Matthew 20

OGC

‹ Chapter 19 Matthew — All Chapters Chapter 21 ›

CHAPTER TWENTY OUTLINES

Section 50. Jesus Tells Parable of Eleventh Hour Laborers (Matthew 20:1-16)

Section 51. Jesus Predicts His Passion a Fourth Time (Matthew 20:17-19)

Section 52. Jesus Refuses to Establish a Hierarchy (Matthew 20:20-28)

Section 53. Jesus Heals Two Blind Men at Jericho (Matthew 20:29-34)

**STUDY OUTLINES

(Theme continued from Chapter 19: THE LORDSHIP OF GOD IN HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS)

IV.

GOD-MAN RELATIONSHIPS Illustrated by the Parable of the Eleventh-Hour Laborers (Matthew 20:1-16)**

Parable of householder hiring workmen to work in his vineyard.

Having been hired at various hours of the day, they expect varying wages.

He orders them all paid the same amount, beginning with the last laborers hired.

Those who worked all day complain that the last were made equal to them in pay.

Householder answers:

I am doing you no wrong, because you received all the pay you bargained for.

I can do what I want to with my own possessions. What is that to you?

c. Do you begrudge my generosity? (Everything depends upon the free will and mercifulness of God.)

General principle taught: Human expectations are likely to be overturned by God’s free, generous decision.

FOURTH PASSION PREDICTION (Matthew 20:17-19; Mark 10:32-34; Luke 18:31-34)

SITUATION: Jesus and disciples on last trip to Jerusalem

JESUS-’ REACTION: Passion prediction

II.

THE QUESTION OF POWER-STRUCTURE IN THE KINGDOM: JESUS REFUSES TO ESTABLISH A HIERARCHY (Matthew 20:20-28; Mark 10:35-45)

JESUS-’ AUNT SALOME AMBITIOUSLY SEEKS ARBITRARY FAVOR ITISM FOR HER SONS (Matthew 20:20-21)

JESUS PARRIES THEIR REQUEST (Matthew 20:22-23)

Rebuke: You do not know what you are asking.

Question: Are you able to suffer with me? They answer, Yes.

Prophecy: You will suffer with me.

Refusal: Places of honor are only for those for whom my Father intends them. (Everything depends on God.)

THE OTHER APOSTLES ARE JEALOUS AT JAMES AND JOHN (Matthew 20:24; Mark 10:41)

JESUS REPEATS HIS LESSON ON TRUE GREATNESS (Matthew 20:25-28; Mark 10:42-45)

Worldly greatness apparently consists in the number of people over whom one exercizes authority.

True greatness in the Kingdom is measured by the number of people to whom you are able to do service.

My own life of service and death for others is the standard!

III.

PUBLIC DEMONSTRATION OF JESUS-’ TRUE MESSIAHSHIP OF SERVICE (Matthew 20:29-34; Mark 10:46-52; Luke 18:35-43)

SITUATION: On Jesus-’ journey to Jerusalem after He taught the Twelve about the sinfulness of selfish ambitions, He is met by two blind men at Jericho requesting help from Him as the Son of David (= Messiah).

RESPONSE: After permitting the blind men to address Him repeatedly in public as Son of David (= Messiah), Jesus stopped everything to heal them, proving not only He was truly the Messiah, but also that His royal majesty is seen in the service of others.

Matthew 20:1-16

Section 50 JESUS TELLS THE STORY OF THE ELEVENTH HOUR LABORERS

TEXT: 20:1-16

1 For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that was a householder, who went out early in the morning to hire laborers into his vineyard. 2 And when he had agreed with the laborers for a shilling a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing in the marketplace idle; 4 and to them he said, Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way. 5 Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise. 6 And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing; and he saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle? 7 They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard. 8 And when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto the first. 9 And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a shilling. 10 And when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received every man a shilling. 11 And when they received it, they murmured against the householder, 12 saying, These last have spent but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat. 13 But he answered and said to one of them, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a shilling? 14 Take up that which is thine and go thy way; it is my will to give unto this last, even as unto thee. 15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? or is thine eye evil, because I am good? 16 So the last shall be first, and the first last.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Since Matthew was not encumbered with chapter divisions or verse separations (all things of later date), it may be that this section is but the continuation of the teaching given in the incident recorded in Matthew 19:27-30. In fact, the present section ends with the same words. (Matthew 20:16) If so, what are the points of connection that illuminate the meaning of our present text? That is, what is there in Peter’s (wrong-headed) question that finds further answer in this parable?

Above and beyond particular details involved in the application of this parable, what is its obvious, majestic theme permeating this story? Some think that the sovereignty of God in dispensing His mercies is the main theme of the parable. If you agree with this evaluation, how do you account for the fact that at least some of the workers in the story actually earned the pay for which they had contracted at the beginning of the workday? That would not be grace, but merit! (Cf. Romans 4:4) How do you explain this?

Who are the first and the last?

(1)

Jews and Gentiles? i.e. the Jews called first to God’s service, the Gentiles called last?

(2)

Rich and poor? i.e. first in the wealth, position and fame; last because poor?

(3)

Early personal disciples of Jesus, as opposed to later generations of Christians?

(4)

Church members in positions of greatness, as opposed to humbler servants?

(5)

Life-long church members, as opposed to death-bed repenters?

On what basis do you answer as you do? How much of this parable is to be considered essential to the point stated in the last verse (Matthew 20:16)?

Does this parable, with each laborer’s being paid the same wage, speak to the question of rewards in heaven? If so, how? If not, why not?

If we have no business discussing rewards in a heaven to which we do not deserve to go, why does the Lord, in other Contexts, promise rewards for Christian service? Are there rewards, or not?

Of what principles in Jesus-’ sermon on personal relationships in Matthew 18 is this section an illustration?

PARAPHRASE

Because many human expectations concerning their own merits may well be overturned (Matthew 19:30), God’s Kingdom may be illustrated by the landlord who went out at daybreak to engage grape-pickers for this vineyard. He made a contractual arrangement with the workmen for the regular wage of a denarious a day and sent them to work in his fields. About nine o-‘clock he went out and found other men standing around in the marketplace, unemployed. He invited these too: You men go work in my vineyard and I will treat you right at the end of the day. So off they went. About noon and again about three o-‘clock in the afternoon, he went out and did the same thing as before. Then around five o-‘clock he Went to town and found other men waiting for work. To these he said, Why have you been standing here all day, doing nothing? Their answer was, Because nobody has employed us. He answered them, You go work in my fields too.

At day’s end, the master of the vineyard ordered his foreman, Call the workmen in and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first ones hired. So, when those who began to work at five, just an hour before quitting time, stepped up to be paid, each man received a denarious apiece. Then when the first ones hired came, they assumed that they would receive a bonus. But they were paid a denarious each like those before them. As they took their pay, they protested to the landlord, saying, These latecomers worked only one hour, and you gave them pay equal to those of us who have done the heavy work and sweated in the blazing sun! But he replied to their spokesman, My friend, I am not being unfair to you. You contracted with me for a denarius, did you not? So, take the money you earned and go home. I choose to pay this last man what I pay you. Surely I am allowed to do what I please with what belongs to me. Must you show a calculating selfishness because I am generous with them? So you see, many human expectations about rewards for their work for God will be overturned.

SUMMARY

Continuing His discussion of Peter’s question, What shall we have? and the others-’ troubled query, Who in the world then can be saved?, Jesus illustrated His pithy maxim about the reversal of positions of relative importance, assuring His people: That you will be paid for your service in the Kingdom is assured, but it will be on a basis different from what you expect.

NOTES IV. THE LORDSHIP OF GOD IN HIS JUSTICE AND MERCY

(20:1-16)

Matthew 20:1 For indisputably links the following parable with the foregoing section on the rich young ruler and Jesus-’ discussion of the peril of wealth (Matthew 19:16-30) of which this is an illustrative story. In fact, the punch line of this illustration (Matthew 20:16) is roughly the same as that which concludes the preceding chapter (Matthew 19:30). Indeed, were we not hampered with late-date, human chapter divisions, we would have assumed that Matthew 19:30 were the real beginning of our story which concludes by reiterating the point. (Matthew 20:16) If so, this fact will be an invaluable key to understanding the story. The kingdom of heaven in this illustration is seen from generally the same perspective as that in the Paradise of the Unmerciful Servant. (Matthew 18:23-35) Note the identical pleonastic use of anthrópo basileî (Matthew 18:23) and anthrópo oikodespóte (Matthew 20:1) with which each story begins. While there are differences of emphasis, the similarity of the two parables lies in Jesus-’ use of both to picture how God’s grace and justice function in His dealings with His servants. This is the Kingdom, or Rule of God.

A man that was a householder. went out early in the morning to hire laborers into his vineyard. Householder (oikodespótes = master of the house, Arndt-Gingrich, 560; landlord, head of the house Rocci, 1312; Thayer, 439, adds householder, Matthew 10:25; Matthew 13:27; Matthew 13:52; Matthew 20:1; Matthew 20:11; Matthew 21:33; cf. Matthew 21:40; Matthew 24:43; Mark 14:14; Luke 14:21; Luke 12:39; Luke 13:25) The fact that what is being illustrated is God’s Kingdom leads to the conclusion that Jesus intends to underline God’s ownership of everything by calling the principle figure in the story the landlord, the lord of the vineyard. (Matthew 20:8) This point will be especially heightened in the climax (Matthew 20:13-14) Early in the morning: in the busy season every farmer’s workday is from can see until can-’t see. Jesus pictures here a twelve-hour workday from about 6:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. This rich farmer must have begun his grape-harvest just as soon as the sun was coming up, because no sooner had he organized the first wave of pickers at their work than her went back to town at 9:00 for more hands. To hire laborers into his vineyard, as Matthew 20:3 shows, he went to the place where just such day-laborers could be found, the town square. It is quite probable that the vineyard labor intended by Jesus is the main vintage when the largest quantity of grapes are fully ripe and must be rapidly harvested, While it is true that grapes can begin ripening in the Jordan Valley as early as June and on the coast later in the summer, the main grape-harvest in the hills occurs in autumn as in Italy. (I.S.B.E., 3086f) During the early, smaller gatherings, the individual vinedressers can, with the help of a few extra hands, keep the ripening grapes picked back and moving to market as table grapes. But when the big grape-harvest arrives, the entire ripened crop is harvested carried in baskets to the wine-presses. The families of the vineyard keepers camp out in the vineyard during this time in order to be able to labor as long as possible, uninterrupted by having to return back to town at night. (See also Thomson, Land and Book, II, 411) This special busyness connected with the vintage, that is not particularly connected with any other phase of vinedressing, points to the last, big harvest of grapes before the fall rains come and ruin the quality of the vintage.

Depending, of course, on what route Jesus took through Perea on His way to the ford of the Jordan at Jericho, He would have passed close to an area even yet today rich in vineyards. (Rand-McNally, Bible Atlas, 161)

On the western slopes of the mountains of Gilead there is Abel-keramim (meadow of vineyards, Judges 11:33) just about six and a half English miles southwest of Amman, Jordan. (Cf. Grollenberg, Shorter Atlas, Maps 3 and 5; I.S.B.E., 5) McGarvey (Lands of the Bible, 366) noted that Es Salt, about 20 km (14 miles) northwest of Amman had quite extensive vineyards in his day. These would be 16 km (10 mi.) off to Jesus-’ left if the usual Jordan Valley road were their route. But if they were travelling as far east as Jerash, Aijlon and Salt, they would pass right through this district, although not at harvest time.

If so, these vineyards would furnish a handy illustration of what Jesus intends to teach in the parable and would be further proof that He had not yet crossed the Jordan.

If we notice that the working day for all the laborers ended with the payoff at sunset, a symbol of the end of everyone’s possibility to work and his subsequent retribution, then the entire working day pictured before us represents the sum total of man’s labor in God’s service. Early in the morning, accordingly, from the point of view of the Apostles, would indicate those privileged to enter Kingdom service from its very inception, an observation that points ominously to the Apostles themselves.

Matthew 20:2 And when he had agreed with the laborers for a shilling a day, he sent them into his vineyard. A shilling a day is the English Revision’s attempt to translate a denarius a day, which was the standard working-man’s wage for a day’s work. (Arndt-Gingrich, 178) It is the buying power of this coin that furnishes us some basis for establishing the value of other coins which may be figured as multiples of the denarius. The main question is always what could a common laborer buy with his daily pay.

Tacitus (Annals, 1, 17) notes that two-thirds of a Roman denarius was the daily pay of the Roman soldier. Polybius (2, 15) mentions the price of a day’s hospitality in the inns of Cisalpine Gaul as only one-half as, equal to one-twentieth of a denarius. (P.H.C., XXII, 463) A drachma (= 1 denarius) a day was also a day’s wage for a trusted guide. (Tob. 5:15 LXX) 2 denarii would pay a hostelry bill until the good Samaritan returned. (Luke 10:35)

Whether the denarius be judged high or low for a day’s pay, it must be remembered that, in an agricultural society, the farm day-laborers must make what they can in their high season, from spring to fall, moving from one harvest to another, and from crop to crop, before the bad weather comes and they cannot earn anything but what they can make indoors. Theirs is a precarious existence that depends upon their being hired on during the good seasons so they can make it through the lean ones. This fact will exculpate the men hired later in the day in Jesus-’ parable. (See on Matthew 20:3-7 on idle.)

