right.” And he is not a haggler as is the first group of laborers; he is “good,” generous and magnanimous, and pays accordingly when men trust his goodness. The commentary on ἀπόδος is found in v. 13–15.

On the aorist ἀρξάμενος see R. 1126; it is punctiliar, and its action precedes the paying, each group is first called forward and then paid the money. The order followed when the hiring was done is reversed in the paying off. The parable has in view that the laborers who were hired first shall see how the lord of the vineyard deals with the others. If they had been paid off first they would have gone their way and never found out what the other men received. Because in life we always compare ourselves and our merits with others and thus only too often feel that by comparison the Lord is treating us unjustly, this feature was necessary in the parable. Matters are so arranged that the first laborers have the opportunity to compare their wage with that received by the rest.

Matthew 20:9

9 And when those about the eleventh hour came they received a denarius each. And when the first came they supposed that they would receive more; and they, too, received a denarius each. The fact that the other three groups also came in due order does not need to be stated. The laborers are now divided into two opposite groups: those who are satisfied, and those who are not. Those who were hired first beheld how the others were paid off. They were surprised to see each of the eleventh hour men get a denarius, a full day’s wage for a single hour’s work; ἀνά is used in the distributive sense. These men had neither a contract nor a promise of any kind. By paying them as he did the lord of the vineyard certainly showed his generous character.

Matthew 20:10

10 Those hired first make their comparison with those hired last. It was not necessary to bring in the other three groups. In a case such as this the most obvious is chosen. Having worked three hours longer than the second group, the first, if they were so inclined, could, by comparing themselves with them, still imagine that they would receive more. In the Greek the ὅτι clause of indirect discourse retains the original tense of the thought, “We shall receive more,” after a past tense; the English has a conformation of tenses, “thought that they would receive more.” The force of the parable is weakened when the supposition is introduced that the first group loafed at its work and actually accomplished no more than the last group because these late-comers worked most strenuously. The very opposite is the case; the hours of work state the measure of accomplishment.

Matthew 20:11

11 Now when they received it they started to murmur against the houselord, saying, These last worked only one hour, and thou didst make them equal to us who bore the burden of the day and its heat. The aorist λαβόντες cannot mean that these men did not actually receive the money but only had it offered to them and refused to take it. The two preceding aorists, ἔλαβον, shut out this view. These men took their money and then started to complain, ἐγόγγυζον, an inchoative imperfect, which pictures their action and intimates that something followed and ended it. Here, it ought to be plain, the possibility of making the denarius equal eternal life is removed. The thought that a saint in heaven may murmur against God is appalling.

Matthew 20:12

12 So important is this complaint that its very words are introduced. It charges the houselord with rank injustice and voices open envy of the other workers. The effort to soften this complaint by taking the sin out of it is misdirected. This is not an expression of surprise and of admiration of the way in which the last group of laborers is treated. It does not help this view to make the denarius equal the degree of glory in heaven, for these degrees differ and are not equal. Quite often οὗτοι is derogatory: “These” who amount to next to nothing.

But ἐποίησαν cannot mean that they worked and really accomplished nothing; nor is it necessary to reduce their labors to nil. They worked, but “only one hour,” the idea of “only” lying in the expression. The owner’s injustice lies in the fact that he made “them equal to us” (ἡμῖναὐτούς, abutted for emphasis). The contrast between us and them is made stronger than it would be by setting the twelve hours over against the one. We hear what they bore: “the burden of the (whole) day,” this entire load of the day; and on top of that “its heat,” its burning, καύσων, which is not the sirocco, Glutwind, but the scorching sun during the middle of the day. The eleventh-hour men felt no burden at all by working only one lone hour, and they scarcely sweat, for this hour came in the cool of the evening.

The parable makes this charge against God as strong as it can be made in the minds of those who do not unlearn Peter’s question (19:27). Peter is here shown the end of the road to which his question would lead. Judas, too, thought that he ought to get more out of Jesus and he got it, stolen money, and then the thirty pieces of silver. This charge must be put into words in the parable because it must be refuted to the last letter. So jealous is God for his absolute justice that in several parables this justice is vindicated beyond all question.

Matthew 20:13

13 But he answered and said to one of them: Fellow, I am not treating thee unjustly. Didst thou not agree with me on a denarius? Take up thine own and be gone! But it is my will to give to this last just as to thee! Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with my own? or is thy eye wicked because I on my part am good?

The answer is made individual in order that each one may ask, “Lord, is it I?” See the same individualization in 22:11. We do not understand how some commentators can regard this reply as a mild rebuke or a freundliche Zurechtweisung. These words are like the crushing blows of a hammer. They are fired like a volley. Each brief sentence snaps like a whiplash. When the address ἑταῖρε is compared with φίλε, the force of this word is not understood.

Trench is on the right track when he calls this a word of evil omen and points to 22:12 and to 26:50. It is not the word itself that determines its force but the tone of the connection in which it is used. Perhaps our English “fellow” will do. A flat denial repudiates the charge of injustice: “I do thee no injustice!” While οὐκἀδικῶ is a durative present it has almost the force of a perfect, R. 881. The very terseness of the expression shows indignation.

Instead of using a mild γάρ with an explanation as to why no injustice is being done, this lord of the vineyard utters a dramatic, self-answering question which is again terse and crushing: “Didst thou not agree with me on a denarius?” the genitive of price, δηναρίου, R. 510. This fellow was one of those who insisted that the wages be fixed and sealed before they would go to work. That showed his true character. If he now got in full exactly what he had so carefully bargained for, what right had he to cry, “injustice”? It was kindness on the part of the lord that he was at all employed. Did he not know how long a workday was, and how warmly the sun would shine?

He insisted that the denarius be specified in a regular verbal contract—had it not been paid him in full? During his work in the vineyard he could have learned something about its lord. He failed to do so; but he will now learn.

Matthew 20:14

14 The declaration and the question are followed by an equally effective command: “Take up thine own and be gone!” This lord is done with him. And this is the climax of the parable. This ὕπαγε cannot mean, “Go and be content with thy wages!” It is exactly like the imperative found in 4:10, and always means to leave, cf., 8:13; 19:21. Luther gives the sense with his von dannen traben, “trot along.” This is a man who works in the church for what he can get out of the church. He has what he worked for—and nothing more. He is treated exactly as the hypocrites are who are mentioned in 6:2, 5: “Verily, I say unto you, They have received their reward!” i.e., are paid in full (we have the same ἀπό in ἀπέχουσι that we had in ἀπόδος in verse 8). Those who will learn nothing about divine grace even when they are working in the church will finally be left without this grace; those who are set on justice and refuse to go beyond it shall finally have justice.’

Then this lord deals with this fellow’s envy. He could not see why another should receive a whole denarius for only one hour’s work when he himself worked a whole day of twelve hours for the same sum. But this envy really assails the lord of the vineyard and would forbid him to exercise grace when bestowing his bounty. Such a thing as grace, which gives what is not earned, dare not be shown. To be sure, men who are set on justice have no understanding of grace—which seems to them to be injustice. Since they spurn grace and condemn it when they see it exercised in regard to others, grace cannot be bestowed upon them.

Here again the parable makes it plain that eternal life, which is given out of pure grace, cannot and will not be given to those who condemn grace. In v. 10 the supposition that they would receive more than the denarius the others received means more according to justice, as having earned it; and not more by grace and unearned.

But if this lord vindicates his untarnished justice he defends his grace even more. The grace of God is his fairest, noblest attribute, if we should be permitted to state it in this way. He always vindicates its exercise. Any grace, that means any unearned favor, is absolutely within the will and the power of him who grants this favor. No man dare dictate to him regarding what he must or must not do in any case of bestowal of this favor. Grace is truly sovereign.

Anyone who appreciates grace as what it really is can only praise and glorify whenever he sees it granted. And every man who charges such grace with injustice when with evil, envious eyes he sees it bestowed on others, only insults the Giver of that grace and makes any bestowal of it upon himself impossible. So here his lord declares the sovereignty of his grace: “But it is my will (θέλω) to give to this last man just as to thee,” i.e., the same amount though he never earned it. The unearned eleven twelfths are grace. And the same was true in the case of the other laborers; each unearned fraction was a pure gift, and that means grace. Any grace is subject wholly and solely to the giver’s will.

Let evil-minded men rebel as much as they will, this glorious fact remains.

Matthew 20:15

15 Now we have the refutation of the charge that grace is ever unjust. The absence of connectives marks the sharpness of all these terse sentences. “Is it not lawful to do what I will with mine own,” i.e., freely to give it where I decide? The question answers itself. There is no law, no principle of right in heaven or on earth to forbid this sovereign exercise of grace. There is only one alternative, the very opposite of law and right, that could ever interfere with the free exercise of grace, and that alternative is rank wickedness, the selfish wickedness of greedy envy: “or is thy eye wicked (πονηρός) because I on my part am good (ἀγαθός)” by freely granting gifts that are unearned? This question, too, carries with it its own self-evident answer.

While the first question vindicates the right of grace, the second question pronounces the verdict upon him who accuses this grace. This sword is two-edged. The charge of injustice against this lord recoils upon the accuser’s head.

The application of all this to God and to the exercise of his grace needs no elaboration. Even in the temporal good which our connection with the church brings to us great portions of grace appear, which we have not earned. Those who rejoice in these gifts of grace learn the joy of receiving the greatest grace of all, namely the gift of eternal life. Those who object to grace, who stipulate that so much work will be done for so much pay, shall end as they have stipulated, shall, indeed, get their stipulated pay in full, and shall then be told to go. The pearls of grace are never thrown before the wicked, self-righteous swine. To accuse and to condemn grace is the surest way to lose grace.

Matthew 20:16

16 The parable is finished. All that remains is to repeat the thesis of which it forms the exposition, the repetition making it certain that the main thought and the warning shall not be overlooked. Thus shall the last be first, and the first last. “Thus,” as the parable has shown. The order is the reverse of that found in 19:30, and the word “many” is omitted. These seem to be only formal differences; compare also Luke 13:30. Perhaps Jesus wanted ἔσχατοι with its tone of warning to be the last word in the sentence.