Since the landowner had gone out to hire (misthósasthai from misthòs, pay, wages), and he employed them after agreement for the perfectly normal, going wage for this category of labor, the relationship between them is strictly contractual. There is nothing unusual about the denarius a day, except that the fundamental point of the story will revolve around this contractual agreement. After any one of these day-laborers will have put in his day, he will have earned no more or less than his denarius. It might be instructive to ask about the agreement: does Jesus mean to imply that there had been some haggling over the price before the final agreement was reached for a denarius a day? If so, this bargaining spirit of the first workers hired stands in contrast to all those who were hired later, who came for whatever is right (Matthew 20:4) or even for no promise but the trustworthiness of the Lord (Matthew 20:7). From the point of view of unemployment and the loss of a day’s work, those hired first would consider themselves the most fortunate, a fact reflected in the reality by those who enjoy great opportunities of service in the Kingdom of God, especially by those fortunate disciples who got in on the ground floor at its beginning. This opinion would be adjusted at the final payoff, the judgment. These laborers could well represent any, like Peter, who carefully negotiate their work contract with God: We have left everything and followed you. What then shall we have? (Matthew 19:27) In fact, the spirit of bargaining for a contract separates these hired first from all those hired later, so we must consider only two groups: those who had a carefully stipulated contract, but grumbled; and those that came trusting in the lord’s fairness and were happy with his graciousness.

Matthew 20:3 And he went out about the third hour. If, as is likely, Jesus is counting time by the Jewish system which begins at six o-‘clock in the morning, the third hour is nine o-‘clock. He went out. and saw others standing in the market-place idle; 4 and to them he said, Go ye also into the vineyard. This system of securing workers is still in use even in modern countries like Italy, where day workers, available to harvest grapes, olives and other truck farm products, gather early in the public piazza of the town as their point of contact with hiring farmers who need workers for that day. There are, of course, variations in the system such as use of professional mediators who seek out the farm owners for the laborers and who seek out the laborers for the farm ownersall for a fee. There is usually considerable hubbub involved in the hassle over wages and rights before the agreement is reached and the workers finally depart for the fields, a fact that gives the early morning market-place the air of a county fait. In some country towns the after-sunset hours turn the public square into what seems like a town meeting with a considerable portion of the male population roaming the square, discussing the day’s events, seeking employers or employees for the following day, etc. Standing in the market-place idle, therefore, means that these day-laborers were where they should have been to find work. They were not loafers unconcerned about work.

What is right, I will give you. There must have been considerable trust generated by this generous householder, since he could start workers moving toward his fields to work for whatever is right, no questions asked. These workers accepted his work offer, probably expecting a fraction of the denarius that would normally fall to them for a portion of a day’s work. But the point is that they trust him enough to work for him, even without strict contracts to protect their supposed workers-’ rights.

Matthew 20:5 Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise. Again! The vineyard not only must have been large and the crop bountiful, but there must have been some urgency that more and more workers he engaged to bring in the loads of grapes before sunset. So the householder made trips back to the market-place at noon and at three in the afternoon. The workers he found do not haggle, but gladly hurry off to the vineyard, relieved to be able to work for even part of a day.

Matthew 20:6 And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing; and he saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle? The eleventh hour, or 5:00 p.m., is almost quitting time. Although grapes begin ripening as early as June in the Jordan Valley (I.S.B.E., 3086), the big grape-harvest occurs in autumn in Palestine, so the sun would not go down until about seven with a long twilight. This would give these last hired a couple of easy hours in the cool of the late afternoon to work. (cf. Matthew 19:12) However, according to the protesters, these last just got in one good hour before quitting time. If quitting time at 6:00 p.m. seems too early for later summer or early fall, since there would still be considerable daylight to see to work by, it should be remembered that the remainder of the time would probably be used to walk back into town or to their homes, and most of these workers had been at work since morning.

Why stand ye here all the day idle? Had the householder noticed them earlier in the day during his earlier efforts at rounding up workers? It is doubtful that he had talked with these men before this instant, as their answer implies.

Matthew 20:7 They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. No dead-beats these, their unemployment is not culpable, since they had lost a whole day’s work merely because no one had engaged them for the day. Their readiness to go to work without even so much as a promise of payment, confident in the master’s goodness, is evidence not only that their unemployment was not caused by unwillingness or refusal on their part, but also that they had been actively seeking work all day. There is no promise here for willful laziness or refusal to work for God when the first opportunity presents itself. This parable cannot be thought to hold out any hope for last-minute repentance for inconsiderate people who reject the call of God all their life, but decide at the last to take advantage of the Lord and accept His gracious invitation with a view to receiving the same reward as any other saint who labored faithfully all his life. McGarvey (fourfold Gospel, 553) wrote an interesting counter-parable that more correctly pictures the futility of such calculating shrewdness. The eleventh-hour laborers in Jesus-’ parable, on the other hand, had apparently never been approached by anyone and eagerly grasped at the first opportunity offered them.

This verse gives a preview of the graciousness of the lord of the vineyard, for he is not merely concerned about the progress of work on his estate, but also about these men who had desperately and patiently hung on to hope of work even past the time when any hope of being hired for that day was gone. Who ever heard of engaging workers almost at quitting time for just one hour’s work? In fact, who would have thought that so provident a landlord as this manwho, in the reality, represents Godwould not have hired enough men at the beginning of the day?

If those hired first represent the Apostles who ask, What shall we receive?, and whose harvesting of souls and royal ministry of judging the Israel of God over the centuries by means of their writings in the NT, then they must learn that the Lord may well call other workers after their own ministry had long begun, and that these latter laborers would be paid according to the gracious free will of God, not on the basis of merits, and not even an Apostle could complain if these last received pay equal to that of an Apostle. If so, the call of God comes to other workers centuries later in the present world age. So, God could not have engaged these latter Christians to enter His fields until later. This text, then, can furnish no criticism of His providence or foresight. Rather, its total impact confirms both.

But this man continues hiring workers all day long! The point is clear: he is fully as interested in the needs of the people who need employment as he is in getting his own work done. God accepts every man who is willing to serve Him, even those who begin quite late with respect to others.

There is no price-haggling here: the men are only too glad to work, even if for a short while. Note that the later the workers are hired, the less claim they have toward their employer and the more they have to rely upon his goodness.

Matthew 20:8 And when even was come, i.e. around 6:00 p.m. (Cf. Matthew 20:6; Matthew 20:12), came the time for the payoff of the day-workers, as required by the Law. (Leviticus 19:13; Deuteronomy 24:14 f; cf. James 5:4). The lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward. The steward (epítropos) is anyone to whom the administration of something is entrusted (epìtrépo), hence manager, foreman, steward (Arndt-Gingrich, 303), superintendent, administrator, agent, curator, governor, protector, prefect, procurator (Rocci, 745), In this case he is an employee in the master’s household and estate who manages the keeping of financial accounts and pays the harvest crew. Some see Jesus as the steward of God, the Lord of the vineyard, since He acts as Mediator between God and man, and will be the One who will repay every man according to his deeds, (Matthew 16:27) If so, the striking fact that, in the story, it is the owner himself, not his steward who calls the workers into the vineyard, leads to the remarkable observation that God Himself earnestly and generously calls men into His service no matter how late it is in terms of time left to serve.

Call the laborers, and pay them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first. It really made no difference who got paid first, just so everyone was treated justly. However, this order of payment is deliberately calculated to raise the right questions about which Jesus intends to make comment. (Matthew 19:30; Matthew 20:16) The fact that those who should have received proportionately less pay are not only paid first, although hired last, but paid an amount equal to that of those who thought they merited more, could not but evoke comment, and this is precisely what Jesus is counting on. Jesus-’ tone here is specifically polemical and directly aimed at correcting the calculating legalism that wants God’s pay scale to be prorated on the basis of personal merits, seniority, strictly counted hours and earnings, etc.

Matthew 20:9 And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a shilling. To their delight, the last ones hired, who had worked only one hour (Matthew 20:12), unexpectedly received a denarius, the equivalent of a full day’s pay. Because they had not earned more than one hour’s pay, the full denarius represents pure grace on the part of the lord of the vineyard. There may be several motives why the landlord should decide to pay every man a full day’s wage irrespective of the time put in:

The lord of the vineyard alone knew what the labor of each man was worth to him. If it was urgent that this vintage he finished rapidly, then time was of the essence, and, as the hours rushed by, the rested vigor of unfatigued hands would prove particularly precious to the lord of the vineyard.

Each man hired had been true to the only opportunity to work offered him, regardless of when he had been hired, a fact true even of those hired first. From this standpoint also every worker was actually equal. Each is paid, not on length or supposed importance of his labors, but upon fidelity to opportunity.

Those hired later had shown a magnanimous trust in their employer, Why should he not reward them magnanimously for coming when he needed them without losing precious time haggling over contracts, hours, wages and extra fringe benefits?

At any rate, he remains master of his own choices, except in the case of those laborers who had a specific contract, and this will be the main point of the parable.

Even though nothing further is indicated about the other workers who had put in only part of a day, having been hired at 9:00, 12:00 and 3:00, it would suit the tone of the parable to surmise that they too received a full denarius apiece. However, if the payoff proceeded consecutively from the last unto the first (Matthew 20:8), then, because of the relatively more hours worked by those engaged relatively earlier, the anticipating of those last in line would be proportionately decreased, because the ratio of hours worked to pay received would increase. This may explain why Jesus omitted them from this part of the story. Or, it may be that the steward had only begun to go down the line of workmen paying them the full denarius when those hired first, impatiently asserting their seniority, cut in after those hired last, so as to be able to be paid second, thus leaving the payoff of those hired later in the day completely out of the picture.

The comments among the on looking workmen waiting to be paid must have sounded something like this: Wow, a full day’s pay for just one hour’s work! I wonder if the rest of us will be paid like that. Think of it: a denarius an hour, and I-’ve turned in almost 12 hours today!

Matthew 20:10 And when the first came, they had already faced the annoyance of having to wait in line for their pay, even though they undoubtedly expected precedence over everyone hired after them. Another humiliation awaits them: no bonus! They supposed that they would receive more precisely because they had worked more hours and put up with more wearing toil out in the heat. (Matthew 20:12) Nevertheless, their expectation of preferential treatment is groundless, because they had bargained with the vineyard’s owner for a denarius, and a denarius is all they really earned. If pay must be based on a rule of earning or merit, this is all they legally or morally deserved, so they likewise received every man a denarius.

Not unlike Peter (Matthew 19:27), these are disciples who drive a bargain with God. Their theology is a typically human one that expects God to reward seniority and show preferences on the basis of lifelong faithfulness, as if He owed something special to those who work long and hard doing their duty. They tend to rankle when God gladly welcomes with equal generosity even those who could not possibly have served so long as they. Naturally, they resent the idea that sinners and other unworthy, unqualified people should be welcomed by God on an equal footing with them who spend a lifetime of hard struggle against temptation. To them, this is unfair: it completely reverses their theology of righteousness. To them, Jesus can hobnob with sinners if He likes, but He has no right to treat them as if they had earned what it has taken the righteous many years of hard striving to attain!

Matthew 20:11-12 And when they received it, they murmured against the householder. They protest as if they were being handled with irresponsibility and injustice, Their complaint about the generosity of their employer completely forgets their contract bargaining of the morning.

These last have spent but one hour, i.e. they had worked from 5:00 p.m. until 6:00. On this basis, since pay must be regulated by the amount of work done, they do not deserve what they receive, yet they are paid a full day’s work.

(We) have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat. These men have undoubtedly put in a hard day working in summertime temperatures around 30°C (86°F) to as high as 45°C (113°F) in some zones. (Cf. references to Palestinian heat and its effects: Genesis 18:1; 1 Samuel 11:11; 2 Samuel 4:5 ff; Isaiah 25:4 f; Isaiah 49:10; Psalms 91:1; Psalms 121:5 f; Revelation 7:16; James 1:11; Luke 12:55) Much depends, as usual, on seasonal variables and geographical location, altitude and humidity.

Rand-McNally (Bible Atlas, 36) measures the average temperatures at 34°C (90°F) and 39°C (103°F) respectively, although Thomson (Land and Book, II, 77) measured 38°C (100°F) at midnight when encamped at Tiberias even in March. In April he experienced intolerable heat over the Mediterranean. (ibid., 312)

The protestors had worked hard for about twelve hours in these conditions.