The interpretation is, of course, the same as that given in 19:30 One view calls for some attention: when the last becomes first, and the first last, all difference will be wiped out, for then all will be alike; doing much in the church brings no advantage, and doing little loses no advantage. But we cannot believe that Jesus would teach such indifference.

The question as to whether the sentence, “for many are called ones, but few are chosen ones,” was uttered by Jesus at this point or was transferred from 22:14 by some copyist, must be left to the text critics. The textual evidence in favor of retaining these words is by no means insignificant; the only question is whether it is sufficient. One thing is certain, the words are fitting in this place, and no one has as yet explained how they could have been inserted from 22:14.

The first who become last are only κλητοί, which, in the Gospels, means the invitati who enter the visible church and no more. They are not among the ἐκλεκτοί, those who finally enter heaven. These “elect ones” are plainly the last who become first; while the “called ones” are the first who become last. Κλητοί and ἐκλεκτοί are passive verbals and much like past passive participles. The agent back of both verbals is God. Some note only that certain persons are thus designated: “the called,” “the elected”; others see that the call itself and the election itself are predicated by these terms, that in κλητοί lie κλῆσις and καλεῖν, and in ἐκλεκτοί lie ἐκλογή and ἐκλέγεσθαι. Thus all that the Scriptures say regarding both acts of God belongs into these terms, for both acts terminate in persons.

The parable itself is objective, and its summary as stated in 19:30 and 20:16 is likewise expressed in an entirely objective form. The question, “To which of these two classes do I belong?” I am to answer by examining this parable. By means of this parable Jesus makes it easy for me to find the answer. The form of the parable, together with its preamble and its conclusion points a warning: See to it that thou art not among those that end as last, as only called, but among those that end as first and thus elect. The called and the elect thus constitute opposites; the first end in hell, the second in heaven. Why this difference?

Because the called rejected grace and resisted it to the end although this grace was all about them. God did not exclude them from the elect, they shut themselves out. The call takes place in time, the divine election took place in eternity. This should not confuse us. God is not bound, as we are, to time and its succession. He sees all of time already before time, in eternity. “The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his,” 2 Tim. 2:19.

This knowledge is absolute and eternal. It is the knowledge cum affectu et effectu, he knows the elect as his own and cannot and could not know the others thus. The warning presented in the parable suggests our responsibility. If we close eye and heart against grace, no matter how high we stand in the church or how much we work, we shall lose life eternal.

XVI

Christ on His Way to Jerusalem, Chapter 20:17–34

Matthew 20:17

17 Note how plainly Matthew marks the sections by references to places: 16:13, the coming to Caesarea Philippi; 17:24, the coming to Capernaum; 19:1, leaving for Judea; now 20:17, going to Jerusalem; then 21:1, entering Jerusalem. And, while going up to Jerusalem, Jesus took to himself (the same verb as in 1:24 and in 2:21) the twelve disciples in private and on the road said to them: Lo, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be delivered to the high priests and scribes, and they shall condemn him to death and shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock and to scourge and to crucify; and on the third day he shall be raised up.

The journey through Perea on the east side of the Jordan is finished, the river had been crossed near Jericho, and now the road led directly toward Jerusalem. Mark 10:32 describes the emotions of the little band that thus, with Jesus leading the way, moved toward the evil city. Instead of allaying their fear and amazement, Jesus takes the Twelve to himself in private somewhere along the road, away from other disciples (Salome, cf., v. 20; and other women with her, Luke 8:2, 3; and most likely a number of men); and now he tells them far more plainly than before (16:21; 17:22, 23) what shall occur. This announcement warrants the exclamation “lo”; going up to Jerusalem for all these things is astonishing indeed.

Matthew 20:18

18 In 16:21 Jesus points to the necessity of these things (δεῖ); in 17:22 he says that they are impending (μέλλει); now he states that they are on the very way into them: “we are going up,” i.e., right now, and Jerusalem is now quite near. The Twelve are going with him, and this means that they shall be there when all these things happen, they shall witness them. The fact that they shall be immensely affected by it all goes without saying. As he did in 17:22, Jesus calls himself “the Son of man” (see 8:20), man and yet far above man. God’s incarnate Son. The main verbs are future tenses and state what shall occur, occur without fail.

In 17:22 the deliverance is made “into the hands of men.” This is now specified first as a deliverance to the Sanhedrin of the Jews and following that a deliverance by the Sanhedrin to the Gentiles (v. 19). The part the Sanhedrin shall play is thus advanced beyond the statement made in 16:21. Only two terms are here used to describe the Sanhedrin, on which see 16:21 and 2:4. A new point is the fact that the Sanhedrin shall subject Jesus to a trial and thus “condemn him to death.”