Their conclusion is, Despite these gross differences in our performance, you have made them equal to us. You is probably addressed to the householder who is standing nearby watching the payline move forward as each receives his pay. Their grumbling smacks of the same jealousy of the prodigal son’s self-righteous elder brother. (Luke 15:25-32) Unsatisfied with their pay, they are envious because of their unjustified expectations for themselves and because of the bounty given to the undeserving. Their objection is based on the principle of Jesus-’ story: they who expected to be first and highest paid last in order and least in their own expectations. In terms of the sum paid for actual work done, the owner of the vineyard had not actually made them equal unto those who had worked all day. In reality, he had made them far superior, since all those who were called later were given what it had taken the others all day to earn. The superiority of grace for all without distinction of merit is a major point in the story’s application.

In the application, this jealousy of religious status based on human effort or initiative will be shown for the worthless enterprise it is. You have made them equal to us, means, Does it mean nothing to you that we have earned our goodness by__________ (fill in the blank)? Men are forever filling in that blank with good works, circumcision, being a male (a female), being a Jew (or Gentile), being free (or slave), rich (or poor), going to church every Sunday for the past 50 years, tithing, raising up my children right despite great handicaps and at great sacrifice, etc. Our greatest difficulty lies in our inability to admit the fact that in Christ religious achievements or status mean nothing as a means of exchange for our salvation. What is so shocking is that these things are simply irrelevant to the question. What really counts is doing what God wants, motivated by trust and because we want to express to Him our love. (Galatians 5:6; Galatians 6:15; 1 Corinthians 7:19)

The murmuring of these workers does not, as such, prove that they represent someone who finally will be cast out of the vineyard, as if even disciples could never murmur against the decisions of God they find unpleasant for themselves or judge to be wrong. The Apostles themselves had been tempted to talk this way. Rather, it is quite likely that Jesus-’ inclusion of the murmuring strictly warns every disciple of the injustice done by all pretenses against God’s grace. He intends thereby to eliminate all sense of claim on our part. Even if some, at judgment, take the remonstrating attitude of these complainers, He is perfectly capable of giving them the salary they think they earned without robbing anyone else or satisfying the grumblers-’ demands for extra rewards.

4. The Lord of the Vineyard answers: (20:13-15) a. There is no injustice involved in paying you all you bargained for! (20:13)

Matthew 20:13 But he answered and said to one of them who perhaps had made himself spokesman for the others. Friend (hetaîre) is a general, kindly form of address to a person whose name is not known. (Arndt-Gingrich, 134), comrade, buddy, associate (Rocci, 776). Contrary to Lenski’s opinion (citing Trench, Matthew, 776), hetaîre, in its only other appearances as an address in Matthew, is always a friendly correction expressed in a brotherly spirit (cf. Matthew 22:12; Matthew 26:50). As here, the speaker in all three cases has been offended by something in the conduct of the person so addressed. True, it introduces a remonstrance, but this does not make it a word of evil omen, since the thing objected to in the other’s conduct stands in striking contrast to the speaker’s kindness toward the offender. It is truer to say: We are friends, buddies, companionsand you conduct yourself this way with me?! Its use in these texts draws special attention to an undeniable friendship that should have rendered impossible the unbrotherly conduct to which objection is made.

I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a shilling? These men had demanded justice both when they made their contract and now when they demand equitable payment on the basis of merit relative to those who actually earned so little but were paid a handsome bonus. They wanted justice, so they got nothing but justice. They just did not receive mercy. If they condemn grace shown to others, it cannot, in justice, be shown to them. (Cf. notes on Matthew 18:23-35) Theirs was a strictly mercenary, contractual relationship with the owner. They would have held him to the legal terms of their stipulation, had he tried to pay them less than the agreed sum. But when he correctly honors his contract with them, they inconsiderately grumble because he had not also been generous, since he gave them no bonus besides! If they stand to lose, they are legalists, but if they stand to gain, they want grace and generosity! Bruce (Training, 267) calls such hireling servants of God

Calculating and self-complacent. ever studious of their own interest, taking care even in their religion to make a sure bargain for themselves, and trust little to the free grace and unfettered generosity of the great Lord.

I do thee no wrong means that God violates none of our rights when He does good to our neighbor. He takes nothing from us when He graces others with distinctions we do not receive. There is no injustice done, except in our own unjustified self-esteem. Because grace gives what is not earned, it seems an injustice only to those who do not understand grace. But to condemn another’s grace as unjust is to insult him who shows it and is the quickest way to lose the mercy he would have shown the critic.

So saying, Jesus deals a deathblow to the whole Judaistic scheme of merit and reward and any other systems like it. Every specific agreement will be correctly honored, but everyone will receive payment appropriate to the kind of faith shown in the goodness and faithfulness of the Lord. The lesson is that WAGES, measured on a strict ratio between labor and payment, are an unsatisfactory basis upon which to expect God’s blessing, whereas REWARDS, contrary to earthly criteria but based on the goodness of the Master and calculated according to one’s awareness of unworthiness and lack of claim upon Him, are most satisfying of all. This is one of the striking paradoxes of Christianity: the man who works for rewards never receives them, but he who works for the joy of service with no thought of reward, is always rewarded by God.

b. I can do what I want to with my possessions. What business is that of yours? (20:14, 15a)

Matthew 20:14 Take up that which is thine, and go thy way. That which is thine: You earned it, but only that: take it and leave. The denarius for this man was no reward; just the payment of a debt incurred. (Romans 4:4) Those hired first got only what they bargained for; no more. Note the biting contrast between that which is thine and what belongs to me (Matthew 20:15 a). The landlord and the day laborer are both free to decide what they shall do about their own possessions. The latter had earned his denarius and so was free to take it home and spend it as HE desired. On what basis, then, could he legitimately deny that same right to the landlord? He had blundered in not admitting the other’s right to dispose of his own property as he chose.

It is my will to give unto this last, even as unto thee. There is no compulsion, no wage-claim against the Lord which forces him to pay the late-comers a given amount. To those who were hired from 9:00 to 3:00, he had promised only what is right, a commitment that left the payoff to his own discretion. The last hired had not even this much of a promise. Therefore, whatever he gave them above and beyond the calculated fraction of a day’s wage would not be due wages, but a free gift of grace. (Romans 4:4-6; Romans 11:6) It is my will (thélo = I choose) establishes the sovereignty of God’s choices without reference to human expectations and pretensions. (Cf. Romans 9:18 f; Romans 11)

It is in this anti-legalistic standpoint that the non-Judaistic character of this Jewish Gospel is seen most clearly.

Go thy way: should we think of this order as the Lord’s rejecting these complainers who, because of their bad spirit, should be excluded from the class of the saved? Plummer (Matthew, 274) works on the problem this way:

It has been objected that the murmurers are not punished for their murmuring; they receive only a gentle remonstrance, and get their pay just as the others do. But is a rebuke from Him nothing? And, although He inflicts no punishment, yet there is the punishment which they inflict upon themselves. They get the reward that was promised them; but they have lost the power of enjoying it. The discontented are never happy, and jealousy is one of the worst of torments. Heaven is no heaven to those who lack the heavenly temper; and these murmurers will have no pleasure in their reward, until they accept it with thankfulness. From this point of view the first and the last may be said to have changed places. Those who came first to the vineyard had the least joy, and those who came last had the most joy, in the reward given to all.

Matthew 20:15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? There is a touch of irony in this question, because the grumblers are appealing to a law of merit as they urge that they should be paid more. The lord promptly answers their unjustified appeal to the law of his conscience by appealing to the law of property rights. Every denarius in his possession, except those which they had just earned and which he has now paid off in full according to the legal agreement, is his own, What legal right had they to dictate to him how he may or may not dispose of his possessions as he pleases. So, he is just in justifying him who has faith in his (seemingly) arbitrary way of treating his workers. (Cf. Romans 3:26)

**c. Do you begrudge my generosity? (20:15b)

Or is thine eye evil?** = Are you jealous? (See on Matthew 15:19.) However, Proverbs 23:6-8; Proverbs 28:22 and Deuteronomy 15:9 suggest that evil eye includes greediness, covetousness and calculating selfishness. See these texts in versions where the idiom evil eye is retained in the translation. Because I am good, generous or liberal. Have these complainers any legal right or justifiable motive for their ingratitude that he should have been considerate and generous with their own fellow workers? The late-comer is as needy as any other worker. Is there no neighborliness in the early worker that would gladden his heart to see his hungry fellow’s need for a day’s work had been met as well as his own? In fact, the lord of the vineyard did not have to hire the complainers first. He could have hired others first. It was by grace that any of them were hired at all. So we see that everything depends on the merciful generosity of God from start to finish.

Surprisingly, even jealousy can be a motive that spurs one to change his mind and return to right thinking. (Study Romans 10:19; Romans 11:11; Romans 11:14.) Jesus deliberately organized the payoff in this story to show the fallacy of the calculating self-righteous expectations of those who think they deserve more and better than others. But their jealousy stirs them to ask the questions that bring out the truth that men’s blessing and joy in the Kingdom of God depends, not on their striving and worth, but on God.

Their jealousy exposes their lack of sensitivity to the community: they are unwilling to rejoice that the Lord bestowed such gracious benefits on undeserving men at all. They were unwilling to see that the landlord’s graciousness took care of definite needs of members of their own community: their own neighbors, the worried wives and hungry children of these workers had now been cared for. They were criticizing the right-minded, sovereign judgment of the one in position to help their community’s needs. This is real shortsightedness.

B. GENERAL PRINCIPLE TAUGHT: Human expectations are likely to be overturned by God’s free, generous decision. (20:16)

Matthew 20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first last. What at first appears to be a harmless little tag line on a nice story is really a multiple warhead nuclear missile which, though launched once, may be directed to strike many targets!

In the Kingdom of God, GOD is first, not last. He who has been left out of consideration in all human effort to be good enough to earn enough to put Him in debt, is actually the most important consideration. It is HE who makes the last first and the first last, God’s sovereign right over His possessions guarantees Him the right to distribute His goods as He chooses. This will have pointed significance when the Lord must correct the wrong-headed ambitions of James and John who try to put themselves first and thrust all others into last place in their thinking. He must warn them all again to put themselves last, because it is God who assigns the first places: it is HE who is the owner of the vineyard. (Matthew 20:23; Matthew 20:26 f) Everything depends upon His wisdom and grace.

Similarly Jesus Himself, who would be despised and rejected by men, would come from last place in human estimations of His person and program, to be* first* and greatest of all, seated on the throne of His glory to judge all mankind. The greatest Servant shall be the Master and Ruler of all, a theme more fully developed in Matthew 20:26-28. It is His word and example of self-giving service that is the standard by which relative rewards of the Kingdom are to be dispensed. Our* first*-ness or last-ness depends upon our bowing to Jesus-’ rule by our sincere assenting to His judgment of our unfitness, by our readiness to take every opportunity to serve others as only our loving duty to Him, and by our leaving every decision about rewards to His discretion.

This is the conclusion to Peter’s question, We have left everything and followed you: what shall we have? Coming in the general context of the rich young ruler’s desire to earn eternal life by doing one supremely meritorious deed (Matthew 19:16; Matthew 19:27), Jesus-’ warning admonishes the disciples against the kind of spirit that would hold God to exact wage contracts based on so much wage for so much work, so much righteousness, qualification, worthiness, seniority, etc., in exchange for so much glory. The Apostles would be assigned positions of importance and responsibility in the Kingdom (Matthew 19:28), true enough, but such rewarding would have little to do with special personal merits, since others, less blessed with the opportunities enjoyed by the Twelve, would be recipients of God’s goodness too. (Matthew 19:29) The Twelve’s judging Israel would not hinder the saints from judging the world and angels. (1 Corinthians 6:2 f) Being first to possess the keys of the Kingdom and open its doors to Jew and Gentile, does not put Peter on a seniority list for preferential treatment ahead of all the other Apostles and common disciples who, too, will proclaim the Gospel to Jew and Gentile alike! (See on Matthew 16:18 f; Matthew 18:18 f; Matthew 28:18 f.) This is the kind of thinking that gives meaning to the priority of publicans and prostitutes ahead of the pure and perfect. (Matthew 21:31 f; Luke 7:29 f) Other parables taught this same truth. (Cf. Luke 14:21-24; Matthew 21:33 to Matthew 22:14) No one seemed more last than Zacchaeus, and yet our Lord gave him the same promise He held out for everyone. (Luke 19:1-10) This public thief, the chief tax collector, made a thief’s restitution (cf. Exodus 22:1; Luke 19:8) and turned 50% of his holdings into instant cash for the underprivileged, and this lost man was found, and he who was denied access to synagogues was proclaimed a Son of Abraham!

Since Jesus has every intention of calling Gentiles into the Kingdom and blessing them on exactly the same terms as the Jews, even though there is not one word of this in this parable, He has laid down a principle here that must necessarily undermine any Jewish jealousy of their prior rights or prestigious position. (Acts 13:46; Romans 1:16; Romans 2:9-11; cf. Luke 13:22-30; Matthew 8:10-12) Greatness or importance in the Kingdom is just not based on the undisputed seniority of one’s Jewishness, but upon anyone’s accepting the call of God, submission to God, humble service to others, gratitude for anything received and his usefulness in helping others. (Matthew 20:26-28; Matthew 18:1-20; Romans 2; Romans 3:9; Romans 10:12; Galatians 3:28; Galatians 5:6; Galatians 6:15; Colossians 3:11; Acts 10:34-36; 1 Corinthians 7:19)

Here is promise for you and me: although we just came on the scene, looking for work in Christ’s Kingdom, we need not despair of His gracious blessing for us too, merely because we are late to arrive in the King’s vineyard.

If it be surprising that Jesus should be describing a situation likely to occur often among hard-working, self-denying people who make great sacrifices for God and His Kingdom, consider Bruce’s explanation (Training, 268ff): the vice of self-righteousness is a live possibility.

when the self-denying spirit is not really a habitual way of thinking and acting, but rather a sporadic manifestation interspersed with longer periods of self-indulgence that needs to be justified by reminders of the merit of the past sacrifices.

when any given kind of ministry in the Kingdom comes to be highly honored because of its being in great demand, and so an opportunity for spectacular self-abnegation.

when self-sacrificing is organized into a sterile ritual and observed ascetically for the sake of the glory that accrues to the disciple rather than to the Lord.

To Bruce’s analysis we might add 4.

and, in the case of the Apostles, when their own seniority in the faith come to be regarded by them as particularly meritorious, deserving preferential treatment because of their sacrifices.

The point of Jesus-’ teaching, then, if expressed as an order, would be: Do not serve in the Kingdom as mercenaries presumptuously calculating the earnings you think you merit on the basis of your own minor accomplishments. Otherwise, in your self-esteem, you will find yourselves dealt with according to the same cold, legalistic treatment due those who insist on contracts with God and work only after receiving specific guarantees, Serve, rather, saying, -We are unworthy servants, we have only done our duty-’ (Luke 17:10), trusting in the grace of your Lord, thinking of Him as One with whom you need no carefully stipulated contracts to protect yourselves. This way, although you consider yourselves unworthy to be treated as anything but one of the hired servants (Luke 15:19), you will find yourselves warmly welcomed as sons of the Lord.

It misses the point to think that, in the distribution of rewards, there will be no distinction made between the first and last, because, although the laborers all received the same monetary pay in the story, nevertheless, in proportion to the work done and their attitude shown, they were not at all treated equally. In fact, the trusting, generous late-comers were treated far better than the calculating grumblers. The Lord’s grace and generosity will be shown to His servants in every age who give Him all they have without precise contracts to protect themselves. God will always keep His word, but, for those who trust Him, He enjoys doing better than He promised. Are the last in or out of God’s Kingdom? Since the point of view of this parable is not merely the Church, but God’s rule over men in general, there is no time at which these workers leave the Kingdom or control of the King once they have begun to work for Him. Thus, even if the grumbling legalists who insult God’s grace end up in hell, they are still within God’s domain and under His rule, although terribly last and finally lost. The fact that Jesus did not define the denarius specifically in His story leaves us to understand Him to mean that the denarius is what anyone is to receive from God, our pay.

FACT QUESTIONS

What contextual signposts point to the proper interpretation of this illustration?

State what Jesus considers the main point of His story.

What local customs of Jesus-’ day must be known to appreciate the householder’s hiring and pay practices? What is meant by early in the morning, the third hour, the sixth, ninth and eleventh hours? How much is a denarius worth in our money? Who in our society gets the equivalent of a denarius a day?

What is the ground of the complaint of the grumblers? What motivates them to complain?

What are the kind, cheerful answers of the householder to the complainers?

What texts in Matthew 18 find practical application in this section?

Matthew 20:17-19

Section 51 JESUS PREDICTS HIS SUFFERING A FOURTH TIME

(Parallels: Mark 10:32-34; Luke 18:31-34)

TEXT: 20:17-19

17 And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples apart, and on the way he said unto them, 18 Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, 19 and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify: and the third day he shall be raised up.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Why do you think Jesus took the Twelve to one side here?

From what or whom would He be taking them aside?

What effect do you suppose might ensue if Jesus made this declaration without this step?

Why do you suppose Jesus provides so many explicit details while describing His suffering?

How does this prediction prove that Jesus knew that He would be killed by the Romans, and not directly by the Jews themselves?

Of what principles in Jesus-’ sermon on personal relationships in Matthew 18 is this section an illustration?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

When Jesus was on the point of going up to Jerusalem, while they were on the road, He was walking ahead of the disciples, and they were filled with misgivings, and those who were following were alarmed. Then, taking the Twelve aside once more, He began to speak to them about what was about to happen to Him. He said, Notice, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all the predictions that the prophets wrote about the Messiah will come true. The Messiah will be delivered to the high clergy and the theologians who will sentence Him to death. In fact, He will be handed over to the pagan Gentiles who will ridicule Him, insult Him and spit on Him. They will lash Him with whips and finally execute Him by crucifixion. But on the third day, He will be raised from the dead. But they did not comprehend a word of it. His meaning was unintelligible to them, and they continued to fail to understand what He was saying.

SUMMARY

During Jesus-’ last journey to the capital, His fearless way of going before His men filled them with apprehension about what might happen in Jerusalem. Once more Jesus gathered them around Him to announce that this is the prophetic journey of which He had so often spoken. However, this time He furnished even more detail, but the disciples listened uncomprehendingly.

**NOTES I. FOURTH PASSION PREDICTION

(20:17-19; Mark 10:32-34; Luke 18:31-34)

A. SITUATION: Jesus and disciples on last trip to Jerusalem**

Matthew 20:17 And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem. The expression méllon anabaínein means He was about to go up, however it does not settle whether it is to be taken geographically or metaphorically:

Metaphorically, it could mean He was about to journey to the highest point in Jewish thinking, i.e. to Jerusalem and the temple. However, taken with the expression on the way (en tê hodô), which Mark connects with they were going up, it would seem less likely that Matthew intends it metaphorically here.

Geographically, he was about to go up, means that He had not yet arrived at Jericho where the final climb begins from 300 m (-1000 ft.) below sea level 814 m (2600 ft.) above sea level. In this case, He would not have crossed the Jordan yet, so Matthew would mean that He was still in Perea. (See on Matthew 19:1.) This does not contradict Mark’s assertion, They were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, if we understand Mark to mean the journey to the highest point in Jewish thinking, but not necessarily on the final uphill climb from Jericho to Jerusalem.

Whereas the rich young ruler just barely caught Jesus as He was setting out on the journey and evoked the teaching relative to the perils of wealth (Matthew 19:16 to Matthew 20:16), Jesus and His group are now finally on their way to Jerusalem. (Mark 10:32) Mark also signals the peculiar boldness and decisiveness with which Jesus stepped out, a fact that unnerved the Apostles. This tense atmosphere and foreboding of approaching tragedy would be. left unexplained, if we did not have John’s account. In fact, he records the Apostles-’ earlier objections to the Lord’s return to Judea to be at the bedside of Lazarus: Rabbi, the Jews were but now seeking to stone you, and are you going there again? (John 11:7-8) And when they saw Him determined to go anyway, it was Thomas who courageously rallied the others with his exhortation, Let us also go, that we may die with Him! (John 11:16). They referred to the violent opposition back in December. (Cf. John 10:22-39) It was then that He had moved His center of operations across the Jordan to avoid precipitating the crisis before the last Passover. After a lightning trip to Bethany for the raising of Lazarus (John 11:1-44), He faded away back into the hills again, moving in the direction of the wilderness north-north-east of Jerusalem to a hamlet called Ephraim, where He holed up with His disciples, (John 11:54) From there He kept on the move toward the north, then turning east along the border between Samaria and Galilee (Luke 11:11), until He could mingle with the Jerusalem-bound Passover crowds. (Matthew 19:2; cf. John 11:55-57) It was probably this gnawing uncertainty, this constant running from opposition that broke the Apostles-’ courage. Now they were amazed, because the running is suddenly over: Jesus was walking boldly ahead of them, obviously on His way to the very death-trap they had been so studiously avoiding by their recent withdrawals! So it was this realization that He is no longer running from death, but deliberately walking toward it, that seemed suicidal to them. No wonder that those who followed were afraid. (Mark 10:32) But the Son of God moved on ahead of His people, His mind engrossed in thought about the great work He must accomplish in the capital, and, determined to complete His mission, He pressed forward to get it started.

Considering these circumstances, it may be that Jesus noticed the Twelve hanging back, whispering among themselves, and perceived their misgivings. At this point He took the twelve disciples apart from the crowds of Passover-bound travellers, so that the following communication could be given in private. This detail suggests that He had every intention of entering Jerusalem as a Messianic King (Matthew 21). Since any untimely dampering of the popular enthusiasm which figured in that scenario would be out of place, this Passion Prediction required privacy. This circumspection is one of His last efforts at Messianic reserve. (See on Matthew 8:4; Matthew 9:26; Matthew 9:30-31; Matthew 12:15; Matthew 14:13 introductory notes and Matthew 14:22.) He is travelling in the company of hundreds of Galilean friends and sympathizers who, were they to learn this brutal truth, might well have been incited to riot by it, bringing only more bloodshed just to resist His arrest, and so hinder the plan of God. The two expressions apart and on the way depict the deliberateness of the Lord: although He speaks privately to the Twelve, they are already moving toward His destiny.

In the self-sacrificing predicted for Jesus in His prophecy, note how totally absent is the spirit that always calculates its own advantages: What is there going to be in it for me? This uncalculating altruism must condemn the ambition of the Apostles who not only ask. We have sacrificed everythingwhat shall we have? but also demand to be exalted to the positions of highest honors. (Contrast Matthew 18:1-35; Matthew 20:20-28)

B. JESUS-’ REACTION: Passion Prediction (20:18, 19)

Matthew 20:18 Behold, we go up to Jerusalem. There it is: the official admission that this is the last trip. The running is over and this is to be the showdown. Luke (Luke 18:31) records the comforting word which proves that, however painfully unclear and unwelcome for the disciples Jesus-’ destiny might be, it was all planned by God: Everything that is written of the Son of man by the prophets will be accomplished. Note the power of prophecy to stabilize the wavering disciples:

He pointed them to their Bible to restudy the ancient messages of God’s prophets concerning His Messianic mission. (Cf. His method with John the Baptist, Matthew 11:4 f) This cannot but lend sound, Biblical perspective to the seemingly tragic fatality to be confronted in His suffering and death. (Remember Romans 15:3-4 for our encouragement too!)

He prophesied, in detail what must, when fulfilled, become the strongest confirmation of His total mastery over circumstances. He knew what He Himself faced and conquered it by His glorious resurrection. He can empower us to do the same too. (Cf. Ephesians 1:19 f; Ephesians 2:5 f; Ephesians 3:20 f)

Note the precision even more evident in this prediction: 1. Betrayal; 2. Condemnation; 3. Delivery to the Gentiles; 4. Ridicule; 5. Torture; 6. Crucifixion; 7. Victory by resurrection. These words mark an escalation in the details of His prophecies concerning the end of His suffering. (Cf. notes on Matthew 16:21; Matthew 17:9; Matthew 17:22 f) Luke 24:6 b, 7 may represent a rewording of the prophecies made in Galilee, made by Luke in the light of the fulfilment, rather than an actual quotation of a crucifixion prophecy prior to the one in our text.) From the standpoint of His disciples, the gradual escalation of information is an act of mercy that bares the gruesome details gradually to minds unable to bear the entire blow at once. (Cf. John 16:12) But they must endure at least this much pain, not for the sake of the suffering it caused them now, but, having been forewarned before the fact, they might have the greatest confidence in Him after the fulfilment. (John 14:29; John 16:4) For them, this was fundamentally a faith-building exercise.

However, the very precision of these details must have been a crushing load for Jesus to bear, since, although He is furnished with the infallibility of prophetic foresight, He is also forced thereby to anticipate mentally all that to which He must then voluntarily submit Himself, (Cf. notes on Matthew 8:10) No escapist, our Lord faced His own future squarely and courageously, and continued His march to Jerusalem and His forthcoming destiny, The third day he shall be raised up. The Lord never omitted this promise of victory, and every time He repeated it in connection with a Passion Prediction, He expressed His unshakeable confidence in the faithfulness of God who would bring it about. Further, by His own decisive example, He taught His people to deal responsibly with life’s vital issues, facing with unflinching courage the questions, the problems and the forces of evil. Although He may certainly have been tempted to seek an easy comfort in anonymity and a tight-lipped indifference to the ever-present issues crying for solution, although He may have intensely desired that the world’s sins could be eliminated in some other way, although He may have hated to choose His own death as the only workable alternative, Jesus Christ confronted His responsibility and accepted it. Overwhelmed with a sense of the goodness of God, He faced facts which would have crippled the vitality of anyone who did not trust the Father to keep His word.

As in the previous cases (Matthew 17:23 b; Mark 9:32; Luke 9:45), so also now, they understood none of these things; this saying was hid from them, and they did not grasp what was said. (Luke 18:34) Their inability to comprehend Jesus is providential for us, since it proves that the hypothesis that they expected Him to rise again and therefore believed in His resurrection without concrete proof of its reality, ignores the evidence. (See notes on Matthew 17:23 = Mark 9:32 = Luke 9:45.) Thus, their mental block guarantees to the Church the gloriously solid truth of the resurrection facts.