Matthew 20:19

19 Since the Sanhedrin has lost the power to inflict the death penalty, Jesus reveals that this Jewish court “shall deliver him up to the Gentiles,” which can mean only the Roman governor Pilate and the men under his authority. The result is stated by εἰςτό and aorist infinitives. While εἰςτό is regularly used to express purpose and intention, it at times broadens so as to include contemplated or even actual result. “To mock,” etc., thus means that the deliverance to the Gentiles will result in Jesus’ being actually mocked, etc. Whereas Mark 10:34 adds the spitting upon and mentions only the killing, Matthew includes the spitting upon in the mockery and states the actual mode of this killing by using the terrible verb σταυρῶσαι, “to crucify.” Matthew is the only evangelist who has preserved this word in Jesus’ predictions of his death. While scourging often preceded crucifixion, it was more often a separate penalty (10:17; 2 Cor. 11:25; Heb. 11:36). Luke 18:32, 33 increases the specifications that ended in killing and shows how explicitly Jesus revealed his passion.

Again, in words unchanged, Jesus sets over against this black background the glorious assurance: “and on the third day he shall be raised up,” see 16:21; 17:23. Matthew confines himself to the facts of the announcement. The manner in which it was received is a minor matter to him.

Matthew 20:20

20 Then went to him the mother of Zebedee’s sons together with her sons, doing obeisance and asking something from him. And he said to her, What dost thou wish? She says to him, Say that these my two sons shall sit, one on thy right, and one on thy left in thy kingdom. Mark 10:35 mentions only the sons James and John; but from Matthew’s account we see that their mother was the prime mover and that her sons supported her request. This was Salome, called “the mother of Zebedee’s sons,” most likely because Zebedee, the father, was dead, at least we hear nothing more about him in the Gospels. The view that Salome was a sister of the Virgin Mary is an interesting surmise, yet the evidence on which it rests is not complete.

James and John belonged to the inner circle of three apostles who were distinguished by Jesus himself (Mark 5:37; Matt. 17:1; 26:37). Perhaps it was for this reason that their mother conceived the idea of having her two sons placed above the rest. So she and they together, on finding an opportunity to speak to Jesus alone, make the attempt to secure this supreme honor. Salome does the speaking. In Oriental fashion she makes obeisance as one does who is preferring a request before a great king. It is only a part of this attitude toward Jesus as such a king that the request is at first indefinite: “something from him,” as Mark states it, “Do for us whatsoever we shall ask of thee.” We must not read τί as “a certain thing” (our versions); it is indefinite.

The surmise that Salome wanted to bind Jesus in advance by promising her the favor before he knew what it would be, is untenable. So also is the deduction that Salome felt that Jesus might have some hesitation or objection if he knew the nature of the request in advance. The situation is that Salome regards Jesus as a potentate who is able to grant any request without needing to know what it might be. Great kings and emperors had done things such as that; we have such an offer made by Herod in 14:7.

Matthew 20:21

21 But Jesus declines to assume this royal role. Salome betrays only what blinded her eyes and those of all the disciples to Jesus’ words concerning his passion and his resurrection. Even in Acts 1:6 they still think that Jesus will establish an outward earthly Messianic kingdom. When this kingdom becomes reality. Salome wants her sons to have the highest places in it. So Jesus asks her what she wants.

He certainly avoids binding himself in advance. To promise something without a clear statement as to what this is to be, is morally wrong. Even when we are solemnly assured that the thing will not be wrong against God or our conscience, this would put our conscience into the keeping of another. If the promise is one that we may rightly make, then every reason why it should not be stated openly disappears. This is the case still more when we are to seal the promise with an oath. The example of Jesus points the right course.

But Jesus knew what Salome intended to ask (John 2:24, 25). This makes his example of first desiring to know what Salome wanted him to promise only the more emphatic. But it also involves something else. He wants her to state her desire because of the explanation he must make to her and to her sons in regard to their desire. With all readiness Salome responds. Matthew’s εἰπέ and Mark’s δός are substantially the same: to say or declare (aorist, once for all) is the same as to give or grant.

Yet εἰπέ is what Salome most likely said. Like a great king Jesus is to make this decree (i.e., grant). She assumes that in his coming kingdom Jesus can do whatever he may please. Usually the disciples expected too little of Jesus, they showing themselves as men of little faith. Here is a woman of such faith that she actually expects too much of Jesus.

Salome and her sons regard Jesus as some royal personage who is about to step out of the obscurity in which he has thus far lived and is presently to ascend his glorious throne. With far-reaching foresight Salome wants to pre-empt for her two sons the very highest honors which shall then be forthcoming. Since they were the first to see the near approach of the glorious future, the first to honor Jesus by acknowledging it, and the first to ask for positions in the kingdom that shall be, all three confidently expect that, like the king they make him, Jesus will grant this early and honorable request. This request is that Salome’s sons may sit “one on thy right, and one on thy left in the kingdom” (Mark, “in thy glory”). Salome sees the great throneroom with the king sitting in state and all the royal court assembled to do him honor, and on his right hand and on his left the chief ministers of the king who are next to him in glory and reflect the light shed upon them from the throne. So Solomon honored his mother Bathsheba, 1 Kings 2:19; compare Ps. 45:9.

So Micaiah saw the heavenly court, the Lord on his throne, the host of heaven at right and left, 1 Kings 22:19; 2 Chron. 18:18. In Neh. 8:4 Ezra stands in the pulpit with his assistants to right and to left. Compare also Zech. 4:3, 11–14. Whereas in a case of division and judgment the right signifies honor and acceptance and the left shame and rejection, in a royal court both sides are places of honor, the left being only slightly less glorious than the right.