Even if Matthew and Mark did not record the disciples-’ obtuseness and unwillingness to grasp this clearest of literal statements, they prove that this was really the Twelve’s reaction, by their inclusion of the request for positions of glory made by James and John, as well as the angry jealousy of the other Apostles. This shows that they all, enamored with visions of future glories, refused to confront the reality Jesus pictured in this prophecy.

FACT QUESTIONS

What additional details does Mark furnish to fill out the picture of Jesus-’ journey to Jerusalem?

In what peculiar manner did Jesus handle the disciples, preparing them to hear this prediction of His approaching suffering? Why would this particular treatment have been necessary at that moment?

What, in Jesus-’ words, is indicated about the time-period in which He was then speaking?

What are the details of His suffering that Jesus makes explicit now, details which before had been absent or only implied?

Show how Jesus-’ predictions harmonize with the Old Testament prophecies about His death, and how they differ. Cite some OT prophecies that predict His suffering.

What does the minuteness and accuracy of His predictions prove about His claims to be God’s Son?

7*.*

While Matthew and Mark do not report the disciples-’ inability to accept or understand Jesus-’ plain prediction, as does Luke, how do they prove that they do know about the disciples-’ failure to grasp it?

What texts in Matthew 18 find practical application in this section?

Matthew 20:20-28

Section 52 JESUS REFUSES TO ESTABLISH HIERARCHY

(Parallel: Mark 10:35-45)

TEXT: 20:20-28

20 Then came to him the mother of the sons of Zebedee with her sons, worshipping him, and asking a certain thing of him. 21 And he said unto her, What wouldest thou? She saith unto him, Command that these my two sons may sit, one on thy right hand, and one on thy left hand, in thy kingdom. 22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink the cup that I am about to drink? They say unto him, We are able. 23 He saith unto them, My cup indeed ye shall drink: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left hand, is not mine to give; but it is for them for whom it hath been prepared of my Father, 24 And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation concerning the two brethren, 25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 Not so shall it be among you: but whosoever would become great among you shall be your minister; 27 and whosoever would be first among you shall be your servant: 28 even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Why do you suppose James and John, two of Jesus-’ closest intimates, would stoop to make this request so obviously selfish in its exclusion of others?

Why did they use their mother to promote their own purposes? Or do you believe that she herself pushed the question and the two brothers merely went along with it?

Why would they make this request rather than some other request?

On what basis do you suppose they replied so confidently: We are able to drink your cup and be baptized with your baptism?

Why could Jesus not grant their request? For whom are such honors destined? That is, to whom do you think God has already prepared the chief places?

How does the indignation of the remaining ten Apostles prove that they shared the very same spirit and understanding of the two brothers against which they were indignant?

Why did Jesus select the standard of humble service as the measure by which He judges greatness in the Kingdom?

How does Jesus-’ teaching in this section address itself to the problem of hierarchy or power structures in the Kingdom of God?

Why mention His own death at precisely this time, right in the middle of His rebuke of the Apostles-’ greedy ambitions?

Why would Jesus have to die? How does His suffering for others prove His point about true greatness?

How is humble service and suffering for others the only path to true greatness and real power over others?

Of what principles in Jesus-’ sermon on personal relationships in Matthew 18 is this section an illustration?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

At that time the mother of James and John, Zebedee’s sons, approached Jesus, with her sons. Bowing low before Him, she requested a favor of Him, Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we request.

But He responded, What do you wish me to do for you?

She answered, Promise to grant that, when you sit in state as King, these two sons of mine may sit with you, one at your right, the other at your left. But Jesus answered them, You do not realize what you are asking for! Can you drink from the cup of sorrow that I am about to drink or pass through the waters of suffering I am passing through?

We can, they answered.

Then Jesus observed prophetically, You shall indeed share the cup from which I must drink and you will truly be immersed in suffering as will I. But the seating arrangements according to relative positions of honor is not something I can decide capriciously on my own. I must dispense them only to those for whom my Father has planned such honors. The request aroused the indignation of the other ten disciples against the two brothers, James and John. So Jesus gathered them all around Him and began, You all know that the people who are considered rulers over the pagans dominate them with despotic harshness, and their superiors make them feel the weight of their authority. However, it must be different among you. If one of you wants to be great, he must be servant of all the others. If someone wants to be at the top in first position, he must be everyone’s slave, just like the Son of man is. In fact, He is not here to be served by others, but to serve everyone else, and to surrender His life as the price of freedom for many.

SUMMARY

James and John, in complicity with their mother, requested the highest posts of honor in the Kingdom. Jesus disapproved the request for its ignorance of the real issues, the suffering involved, but tested the two whether they could qualify. Although they responded with optimism and confidence, He prophesied their share in His sufferings. However, He must deny any right to dispense honors to favorites, since the rule of God decided those to whom such would eventually and rightly go. The other ten Apostles became angry at the conniving of James and John, making it necessary for Jesus to bring this problem to a head and solve it. This He did by forever damning political power structures as a means of ego-feeding in the Kingdom of God, Greatness and importance to God in the Kingdom is determined exclusively on the basis of unselfish, self-giving service to others. Jesus-’ own exampleeven to the point of laying down His life for othersis the standard.

NOTES II. THE DISCIPLES AND THE QUESTION OF POWER STRUCTURES IN THE KINGDOM: JESUS REFUSES TO ESTABLISH A HIERARCHY OF POWER

(20:20-28; Mark 10:35-45)

A. JESUS-’ AUNT SALOME AMBITIOUSLY SEEKS ARBITRARY FAVORITISM FOR HER SONS

Matthew 20:20 Then came to him the mother of the sons of Zebedee. An alternate newspaper headline for this title story might have been: JESUS REFUSES TO INDULGE IN NEPOTISM. Zebedee’s wife might be Jesus-’ own Aunt Salome. (See notes on Matthew 10:2; Matthew 13:54; Matthew 13:58; Matthew 27:56 and the special study: The Brethren of the Lord after Matthew 13:54-58, esp. Chart 5) If so, her position as kinswoman would have weight that her sons were probably counting on. In this case, her sons, James and John, would naturally be His cousins. (Mark 10:35)

The unusual expression, the mother of the sons of Zebedee (here and in Matthew 27:56), instead of the mother of James and John or the wife of Zebedee, has led to the hypothesis that, shortly after the call of his two sons (Matthew 4:21 f), the father, Zebedee, died. Is it possible that James or John was the disciple who sought permission to go bury his father? (Matthew 8:21) This will never be known. However, Mark (Mark 10:35) describes the brothers as sons of Zebedee. Does this contradict the foregoing theories, or merely identify the two men by their well-known patronymic, whereas their father is not thereby proven to be dead or alive? (Cf. Matthew 4:21; Matthew 10:2; Matthew 26:37; Mark 1:19; Mark 3:17; Luke 5:10; John 21:2)

How should we harmonize Matthew’s assertion that the mother approached Jesus with this request, with Mark’s notice that the sons themselves asked the question? By the principle that what a man commissions another to do for him may be said to have been done by himself. In fact, the entire account proceeds as if only the sons had made the request (cf. Matthew 20:24), since everyoneJesus and the other Tenholds the two brothers as personally responsible for their unwarranted social climbing. In fact, once her request is stated, Jesus dealt directly with the sons themselves as if she were not even present.

Asking a certain thing of him sounds like a blank check request, and Mark confirms this suspicion by furnishing their actual words: Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you. Were they hoping to play upon His sympathy and good will, pushing Him into an unretractable blanket promise in their favor? At any rate, their deviousness is betrayed by their embarrassment about asking Him outright and by their felt need to use an intermediary to request what, if asked frankly and openly, their conscience knew they had no right to, and could not but arouse the jealousy of others. (Cf. 1 Kings 2:19 f)

Whether she is Jesus-’ aunt or not, she is certainly not unaware that her own sons are at the very heart of the larger nucleus of intimate disciples most likely to be appointed to positions of importance. It is not unlikely that the two brothers let their mother’s ambitions take the risks of censure by others. Had she learned about the underground power struggle going on among the Apostles? (Cf. on Matthew 18:1) Rather than repudiate it, she joined it to press for an advantage for her boys! And they stand complacently by, making no protest, perhaps even pleased to have her advance their interests.

Matthew 20:21 And he said unto her, What wouldest thou? He is not deceived either by His own love for them or by their fawning for His favors. He correctly requires that they commit themselves before He will commit Himself to sign any blank checks. Had Herod Antipas done this with His Salome, his outcome might have been different. (See notes on Matthew 14:7 ff.)

Command that these my two sons may sit, one on thy right hand, and one on thy left hand, in thy kingdom. Although these two disciples had been told of the absolutely essential humility required for honor in the Kingdom (Matthew 18:1-35), nevertheless, Jesus had indeed intimated that the Twelve would be honored over the rest of the twelve tribes of Israel by their being seated on thrones to judge them. (Matthew 19:28) Consequently, James and John perhaps envisioned a throneroom with Jesus enthroned at the center of the back wall, with the Twelve seated on lesser thrones, half on His right, half on His left, arranged in a semicircle around the room. If so, those enthroned closer to Him would be presumed as worthy of greater honor than those seated farther to the left or right. (Cf. Ant., VI, II, 9; 1 Samuel 20:25; 1 Samuel 1 Kg. Matthew 2:19; Psalms 110:1) Those seated on His immediate left or right would be most honored as greatest. If this is their idea, their sin lies in boldly and stubbornly requesting the best of the seats for themselves alone, a request that necessarily excluded any consideration of the other, perhaps equally worthy, Apostles. Were they using this method to cut out Peter? Because of what Jesus had already committed to him, he would be a formidable rival. If James and John foresaw the indignant reaction of the others and yet plowed ahead, their heartless selfishness is the more inexcusable. The extent to which they did not foresee it only measures how much they were totally absorbed in their own self-centered planning. Bruce (Training, 274) eases our shock at the conduct of these intimate friends of the Lord, by noticing that

These were the two disciples who made themselves so prominent in resenting the rudeness of the Samaritan villagers. The greatest zealots among the twelve were thus also the most ambitious, a circumstance that will not surprise the student of human nature. On the former occasion they asked fire from heaven to consume their adversaries; on the present occasion they ask a favour from Heaven to the disadvantage of their friends. The two requests are not so very dissimilar.

They are asking to be the Messiah’s most exalted, most influential counsellors.

The terrible incongruity between His predictions of death at Jerusalem (Matthew 20:17-19) and this expectation of glory, both of which were known to James and John, is explicable only if we see the intensity of their unwavering confidence that the outcome of His suffering (whatever THAT is supposed to mean!) must include a glorious Kingdom. Undoubtedly they judged His passion predictions as mere, unjustified pessimism, the result of fatigue and pressure of endless campaigning. Consequently, they express their confidence in His final victory by seeking those positions which could only come about because of that triumph. Is this an attempt to cheer Him up and push His gloomy talk of crosses into the background? This, sadly, measures how fervently they disbelieved His prophetic passion predictions. So, in thy kingdom means in your glory. (Mark 10:37) Whatever else may be criticized about their request, it must be conceded that the plea is based on the unshaken certainty (= faith) that, despite the many stormclouds on the horizon, He and the Twelve would be enthroned in His Kingdom. (Matthew 19:28) Further, the urgency that stirs her to present her request now on the way up to Jerusalem, points to her assumption (not unshared by many others, see Luke 19:11).that, upon arrival in the capital, Jesus intended to establish His glorious government and announce His cabinet and begin His reign.

The perverse incongruity of this scheming for power by these crude Christians, so utterly contrasting with Jesus-’ approaching sufferings about which He had just spoken (Matthew 20:17-19), rather than confirm the judgment that it is apocryphal because of our shock at the audaciousness these disciples show, should convince us of the authenticity of the narrative that contains it. Not only do the Evangelists bare the disciples-’ sordid presumption. but, in that act, convince the reader of the genuineness of its history. We are not in the presence of mythology created to glorify Christians heroes, but in the presence of an ugly fact too true to human nature to be denied. These disciples were yet rough-hewn Christians to whom the temptation to ambition was real.

**B. JESUS PARRIES THEIR REQUEST (20:22, 23)

REBUKE: You do not understand what you are asking for! **(20:22)

Matthew 20:22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Their expectation that He would proclaim His Kingdom upon their arrival at Jerusalem, was a popular notion (cf. Luke 19:11; Luke 17:21; Luke 9:27), not totally unfounded. What was completely misunderstood was the manner and kind of reign He intended to establish. James and John ask for these positions of honor from a King who would shortly be exalted to a cross with two thieves nailed at His right hand and at His left! You know not what you ask. Their wrong-headed, selfish prayer is instructive because it illustrates the principle that prayer, to be effective, must reflect one’s sense of community as well as submission to God’s will, James and John’s prayer must be frustrated by the Lord, if the wishes of the other ten should be recognized, and vice versa. (See note on Matthew 18:19.) Further, it totally ignored God’s planning for the Kingdom. (See on Matthew 20:23 c.) Theirs was an appeal He could not admit without denying His own sense of fairness and being untrue to His instructions given in the Sermon on Personal Relations. (Matthew 18:1-35) Worse, the two brothers are vain in their certainty that the promotion they seek could only promote the true interests of the Kingdom of God. They anticipate no negative effects from this request, either from the other Apostles, or even later. They cannot foresee that disaster could be forecast for a Kingdom that honors men of their views. Listen again to Bruce (Training, 275f) sketch their position:

James and John not only thought of the kingdom that was coming as a kingdom of this world, but they thought meanly of it even under that view. For it is an unusually corrupt and unwholesome condition of matters, even in a secular state, when places of highest distinction can be obtained by solicitation and favour, and not on the sole ground of fitness for the duties of the position. When family influence or courtly arts are the pathway to power, every patriot has cause to mourn. How preposterous, then, the idea that promotion can take place in the divine, ideally-perfect kingdom by means that are inadmissible in any well-regulated secular kingdom! To cherish such an idea is in effect to degrade and dishonour the Divine King, by likening Him to an unprincipled despot, who has more favour for flatterers than for honest men; and to caricature the divine kingdom by assimilating it to the most misgoverned states on earth.

Indeed, they did NOT know what they were asking!

**2. QUESTION: Are you able to suffer with me?

Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?** Because they steadily refused to see Him as a suffering King, they cannot see that a prayer for glory beside Him must be a request for suffering. They should have imagined that, on the principle that anything worthwhile requires renunciation, greatness in the Kingdom would demand sacrifice too. But they cannot imagine that only the way of the cross leads to the throne. In other words, the path to promotion in the Kingdom does not take the route of self-indulgent clamor for position nor that of political prizes handed out to favorites. It must pass through the bloody baptism of suffering. To drink a cup is to experience its contents, whether good or bad. Biblical allusions are plentiful to illustrate positive experiences (cf. Psalms 16:5; Psalms 23:5; Psalms 116:13) and negative ones (Psalms 11:6; Psalms 75:8; Isaiah 51:17; Isaiah 51:22; Jeremiah 25:15 f; Jeremiah 49:12; Lamentations 4:21; Ezekiel 23:32-34; Habakkuk 2:16; Revelation 14:10; Revelation 16:19; Revelation 17:4; Revelation 18:6) From the point of view of the host who pours it out for others, the cup would mean the portion assigned, i.e. what God pours out for the individual. (cf. John 18:11) So Jesus, later would speak of His cup of suffering (Matthew 26:39; Matthew 26:41 = Mark 14:36 =,Luke 22:42). Mark (Mark 10:38 b) adds: and to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized? Since baptism is nothing but an immersion, that to which He alludes here is an overwhelming suffering in which one is immersed, (Cf. Psalms 69:1 f; Psalms 124:3-5; Lamentations 3:54) In the case of James and John, He refers to the painful experience of martyrdom and exile in His cause. Suffering for His sake is a theme underlined many times before. (Matthew 5:10-12; Matthew 10:16-39; Matthew 13:21; Matthew 16:24-27) It would become one of the main themes in Peter’s first epistle. (1 Peter 1:6 f; 1 Peter 2:20-25; 1 Peter 3:13-18; 1 Peter 4:12-19; 1 Peter 5:9 f) His own Passion Predictions had been so many, so precise and recently so frequent, that His suffering, theoretically, should have been no mystery to any of them. They could not have been ignorant to what cup or to what baptism He so often, so honestly and so realistically had made allusion. (Cf. Luke 12:50) They had come to Him with their request for a blanket promise of honor. Now He hands them HIS blank cheek of suffering, asking them if they are willing to sign it without knowing precisely what lay in their own future.

They say unto him, We are able. They still do not know what they are saying! These two men have a curious mental block that permits them to picture their own suffering for His cause, that yet contemporaneously and totally blocks out every concept of His death suffered for them, even though He talks about their suffering in figurative form and discussed His own in literal language!

We are able. With what mixed emotions do they answer this way? THEY are signing the blank check now. They had expected honors, wealth and glory, but He handed them a mysterious, sinister cup to drink. How much of their certainty partakes of the bravado of Peter who just as confidently asserted, Though they all fall away, I will not deny you. I am ready to go with you to prison and death. even if I must die with you, I will not deny you? (Cf. Matthew 26:33; Luke 22:33; John 13:37; Matthew 26:35) Is this readiness to promise anything a brave front put on to cover an unexpected turn in the conversation, a stubborn continuation of their selfish request for positions of honor, as if His brutally frank question were but part of the necessary preliminaries? No, these fiercely loyal disciples cannot be charged with insincerity here. It is rather their over-confidence that believers themselves capable in their own strength of meeting anything that might come, that is blameworthy. If they envision His cup and baptism as suffering or difficulty in connection with some great battle or struggle surrounding the inauguration of the Kingdom, these fearless Galileans answer sincerely and perfectly in the character of their people. (Cf. Wars, III, 3, 3) It is unfair at least to John to claim that, in Jesus-’ last tragic hours of His rejection, all the disciples including these two were unfaithful to Jesus, deserting Him rather than share His cup of pain. The (traditionally) youngest of them proved to be the most intrepid. John, no doubt often dreadfully scared, courageously stayed on the scene through the trials and crucifixion. Their devotion expressed here is honestly meant even if wrongly understood.

This strange mixture of character traits in these two disciples is not intended as a passing curiosity, but rather for our instruction, The thoughtful reader must ask himself what it is, in this clashing combination of the Christ like and the diabolical, that makes the case of Zebedee’s sons sound so familiar. Honesty compels us to confess the same zeal for the Lord and the same selfish ambition; the same high courage and the same cruel disregard for brethren; the same readiness to suffer and the same readiness to make others suffer; the same concern for the Lord’s honor and the same disregard for the disaster that must come to the Lord’s work if our own ambitions were to be realized. Only this kind of honest identification of ourselves in these disciples in this moment of weakness will help us feel the need for the teaching Jesus will give us to convert our thinking to His.

3. PROPHECY: You will truly suffer with me.

Matthew 20:23 He saith unto them, My cup indeed ye shall drink: and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized. (Mark 10:39 b) With what a grave manner He must have pronounced these words as, in the Spirit, He peered into the future to pronounce their fate. Yes, their present commitment would be fully carried out. Rather than angrily expose their short-sightedness and self-seeking devotion by giving them an impatient scolding which they certainly deserved, He shared His cup with them. This is the fellowship of Christ’s sufferings in which so many others would share. (Cf. Philippians 3:10; Romans 8:17; 2 Corinthians 1:5-7; 2 Corinthians 4:10; 1 Corinthians 15:31; 2 Timothy 2:3; 2 Timothy 2:11-13; 1 Peter 4:13) In so saying, He generously gave them a word and a motive that would hold them steady in the years to come. The mere observation that John was not beheaded with James, his brother, by Herod Agrippa I in A.D. 44 (Acts 12:2), but permitted to live to suffer imprisonment (Acts 4:3; Acts 5:18); and beating (Matthew 5:40) and at last the persecution of exile on Patmos island at an extremely old age (Revelation 1:9), cannot be interpreted to mean that he did not also experience the suffering the Lord predicted for both dauntless brothers. True, the circumstances of their suffering differed, but their undying devotion to the Lord was identical.

It may be doubted that, at this point, the brothers would have considered beheading or exile to be such precious honors, had they known to what He referred, since it would have meant being stripped of earthly glory and freedom, and being hurled into the grave or miles and years distant from the center of the action. And yet, despite the blunt promise of suffering ahead for these men, it did not even occur to them to back down. They fully intended to maintain their loyal commitment to Him, cost what it might. Only later would they agree that to suffer for the name of Jesus is the source of true joy and privilege. (Matthew 5:10-12; Acts 5:41; Acts 16:25; 1 Peter 4:13)

For us, sharing in Christ’s suffering may mean the limited cruelty of martyrdom or the long-suffering of daily Christian living, living out a lifetime of self-giving service. This latter discipline, so constant and so full of struggle, is as fully to follow Christ as is the other. We must dedicate ourselves daily to be ready for either.

**4. REFUSAL: God’s rules decide places of honor.

But to sit on my right hand, and on my left hand is not mine to give; but. for whom it hath been prepared of my Father.** What, if anything, should be inserted in the space represented by the dots in this elliptical phrase?

Does Jesus mean that the right to assign such honor is not in His own hands at all, but is the exclusive right of the Father? Arndt-Gingrich (37) believe that the phrase in question has been shortened from it is not mine. but the Father, who will give to those for whom it is prepared by Him, as if the Greek phrase ran: ouk emòn. allà toû patròs, hòs dósei hoîs hetoímastai hup-’-autoû. This invention of missing words, however, could misunderstand how Jesus will reward His followers. (Matthew 16:27; Matthew 25:31-46; John 5:22-30; Acts 10:42; Acts 17:31; Romans 2:16; 2 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 4:8; 1 Corinthians 4:4 f; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Revelation 22:12; cf. Isaiah 62:11)

Or does Jesus mean He can give the places of honor only to those for whom they were planned by God? If so, He is saying, To sit. is not mine to grant except to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father. Evidence that but (allà) can mean except comes from Rocci (73) who, among other uses of allà, affirms that in the sense of a restrictive adversative after a negative proposition. expression with ou, oú tis, oudeís, tís, etc., allà can be translated: except, unless, apart from, but. To state Jesus-’ proposition positively, we have: I can grant such honors only to those for whom my Father has prepared them.

It really makes little difference, because the fact that Jesus limits His distribution of honors to follow the Father’s ordaining means that God has already decided, even if Jesus Himself will make the actual distribution.

The meaning, then, is: I cannot assign such honors on the basis of patronage and favoritism, or on any basis other than God’s principles of perfect fairness. Not caprice, then, or personal preferences, but the eternal will and counsel of God is the standard upon which such judgments are made. Precedence and preference will proceed on this basis established by God, and Jesus has no intention of changing it by nepotism, favoritism or patronage. So Jesus does not, indeed cannot, deny that differences of rank in the Kingdom exist. (See on Matthew 18:4.) Rather, He specifies in whose hands rightly rests the judgment about their proper distribution. His principle of precedence is the Father’s choice that only those who perform the greatest service for others shall be most highly awarded. This is no esoteric doctrine, but the common principle of loving service that He will repeat in Matthew 20:25-28 and which constituted the fundamental basis of the entire message on personal relations. (Matthew 18) So, the only predestination here is the Father’s choice of what kind of character would be judged worthy of honor. It is then up to men to take Him at His word and qualify for the honors by rendering the most useful service in Jesus-’ name. This is the same kind of predestination seen in our own salvation, i.e. God determined what class of people are going to be saved, and we determine to be in that class. (Ephesians 1:3-14; 1 Peter 1:2; 2 Peter 1:3-11)

This means that, although man must commit himself in total devotion, everything depends upon God whose will determines the distribution of the honors. (Cf. Matthew 19:30 to Matthew 20:16) Thus, Jesus stresses His own faithfulness to God’s will. God is in total control, hence no man can take this control out of His hands by putting God in debt to him on the basis of supposed worthiness or merits, good deeds or fleshly relationship to Jesus, or anything else. This theme of the total Lordship of God is an important, security-building concept intended to strengthen disciples tempted to throw everything overboard and return to Judaism or the world and make shipwreck of their souls. (See on Matthew 10:26-31; Matthew 10:40-42; Matthew 11:25-27; Matthew 17:5; Matthew 20:1-16; Cf. Hebrews 10:26-39; Hebrews 12:25-29; Hebrews 13:10-16; 1 Timothy 1:18-20; 1 Timothy 6:13-16; 2 Timothy 4:10)

So the right to preregister for chief places in the Kingdom is a claim made by human pride, hence unworthy of anyone who understands that his own position in the Kingdom is itself only possible because of the grace of the King and the essential humility of the servant.

C. THE OTHER APOSTLES ARE JEALOUS OF JAMES AND JOHN (20:24; Mark 10:41)

Matthew 20:24 And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation concerning the two brethren. Is not this sulking, small-minded jealousy typical of us all? Their own self-pride moved them to resent the opportunistic pride of James and John who had merely taken unfair advantage to seize what they all coveted! The two brothers had only shown shrewd initiative in expressing the identical desire that motivated the ambition of every one of them! They all wanted to be at the top of the hierarchical pyramid, but James and John had outmaneuvered them. (See on Matthew 18:1.) And yet, little did the Ten dream that so far as earthly prizes were concerned, the honors that would fall to the sons of Zebedee would be James-’ honor of being the first apostolic martyr and John’s distinction of having his suffering prolonged.

This unedifying spectacle of Jesus-’ band of disciples is surprisingly edifying just because of its being true to life, This is not the sort of fanciful saint-forging that a fiction writer would produce in those days. (Check out the apocryphal hack writing being published as Gospels in the first century!) Whereas the ancient pagans did depict the sordid lives of even the greatest heroes and their gods, they were not objectively employed in the service of a true living God whose stern standards of truth and righteousness had been drilled into His people for centuries. Such inappropriate pride and selfishness as we witness here must disqualify the disciples for sainthood in the eyes of the creators of fiction. Nevertheless, for the Gospel writers who tell it like it is, this spectacle traces a real situation that actually occurred in the lives of men who later developed into the spiritual giants we so highly respect now.