The Greek idiom in the ἐκ seems strange to us. It means literally “from” thy right and “from” thy left and designates the sides “from” the person’s hands, whereas the English looks to those sides and speaks of what is “at” or “on” them. Which of the sons is to have the respective position is apparently left to the decision of Jesus.

It is most remarkable that Salome asks nothing for herself; her glory will be the fact that she is the mother of such sons. This request has some foundation in 19:28, but there all the thrones are equal.

Despite all its fault, Salome’s request contains something worth noting. All about us men seek the world’s honor and high places, here are three persons who put the βασιλεία and the δόξα of Christ above everything else. The wish of Salome, duly purified, has been seconded by many a mother who prayed for her son that he might serve Christ in some high work in his church.

Matthew 20:22

22 But Jesus answered and said: You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup which I myself am about to drink? They say to him, We are able. Luther says that Jesus treated the presumptuous pride of the Pharisees with severity, but the ambition of these disciples he treats with gentleness; for it springs from faith and needs only to be purified. We see that he is addressing the two disciples, which explains the fact that Mark leaves out their mother. They do not know what they are asking because they are ignorant as to what their request involves in the real kingdom he is establishing. “They sought the exaltation but did not see the step.” Augustine.

The idea is not that, if they knew, they would not seek those high places, but that then they would not make a request which plainly reveals their mistaken idea of the kingdom and of the manner in which its high places are bestowed. On the distinction between the active αἰτεῖν and the middle αἰτεῖσθαι see R. 805. In v. 20 αἰτοῦσα is active, Salome asks devoutly as one asks of God; Jesus uses the middle αἰτεῖσθε, for this asking was really in the nature of a business transaction (B.-D. 316, 2).

So Jesus proceeds to enlighten them. He asks whether they are able to drink (πιεῖν, aorist: drink completely, empty) the cup he himself (emphatic ἐγώ) is about to drink (πίνειν, present tense: about to set to his lips and proceed to empty). By this cup Jesus refers to suffering (John 18:11: Matt. 26:39, 42), and to drink means to accept and to endure the suffering. Matthew is content to record the one question, Mark 10:38 adds a second that employs a different figure but has the same meaning. With this question Jesus points out to James and to John that the way to greatness in his kingdom is not, as they think, by means of a mere decree on the part of Jesus but by way of the deepest humiliation (Luke 14:11); and this is due to the spiritual nature of his kingdom. Do these two realize that? Their ready, all too ready reply, “We are able,” reveals that they do not.

Matthew 20:23

23 Patiently Jesus continues: He says to them: My cup you shall drink; but to sit on my right and on my left is not mine own to give but for whom it is prepared by my Father. The two disciples spoke in ignorance when they said that they were able. They did not realize what that cup and its drinking involved. Here, as in the Lord’s Supper, the cup is the common grammatical (not rhetorical) figure of common usage which mentions the vessel instead of its contents. These disciples shall, indeed, advance to the spiritual ability of drinking Christ’s cup. So Jesus declares that they shall drink his cup.

Here Jesus identifies the sufferings of all his disciples which are endured for his sake and the gospel’s with his own sufferings, including his entire passion. 1 Pet. 4:13: “Rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings”; 2 Cor. 4:10: “Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus”; Gal. 6:17: “I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.” John 15:20; Matt. 10:24, 25. The cup thus denotes only the suffering as such and does not include the distinction that the suffering of Jesus was exceptional because it was expiatory and atoning while the suffering of the disciples is only confessional. In the case of the disciples this suffering does not necessarily involve death by martyrdom. It did in the case of James (Acts 12:2) but not in the case of John who was simply “our brother and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ.” Rev. 1:9, who was imprisoned (Acts 4:3, 21; 5:18), scourged (Acts 5:40), had his life endangered (Acts 5:33), in exile (Rev. 1:9). In regard to such severe suffering Paul exceeded the rest (2 Cor. 11:23–33), he also died a martyr’s death.

In μέν and δέ we have a good example of the use of these particles for balancing two clauses. The way to greatness in the kingdom lies along the path of suffering. But many besides James and John will walk this path. Who, then, shall attain the highest places remains a question. James and John are not shut out. But this is certain, and they must know it, the seats in glory at Jesus’ right and left—and such seats will, indeed, be found there—are not bestowed after the fashion of earthly monarchs, as grants to favorites by the mere whim or will of the grantor.

They are “not mine own to give,” i.e., merely to grant. The according of these glory seats is a far higher matter. To sit thus is “for whom it is prepared by my Father,” the present tense being used timelessly. The relative οἷς contains its own antecedent τούτοις (not τούτων, R. 721), for the dative as well as the genitive may be used with ἐστίν to denote possession.

The eternal counsel of the Father, which fixed all things in regard to the kingdom, included also the disposition of these glory seats. With this counsel and disposition Jesus is in full accord. Jesus is now carrying out the Father’s counsel of grace and thus says regarding these glory seats that they are not at this late date his own to dispose of in some way of his own apart from the Father. Their very preparation God has attended to long ago. Who will occupy these seats Jesus does not intimate; perhaps this knowledge was withheld from Jesus during his state of humiliation. Hence we cannot be certain whether only two will occupy those seats; perhaps more will be seated there.