**D. JESUS REPEATS HIS PRINCIPLE OF TRUE GREATNESS

(20:25-28; Mark 10:42-45)

Worldly greatness consists in the power wielded over the most people.**

Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, almost like a father would gather his quarrelling children around him to admonish them. He must stop this incipient fracture in His group at once. Yet His tone is the quiet solemnity of a Man who first controls His own emotions in order to cool the flames of others. Rather than enter into greater detail about the martyrdom and suffering of James and John about which they probably would have longed to know more, Jesus turns the conversation to what must inevitably involve the self-sacrifice of every other disciple. Rather than prophesy the gruesome details of every Apostle’s future destiny, and so crush them with information they could not bear, Jesus repeated the concepts that would mature them to face something perhaps more difficult than heroic martyrdom: to face and conquer the daily humdrum of life. Learning to give one’s life without reservation to Christ and others in the ordinary service of life is the only way to be mature enough to gain the honors in the Kingdom.

Ye know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Does He intend a parallelism here, or is He describing a hierarchical pyramid?

In form, Jesus-’ words have the sound of a typical Hebrew parallelism which in the second member repeats a concept stated in the first. This explanation has the advantage of finding itself in the company of another parallelism in w. 26, 27, which begins with Not so shall it be among you, and the shorter parallelism of v. 28 after even as the Son of man came. If so, He may intend to indicate nothing more than the picture of any governmental system where people issue orders and expect others to serve them.

Or does He mean to describe a hierarchical pyramid? If so, the Gentiles at the bottom are ruled by their rulers who are themselves subject to the authority of their great ones. By an interesting ambiguity involved in their and them (the third time), it is left unclear whether the tyranny of the subordinates is directed at their own subordinates or at their own superiors. In the first case, He is saying that the abusive treatment shown the people by their kings or emperors is bad enough, but tyrannizing by the royal representatives and time-serving bureaucrats is intolerably worse. In the second, if them refers to the rulers, then He means that kings and emperors may be masters over the people, but the ruler’s lieutenants actually manage those on the throne as the power behind the throne. In an absolutist oriental monarchy the first sort of despotism would be the case; in a more democratic type of government the latter would be the case. Either way, however, the people are always under the heel of their superiors who repress and oppress them wherever they can.

What is Jesus-’ fundamental emphasis: power struggle or power structure? Both, because the nouns picture the structure, while the verbs picture the struggle: **lord it over them(**katakurieúo, cf. Acts 19:16: to master; 1 Peter 5:3: to domineer) and exercise authority over them (katexousiázo, used only here in NT and apparently unknown elsewhere.)

It is highly significant that Jesus contrasted His own messianic community with the civil government of pagan nations. Since this pyramid of power had been the basis of the disciples-’ thinking, by reflection He quietly exposed the disciples-’ spirit as pagan, unrepresentative of the theocratic ideal of Israel, and not at all in harmony with His own thinking. The characteristic most typical of those societies-’ rulers is that same spirit which motivated His own Apostles in their own power struggle: the lording it over their subordinates and the exercising authority over them, Jesus is not merely attacking abuse of power, but the concept of power structures itself, even when the individual rulers themselves are relatively benign benefactors of their people. (Cf. Luke 22:25) While He is perfectly open to civil government as such (Matthew 22:21; cf. Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17), His messianic community is not to be structured along the lines of the secular state.

Greatness in the Kingdom is measured by the number of people you are able to serve, (20:26, 27)

Matthew 20:26 Not so shall it be among you. This is the Lord’s final word on the question of hierarchy and power structures in the Church. If everything said earlier (Matthew 18:1-35) had seemed unclear and noncommittal on the question of ecclesiastical hierarchyalthough in fact it was notthis sentence cannot be so interpreted. In fact, the servant’s attitude is the very antithesis to the type of tyrannical structure typical of pagan rulers, a concept that stresses everything Jesus taught in that discourse on personal relations in the Kingdom. (For fuller notes see on Matthew 18.) If the Church is to be different from the struggle and structure of civil government, the Christian who is the moral opposite of those who tyrannize others, then, is a person who serves them. He follows a policy diametrically opposed to that so characteristic of the unbelieving world. In the Christian community, the duty of serving, paradoxically, falls to those who are its great ones. In fact, if they do not serve, they are simply not great ones! As Gonzàles-Ruiz (Marco, 187) said it;

Therefore any Church that is not the image of the State completely turned upside down does not correspond at all to the original plan of its Founder. This is why the worst sin of the Church is that of organizing itself along lines that reflect the image and likeness of the State, or of inserting itself into its structure to become an integral part of it.

Nothing could be clearer, or as little respected, as the Lord’s intolerance toward the priestly despotism shown in all versions of Christendom, whether it be the Catholic (Latin or Greek) or Protestant systems, or whether it be the virtual dictatorships exercised over their constituencies by local preachers, editors, elders of churches of Christ who, despite their proclaimed aversion to hierarchical systems and monarchical bishoprics as practiced by others, nonetheless crack the whip to maintain the purity of the faith (meaning: keep things under my control).

Whosoever would become great among you shall be your minister; 27 and whosoever would be first among you shall be your servant. (For fuller notes, see on Matthew 18:1 where comment is made on Mark 9:35.) Are minister (diákonos, v. 26) and servant (doûlos, v. 27) synonyms, or do they represent a descending scale at which the ministry and death of the Son of man is the very bottom? (v. 28) If this latter is the case, then, according to Jesus, the lower we go on the scale of human values, the higher we rise in God’s judgment!

Whereas the minister (diákonos) might be thought of as a servant free or slave, the slave (doûlos, from déo, to bind and holos, wholly) would have been considered as anyone bound to his owner to serve in whatever capacity he could. His lot was as varied as his masters, from the very best to the unspeakably bad, with all shades and grades in between. It is not clear whether the Lord intended these words in their denotative or connotative sense, i.e. the legal and social status of these persons or their resultant attitude and character.

Hendriksen (Matthew, 749, note 713) balks at translating these two words servant and slave, because of the connotative ideas of lack of freedom, unwilling service, cruel treatment, etc. so closely attached especially to the word slave. He opts for servant for diákonos and humble attendant for doûlos.

However, as Bartchy (First-Century Slavery and 1 Corinthians 7:21; 1 Corinthians 7:37-40) has shown we are the ones who must revise their concept of slavery in the Greco-Roman world of the centuries preceding and immediately following the Christian revelations.

In addition to what has already been written on Matthew 18:1-35, we must ask what would the first century Christians have understood Jesus to mean by urging that the only proper attitude in His Kingdom was to identity themselves with the position and character of a diákonos or a doûlos? To appreciate the position of slaves and freedmen (who were little better than slaves and often crippled by contracts yet to fulfil toward their former master), one must have a clear picture of the Mediterranean world of that century. Scott Bartchy’s First-Century Slavery is especially helpful in this regard, not only because he furnishes a wide-ranging historical survey of both law and customs in this field, but especially because of the necessary corrective he brings to our common preconceptions about what it meant to be a slave or a freedman in the times of Jesus and Paul.

So, if we sincerely intend to identify ourselves with the slave class and take Jesus seriously, making ourselves the voluntary slaves of others, it would be very worthwhile to examine what Christian exhortations were addressed to those who were legally slaves as part of a definite, wide-spread social structure in the first-century world, (Study Ephesians 6:5-8; Colossians 3:22-25; 1 Timothy 6:1-2; Ti. Matthew 2:9-10; 1 Peter 2:18 ff in harmony with Matthew 2:16!)

In short, there are no ring-side seats for honored spectators in God’s Kingdom, just places of service down beside the King Himself who is busy washing feet, mediating for others and dying for sinners. (John 13:12-17; Romans 8:29; 1 Peter 2:21 ff)

**3. My own life of service and death for others is the standard! **(20:28)

Matthew 20:28 even as the Son of man means that His marvelous self-sacrifice is the standard whereby greatness is to be measured. (See all notes on Matthew 18:1-14, studying specifically how everything Jesus affirmed in that section so aptly applied to Himself.) And yet His own supreme example is not set forth here as a mere model of humility. His sentence structure reveals another emphasis: Whoever would be great. and. first among you must be. even as the Son of man. Although the disciples refused at that time to accept His uncomfortable, pessimistic talk about crosses, they must learn that the cross lay not only squarely across His path to the crown, but was also at the heart of His great mission to earth. They had interrupted His talk about death, in order to talk about position and power. He must now interrupt their pursuit of power, to make them see that self-denial and serviceEVEN TO DEATHis the shortest route to real power, to being first and great. He expected the disciples to learn that His own case furnishes illustration of His personal method of gaining the mastery over men. They must learn the connection between self-giving service and arriving at power in the spiritual world. They must see that, however strange or original it may have seemed to them. His own method for earning His crown is superior to all other methods of receiving thrones, whether it be by inheriting them respectably, or by seizing them in battle, or by base bribery. This is because these latter methods either left the will of the governed completely out of the account, or, worse, forced or tricked them into compliance against their will. But the uniqueness of Jesus-’ method lay in His mission to place Himself at the service of mankind, so that men would love Him and willingly submit to Him as their King, and thus He would become Ruler over a people eager to please Him, swept to the throne by their sense of grateful devotion. Even more striking than the originality of Jesus-’ method, when contrasted with the usual routes to glory, is its unquestionable success. Let us add our Amen to the voices of millions of Christians who with all their hearts have echoed the doxology of the Apostle John: To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. (Revelation 1:5-6) Nothing could be clearer than the way Jesus connected self-giving service and the right to rule. Love that sacrifices itself for others has power to conquer and rule over others-’ hearts, and thus guarantee the kind of sway over others that can be attained in no other way than by girding oneself with the towel of humility and placing oneself at the disposition of others as their servant. The expression, even as the Son of man, demonstrates for all time how this King proved the effectiveness of His method by taking upon Himself the form of a servant, and by winning for Himself the sort of sovereignty that we willingly confess today. In short, Jesus applies the pragmatic test to His method and, by His results, demonstrates that it will work for us as it did for Him! This is the reason for His paradoxical ecclesiology and the motivation of His unusual government policy: loving ministry to others is the secret of success and the road to true greatness. So, if greatness in the Kingdom and usefulness to God depends upon being like the King, and sharing His viewpoints and mission, then the greatest distinctions and highest titles will obviously fall to those who are most like Him in sacrificial service even to the point of death for others.

The Son of man came to give his life a ransom for many. Whether or not the disciples fully appreciated what it meant to be the son of man come from glory (see notes on Matthew 8:20), however, now, after His triumph, this sentence measures the full height and depth of His love. (2 Corinthians 8:9; Ephesians 5:25; 1 John 4:10; John 15:13; Romans 5:6-11) But even before, the disciples had witnessed nothing but generous ministering to the needs of others on the part of Him whom they had come to recognize as their Messianic King. Had they yet no basis for understanding the King or His Kingdom? He will give his life: His self-sacrifice will be voluntary. (Cf. John 10:11; John 10:15; John 10:18) He was not only sent by the Father, but of His own accord He came to give His life a ransom. Whereas we cannot choose to be born nor do we normally choose our own death, Jesus claimed these as acts born of His own free choice.