Was Salome disappointed; her sons, too? Even Mark is silent, and we know that Matthew is still less inclined to record emotions.

Matthew 20:24

24 And having heard it, the ten were indignant concerning the two brothers. But Jesus, having called them forward, said: You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great exercise authority over them. Not thus shall it be among you; but he who wills to be great among you shall be your servant, and he who wills to be first shall be your slave; even as the Son of man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom in place of many. Here we see how Jesus turned the incident regarding Salome and her sons to good account for all his disciples. How the ten heard of it is not indicated. Did James and John tell them on the supposition that the places would after all be theirs?

Mark says that the ten “began” to be indignant and that Jesus at once intervened. The ten prove themselves no better than the two. Many feel wronged by the success of others when similar success on their part appears quite without wrong to them.

Matthew 20:25

25 With all calmness Jesus gives the explanation which the Twelve needed. All of them were misconceiving his kingdom and following a wrong principle in regard to greatness in this kingdom. They were degrading it to the level of heathen kingdoms. So Jesus points out the vast difference. He points to what we all know: that heathen rulers of all kinds oppress their subjects and thus maintain their ruler-ship; come down on them with authority and thus maintain their greatness. In both verbs κατά means that from their high places these rulers and great men come “down” with power and authority on those beneath them, herrschen hoch her, ueben hoch her Gewalt, Lange.

Jesus states only the well-known fact and does not say that these actions are wrong. At least Rom. 13:1 is clear regarding the institution of government; anarchy and rebellion are not countenanced by the Scriptures. Jesus purposely instances the Gentile governors and rulers not the theocracy of the Jews which was of a different order; he confines his comparison to secular states. The Jews were at this time themselves under Gentile rulers; in fact, Jesus himself was, and we know that he bade the Jews give to Cæsar what was Cæsar’s. So by his present description of Gentile rulers he does not intend to remove his disciples from such governmental authority.

Matthew 20:26

26 But while he thus allows it to obtain in its own. secular sphere, he confines it to that. In fact, “not thus shall it be among you,” demands the very opposite. How it shall be is then stated with two clauses that match the two regarding the Gentiles. But whereas Jesus began with “the rulers” and advanced to “the great” (the plurals indicating classes), he now begins with the one who wills to be “great” and then rises to the very pinnacle by speaking of the one who wills to be “first” (the singulars individualizing). Moreover, to be great, to be first, is open to all: ὃςἐάν with the subjunctive, “he who wills (shall will),” no matter who he may be; Jesus is vividly thinking of such cases. Now the Gentile idea of greatness is inverted, turned upside down, the pyramid resting on its apex, the great man not sitting atop the lesser men, but the great man bearing the lesser men on his back. “Let him be your διάκονος, your ready servant.” The word is nobler than δοῦλος used in v. 27.

Note the two in 22:2–14. In John 2:5 we have only diakonoi. Compare Trench, Synonyms, I, 55. A diakonos is one who is intent on the service he is rendering to others. Thus greatness in the kingdom is measured by the readiness and the amount of blessed service rendered to Christ’s people. It makes no difference whether they reward and exalt us for this service or not.

Matthew 20:27

27 This idea is carried to its climax. One wills with a holy will to be “first,” above even those who are “great” in the kingdom. The way in which to attain this height is to be “your slave,” δοῦλος, the humblest and lowest of all servants who actually slaves for others in the kingdom and who, despite all his slaving, is ready to remain without praise or honor.

Because this true spirit of the kingdom is absent, the Gentile spirit has often entered, and we have the Roman papacy with its lordship and authority and among Protestants little popes who dictate instead of serving or slaving. Yet, strange and paradoxical as this principle of Jesus seems, it is literally true. Greatness is measured by service and not by the power and the authority arrogated and assumed.

Matthew 20:28

28 A flood of light is cast on what Jesus says about his own example, ὥσπερ, “even as.” On “the Son of man” see 8:20: he who was man and yet far more than man, God’s incarnate Son. Although he was infinitely great in himself, omnipotent to lord it over all, he came (in his incarnation) on a mission that was the very opposite. He could have compelled all men to be his diakonoi, yea, his douloi, but he came not “to be served,” “on the contrary (ἀλλά) to serve.” In both verbs we have διάκονος (διακονία) and not δοῦλος because of the divine dignity of this great Servant, a dignity which remained during his service, and because of the exalted service which he rendered. Some humble ministrations offered by his friends he accepted (Luke 8:2, 3; John 12:2, 3), but the purpose of his life was to give not to receive or to take.

Καί is epexegetical, “namely to give his life as a ransom for many.” The act is voluntary, he gives of his own accord. The aorist indicates actuality. We think of the death on Calvary, and rightly so; yet in the act of giving we must include all that lies between ἦλθε and δοῦναι. Here ψυχή means life (John 10:17, 18), that which animates the σῶμα or body and is separated from it by death. Only in this specific sense can it be said to be equivalent to the reflexive pronoun “myself”. This “life” is the τιμή or “price” with which we are bought, 1 Cor. 6:20.

The real point lies in the object predicate “a ransom for many,” and we must combine into one “to give his life a ransom for many.” The phrase ἀντὶπολλῶν depends on λύτρον, C.-K. 704. The idea is not that Jesus paid what the many should but could not pay; for we have no ἐγώ to indicate such a contrast.

The λύτρον (or its plural λύτρα, LXX) is the price paid to effect the release (λύειν, the loosing) of one who is held in some kind of bondage. This meaning is extended to the payment for release from guilt and penalty. The ransom becomes a payment by expiation. Jesus uses the singular because the ransom he lays down is his life; he could not have used the plural to designate the kind of λύτρον he made. Whether λύτρον is a price paid in money or an act of expiation, an expiatory sacrifice, is decided by the context. Here the ransom is the life, i.e., the life of Jesus given into death; the ransom is effected by the sacrifice of this life, the shedding of Jesus’ blood (26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:24, etc.).

The death of Jesus thus effects the ἀπολύτρωσις, “ransoming” of many. It is true, when men deal with each other they may haggle about the amount of the ransom and may end in some kind of compromise. But it is unwarranted to transfer this to the ransom of Jesus as though what he paid was merely accepted although it was in reality not the full price. The justice and the righteousness of God are never described as striking a bargain. The blood of the Lamb of God, God’s own Son, exceeds computation in the figures of a price. The ransom he laid down by the sacrifice of himself was so completely an equivalent for the divine claims against the many that one must say, if he says anything, that it exceeded these claims.

Christ’s ransom was paid for our sin and our guilt. John 1:29. Our sin and our guilt made us liable to the penalties due them at the hands of God; and but for the intervention of Christ’s bringing his sacrificial ransom (λύτρον), release (λύειν) for us was impossible (5:26; 6:12; 9:2; 18:23–35). The ransom was offered to God, against whom we have sinned and who alone has power to inflict the penalty (10:28), and not, as Origan dreamed, to the devil; so also Jesus laid his spirit, not into Satan’s, but into God’s hands (Luke 23:46). “In whom we have redemption (τὴνἀπολύτρωσιν, redemption by the payment of a ransom) through his blood (sacrifice),” Eph. 1:7; Heb. 10:5–10. Luther has stated it perfectly: “purchased and won me from all sin, from death, and from the power of the devil, not with silver or gold but with his holy, precious blood and with his innocent suffering and death.”

On the root idea of ἀντί: “face to face,” see R. 572, etc., who writes: “The idea of ‘in the place of’ or ‘instead’ comes where two substantives placed opposite to each other are equivalent and so may be exchanged”—thus the ransom is exchanged for the many. Here follow examples and then: “In λύτρονἀντὶπολλῶν (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45) the parallel is more exact” (i.e., than in the last example offered by R.). “These important doctrinal passages teach the substitutionary conception of Christ’s death, not because ἀντί of itself means ‘instead,’ which is not true, but because the context renders any other resultant idea out of the question.”

The efforts to overthrow these findings are to a great extent not exegetical but dogmatical—reasonings that Jesus could not have said or did not say what his words evidently do say. A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 332, scores “the modern dogmatic exegesis” for obscuring the ancient popular metaphors. He has in mind the orthodox exegesis. In the recently discovered papyri Deissmann found many references to the manumission of slaves who were freed to serve some pagan god, and this colored his view of the atonement. It is not in accord with fact that Paul expanded and adapted Jesus’ λύτρον to the Greek world, nor that this “ransom” was at a later time regarded as Christ’s blood.

In arriving at a conclusion we must first of all go back to the Old Testament and note its conception of this “ransom” and then examine Christ’s own words (all of them) in regard to this term. And after obtaining these solid results we turn to see what the papyri may have to offer, which in reality amounts to little enough, compare C.-K. 703. To speak of “a fine for sin” is to show a lack of good taste. To call “ransom” nothing but “rescue,” and Christ’s sufferings only “something of priceless value,” is to equivocate. To take out of the Old Testament only what seems to suit such views, is to use only a part of the evidence.

The redeemed who are bought by the ransom of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross are called “many” in comparison with the one Son of man. Since we have no indication in the text that Jesus has in mind especially those who accept his redemptive price by faith, it is scarcely correct to say that “many” refers to these. The price is paid for all men, 1 Tim. 2:6; compare Rom. 3:25; Eph. 1:7; 1 Pet. 1:18, 19; 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; Gal. 3:13; Titus 2:14; Acts 20:28. He who gave his life a ransom for all men by that act also became our model in the highest sense: “And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savor,” Eph. 5:2. Those who follow his example will shed all worldly ambition, will partake somewhat of the greatness of the Son of man, will be that much nearer to him, and will share in his glory accordingly. “His life a ransom for many”—thus Jesus led his disciples to Jerusalem and to Calvary.

Matthew 20:29

29 And as they were going out from Jericho there followed him a great multitude. So Jesus had crossed the Jordan and was following the usual route to Jerusalem, which led through Jericho near the Jordan. At first glance there seems to be a decided discrepancy between Matthew’s account: “they going out from Jericho,” and Luke’s statement: “in his drawing near to Jericho.” One says that these blind men were healed when Jesus left Jericho, the other says that they were cured when Jesus entered Jericho. In order to remove this supposed contradiction different efforts have been made, even to postulating three different healings. But the matter is quite simple. Jesus passed through Jericho (Luke 19:1) and, though it was late in the day, no one offered him a night’s lodging.

On the other side of the town Zacchæus awaits Jesus, who calls him down from the tree and then retraces his steps, goes back into Jericho and spends the night at the publican’s home. It was on this return that the blind men were healed. Luke separates the two events because he wants to give a continuous account of Zacchæus without inserting into it the healing of the blind men. Matthew and Mark omit the story of Zacchseus. Thus all three evangelists are correct. The apparent contradiction fades away the moment we note all the facts.

Matthew 20:30

30 And lo, two blind men, sitting beside the road, when they heard that Jesus is passing by, yelled, saying, Lord, show us mercy, Son of David! The multitude, however, rebuked them to be silent; but they yelled the more, saying, Lord, show us mercy, Son of David! After we have heard about the many miracles of Jesus, the healing of two additional men does not warrant the exclamation “lo.” This interjection points to the exceptional feature of this healing, namely the fact that Jesus is addressed by the Messianic title “Son of David,” that he accepts this title before the multitude and performs the miracle as the Son of David. The period of comparative retirement to the borders of the land, as much as possible away from the crowds, and the reluctance to accept Messianic titles that might stir up political and nationalistic feelings, are now past. Let the whole nation know that he goes up to Jerusalem as the Son of David—to die. There is now no danger of a political upheaval. The episode with regard to these blind men is only the prelude to the entry into Jerusalem, at which time Jesus again accepts the acclamation “Son of David,” shouted by thousands and expanded to its full Messianic length, 21:9.

Mark’s account offers more details; the excellency of Matthew’s record lies in the fact that here again he keeps our eyes entirely on the main point and purpose of this narrative. Twice in his short record “Son of David” rings out. The nominative is regularly used with appositions to vocatives. The fact that these were beggars is not stated since it was only a detail; nor is the name of one of these beggars, which Mark preserves, stated. Luke 18:36, 37 adds the detail that the beggars learned that the crowds on the road indicated that Jesus was passing by. Yet Matthew alone informs us that two men were involved. The mention of only the one by Mark and by Luke is, of course, not intended to imply that there was only one.

A favorite hypothesis is that Matthew’s Gospel is largely drawn from Mark’s, and those who hold this view think that here Matthew misread Mark. But Matthew was present in person on the road near Jericho and thus writes on the basis of personal and complete knowledge. It is rather easy to explain the fact that the other evangelists pass over the second blind man. Mark even names Bartimæus, the son of Timæus. He was evidently the leader of the two and made the most frantic efforts to attract the attention of Jesus? The blind men could not see where Jesus was, and the noise of the crowds prevented their judging by the sound.

Yet this was their one chance, and if it slipped by, they would remain blind the rest of their days. So Bartimæus got his name into the divine record because of the excessive demonstration he staged.

The aorist imperative ἐλέησον calls for an act of mercy and compassion as in 9:27; 15:22; 17:15. In the first two of these instances (9:27; 15:22) Jesus is also addressed as the Son of David, but the two blind men mentioned in 9:27 are severely forbidden to tell about their healing, and the Syrophænician woman lives in a pagan neighborhood where the use of this title was politically harmless.

Matthew 20:31

31 We learn only the fact that the crowd tried to silence the beggars and not the reason for this attempt. Of the variety of reasons which commentators suggest scarcely one commends itself. The ἵνα is like the one used in v. 33, it is elliptical and imperative, R. 994; also 933. The beggars only yell the more. Their one chance of healing shall not slip by. All three synoptists repeat their cry with its significant address, “Son of David.” Mark and Luke have “Jesus” in the first cry but not in the second. Matthew has “Lord” in both cries, but this is only a general title of honor; the emphasis is on “Son of David.”

Matthew 20:33

33 And Jesus, having stood still, called them and said, What do you wish that I shall do for you? They say to him, Lord, that our eyes be opened. And Jesus, filled with compassion, touched their eyes; and immediately they saw again, and they followed him. Matthew presents only the kernel, but even then we notice his independence from the other narrators. He alone states that Jesus was filled with compassion, and he alone remarks that Jesus touched their eyes. The cries of the beggars halted Jesus—his ears are ever open to our cries.

He called the beggars by having them brought to him (Mark and Luke). He makes them state what they want. On ἵνα see R. 933; it is like an expletive, and the subjunctive is volitive (cf., Mark 10:51 and R. 994), it is elliptical with imperative force: “to have our eyes opened.”

Matthew 20:34

34 On σπλαγχνίζομαι see 9:36; his heart was stirred by the pitiful sight of these blind beggars; his deepest motive is compassion. With a touch he heals them, at the same time he uttered the words preserved by Mark and by Luke. Verbs of touch are followed by the genitive. Jesus used both avenues: words for the ears and a touch for the feeling of these sightless men. The miraculous effect was instantaneous. Luke adds the detail regarding the praise of the people, and all three evangelists tell us that these beggars now followed Jesus. The Son of David had again proved himself.

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

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.