Give his life a ransom for many. (Cf. Isaiah 53:4-8; Isaiah 53:10-12) Here is the foundation for the expiation for our sins and for our justification: Jesus will lay down His own innocent life in payment for (antì pollôn) the lives of many who cannot ransom themselves. (Cf. Psalms 49:7-9; Psalms 49:15) Literally, a ransom (lútron) is the price paid to free a slave or someone held prisoner for redemption. It may also be an expiation for wrong-doing. (Rocci, 1167; Arndt-Gingrich, 483f) It is the agreed legal equivalent for the persons redeemed. Many has two emphases:

Potential: Many, does not mean not all, as if we ought to think Jesus did not intend to die potentially for every man. (1 Timothy 2:6; 1 John 2:2) Many is the antithesis of a privileged few or perhaps the antithesis of the one Human Being who can accomplish this for many, not merely dying for Himself alone. Many, here, has the same meaning as that of many (polloì) in Paul. (Romans 5:15; Romans 5:19) Contextually, it is clear that Paul meant all (pántas anthrópous). (Romans 5:18)

Actual: and yet, sadly, this word many, considered, not as the potential of Jesus-’ sacrifice but as describing the real number of people who will finally avail themselves of it, in the end, really does mean not all, (Matthew 7:14)

An interesting question for further investigation involves Jesus-’ unusual demand in this text that those for whom He would give His life as a ransom should consider themselves, not primarily as free men, but as servants and slaves. The modern reader might ask, But if He ransomed them, surely they would not thereafter consider themselves slaves in any sense. But it does not work that way. The person who is dearly purchased out of bitter slavery owes his happiness, fruitful employment and present security to his new Master. For a person who owns nothing and owes everything, to repay such a debt of gratitude is only possible through willing personal service. In fact, the decision to ransom this slave may have been based on a contract made with the new Master. Therefore, the ransomed do not move into the insecurity and uncertainty of absolute freedom with its attendant dangers for which the former slave is unprepared to cope, but into the good service of a kind Master whose slavery is pure joy compared with the alternatives. (Study Romans 6:15-23, esp. Romans 6:18; 1 Corinthians 6:19 f; 1 Corinthians 7:22 f; 1 Peter 1:18 f; Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:22 to Colossians 4:1; Philemon 1:16; cf. Bartchy, First-Century Slavery.) In fact, the slavery to Jesus Christ is so radically different from that to self, sin and Satan, that paradoxically there is a sense in which the redeemed can be thought of as the only truly free men. (Study Peter’s interesting paradox: as free men. as slaves of God (hos eleútheroi. all-‘hos theoû doûloi, 1 Peter 2:16). This fresh understanding of slavery to Christ should turn on new lights in texts where Paul and others willingly declare themselves bondslaves of Jesus Christ (e.g. Romans 1:1) and your slaves for Jesus-’ sake. (e.g. 2 Corinthians 4:5)

What is the picture, then? The world into which Jesus Christ came is a world full of slaves, a world characterized by oppression and abuse of power, a world where might makes right, and back of it all is the devil. But to purchase these slaves from their just condemnation, Jesus did not come to be, together with His Church, merely a new king or emperor or benefactor, but armed with the same sort of structured imperial might as that encountered in the world systems. Rather, to defeat the cruel world power that leaves men its slaves and bring them out of their bondage, paradoxically, He too became a slave to minister and to turn His own life over to suffer the righteous verdict of death for sin, in exchange for the freedom of sin’s victims. (Matthew 26:28; Romans; Philippians 2:5-9; 1 Timothy 2:6; Hebrews 2:9; Hebrews 2:14-18; Hebrews 9:27; 1 Peter 1:18 f; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 Peter 3:18; 1 John 2:2; 2 Corinthians 5:14 f, 2 Corinthians 5:21) To free the victims He Himself became a Victim to end the victimizing. The point? His Church must not present itself as a Christian Government as a political alternative to the demonic world or state governments of the present age. Jesus categorically refused to fight fire with fire. And His Church must live and function and conquer as a community in whose heart the cancer of powerwhether ecclesiastical or politicaldoes not exist. It is rather as a fellowship of servants that it will be able, without political ambitions or power structures, to help free humanity from the forces that enslave it. (Cf. Gonzàlez-Ruiz, Marco, 189)

NOTE: This concept does not speak directly to the problem of Christians-’ participation in civil government and the execution of its laws. The Lord is, rather, discussing what His disciple as a private citizen must be in relation to other private citizens and what His Kingdom must be in relation to other world kingdoms. Ministering in the service of God as a sword-bearing magistrate is already assumed as a valid option. (Romans 13:1-7) So also is the disciples-’ responsibility to pay the bills of civil government. (Matthew 22:21) So, Jesus-’ discussion of pagan rulers does not intend to reject the proper authority of civil government.

What does this magnificent declaration reveal to us about Jesus?

Plummer (Matthew, 281) asks:

Is not the combination of humility and majesty which is found in this saying a guarantee for its genuineness? Could it have been invented? Who is this, who in the same utterance, and in the most simple and natural way, declares that He is the servant of everybody, and that His single life is able to ransom many? There is no boasting and no manifest exaggeration in either declaration; nothing but a calm statement of fact, made by One who is confident that He is saying the simple truth.

Bruce (Training, 288) sees it too:

Then this saying, while breathing the spirit of utter lowliness, at the same time betrays the consciousness of superhuman dignity. Had Jesus not been more than man, His language would not have been humble, but presumptuous. Why should the son of a carpenter say of himself. I came not to be ministered unto? Servile position and occupation was a matter of course for such a one. The statement before us is rational and humble only as coming from one who, being in the form of God, freely assumed the form of a servant, and became obedient unto death for our salvation.

FACT QUESTIONS

How did Jesus answer the request for chief seats in the Kingdom? What did He mean by His cup and baptism?

In whose hands and on what basis rightly rests the distribution of the highest honors in the Kingdom?

Who is the greatest in the Kingdom? How did Jesus illustrate His own answer to this question? Where else is this same question discussed in Matthew?

Who asked such a boon? Who aided their request? Why was this particular person enlisted to word their desire? From what point of view did the request arise?

In what respect did Jesus say emphatically that His Kingdom would be different from that of the rulers of the nations of the world?

Quote Matthew 20:28 and Luke 19:10. What else did Jesus say at any time about the cause and purpose for which He came into the world?

Did James and John prove true to their confident assertion of readiness to drink of Jesus-’ cup and be baptized with His baptism? If so, how or when? If not, why not?

According to Jesus, are there really any chief places in the Kingdom to grant? If so, how are they to be distributed?

According to Jesus, what kind of ambition must a Christian have?

What does this section have to say to the larger question of power structures and hierarchical control among Jesus-’ disciples today?

List the texts in Matthew 18 which find their practical application in this section.

Matthew 20:29-34

**Section 53 JESUS HEALS TWO BLIND MEN AT JERICHO

(Parallels: Mark 10:46-52; Luke 18:35-43)**

TEXT: 20:29-34

29 And as they went out from Jericho, a great multitude followed him. 30 And behold, two blind men sitting by the way side, when they heard that Jesus was passing by, cried out, saying, Lord, have mercy on us, thou son of David. 31 And the multitude rebuked them, that they should hold their peace: but they cried out the more, saying, Lord, have mercy on us, thou son of David. 32 And Jesus stood still, and called them, and said, What will ye that I should do unto you? 33 They say unto him, Lord, that our eyes may be opened. 34 And Jesus, being moved with compassion, touched their eyes; and straightway they received their sight, and followed him.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Why do you suppose Matthew would include this little miracle-story at this point? Of course, it took place at Jericho just before the Lord ascended to Jerusalem for the Final Week, and Mark and Luke both document it at this point. However, our author omits interesting details provided in the other two Gospels, as if his editorial pen intends to underline one major truth. What is it? The title by which the blind men addressed Jesus has significance in pointing out that truth. What does the title mean, and how does this help to explain why Matthew would be particularly interested in recording this scene at precisely this point in his narrative?

Where did these blind men get the faith they expressed in their plea for help from Jesus?

Why do you think the crowd rebuked these blind men, ordering them to be silent? There may have been several reasons.

Why did the blind men ignore the scolding of the passers-by who tried to silence them ?

Jesus usually ordered people to silence when they addressed Him as Son of David. Here, however, He did not do so. How do you interpret this strange change in policy?

Why did Jesus ask the blind men: What do you want me to do for you? when the most perfectly obvious need of a blind man is SIGHT?! (or is it?)

Whereas Luke concludes his narrative by stating that immediately he received his sight and followed him, glorifying God; and all the people, when they saw it, gave praise to God, and whereas Mark, too, says he received his sight and followed him on the way, Matthew, on the other hand, simply affirms, Immediately they received their sight, and followed him. Do you think Matthew is just giving a severely simple account, or is he pushing the reader to decide whether, on the basis of the evidence furnished that Jesus is truly the long-awaited Son of David, he too will humbly and joyfully follow Him who is the Light of the blind? Or is this reading more into the text than is there? What do you think?

Why do you think the blind men followed Jesus? Where was Jesus going that would have been so interesting to these newly-healed beggars?

Of what principle(s) in Jesus-’ sermon on personal relationships in Matthew 18 is this section an illustration?

How does this section prepare for the events that follow in chapter 21?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

So Jesus and His disciples arrived at Jericho. As they approached the city, a blind man was sitting at the side of the road begging. When he heard the noise of a crowd going past, he began to inquire, What is happening? Someone told him, Jesus of Nazareth is going by. Later, as Jesus was going out of the city with His disciples, a vast throng surged along behind Him. Two blind men were sitting at the roadside, one of whom was named Bartimaeus (= Timaeus-’ son). Upon hearing that Jesus the Nazarene was passing by, they shouted out, Jesus, Son of David, take pity on us! But many of those who were in the front part of the crowd sharply scolded them, telling them to shut up. But they yelled even more loudly, Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us! Then Jesus stopped there in the road and called them to Him, commanding others to bring them to Him, Tell them to come here. So they called the blind men, saying, It’s all right now. Get to your feet: He is calling you. Bartimaeus, casting aside his overcoat, jumped up with his companion and made his way to Jesus. When they were quite close, Jesus addressed them, What do you wish me to do for you? The blind men said to Him, My dear Teacher, we want our eyes to be opened: let us see again! Then Jesus, deeply moved with compassion, touched their blind eyes, saying, Begin seeing again! Go your way. Your faith in me has healed you. Instantly they were able to see again and began following Him along the road, giving thanks and praise to God. All the others who witnessed the miracle gave praise to God too.

SUMMARY

Having crossed the Jordan, Jesus and His company of Passover-bound travelers arrived at Jericho. Too late a blind beggar learned that Jesus had just passed him. Later, as Jesus left the city for Jerusalem, the blind beggar with another blind man, upon learning that the Lord’s group was then departing from Jericho, began to appeal to His help, calling Him the Son of David. Scolded by the travelers nearest them, they only shouted that much louder. Jesus mercifully halted the caravan, called them to Him, asked them what favor they sought. They asked only for sight which He instantly gave them. In gratitude, they sing praise to God and follow Jesus. Everyone else was affected the same way by the miracle, joining in to praise God too.

NOTES III. PUBLIC DEMONSTRATION OF JESUS-’ TRUE MESSIAHSHIP OF SERVICE

(20:29-34; Mark 10:46-52; Luke 18:35-43)

A. SITUATION: Blind men appeal to Jesus for mercy as Son of David.

Matthew 20:29 A great crowd followed him. Because several eastern routes converged at the Jordan River just east of Jericho, this city had long been a natural stopping place for festival-bound pilgrims arriving from various directions on their way to Jerusalem. Jericho means that Jesus and His company will approach Jerusalem from the east, as the city of palms is located 25 km (15 mi.) from the capital, near the ford of the Jordan.

And as they went out from Jericho. Mark (Mark 10:46) very precisely notes their arrival at Jericho, then, in agreement with Matthew, just as clearly registers their departure and the following miracle. However, because Luke’s parallel (Matthew 18:35) seems to locate the healing incident as he drew near to Jericho, rather than upon His departure, several attempts have been made to produce an intelligent harmony of the facts so as to eliminate any possible accusation of error. It should be noticed, first of all, that the presence of problems is not evidence of inauthenticity, but undesigned proof of the correctness of the facts narrated. For had the Evangelists perversely desired to foist a falsification off on the world, they would have taken more care to eliminate such a slip-up, Again, the very existence of problems in harmonizing these three Synoptic texts is proof of the independent drafting of these Gospels. If these accounts were copied from a common source, as some affirm, how may these obvious differences be explained, especially where the divergence is so great as to cause accusations of outright contradiction? On the other hand, if we find that a reasonable explanation of the apparent contradiction can be found, what had at first seemed to be a contradiction becomes, instead, evidence of the truth of the testimony. What are the possibilities?

Matthew and Mark clearly agree that the miracle occurred at the departure from Jericho. Luke alone organizes his material in some other fashion. Now, if it be correctly assumed that two witnesses are sufficient to establish any fact (Deuteronomy 19:15), the former two Synoptic writers must be judged to be relating the objective, chronological order of the facts. Further, if we may assume Luke’s fundamental accuracy, we may judge that he has done some theological editorializing in the organization of his facts. This must be concluded from the fact that, following the Lucan narrative of the blind man’s healing which apparently takes place as he drew near to Jericho (Matthew 18:35), we have the continuation: He entered Jericho and was passing through (Matthew 19:1), at which time Jesus encounters Zacchaeus. Therefore, unless we are to accuse Luke of deliberate misrepresentation of history, we must attribute to him the intention to set aside strictly chronological considerations for what may have had greater theological importance for his purpose. (See below under 4b.)

There is also evidence that Luke does not really locate the healing on the east entrance of Jericho:

He simply mentions that the blind man was sitting by the roadside begging as Jesus drew near to Jericho. (Luke 18:35)

Although some writers note the possible existence of two or even three Jerichos in Jesus-’ day, because of its being built, destroyed and rebuilt on different sites (See Unger, Archeology and the Old Testament, 146-148, 243; Pfeiffer (ed.). The Biblical World, A Dictionary of Biblical Archeology, 305f), hence the scene of the miracle could be located between the various locations as Jesus left one Jericho and approached another Jericho, however certain questions arise:

(1)

Would the older sites have been inhabited and called simply old Jericho, or old city?

(2)

In that day would not the Herodian Jericho have been the more famous city of that name? (Cf. Josephus, Antiquities, XV, 4, 2, 4) If so, were there two sites involved in our story, it would be thought certain that some distinction would have been made, such as new city (Neapolis).

So, until archeological evidence demonstrates conclusively that more than one site of Jericho was inhabited in Christ’s day, it is better to opt for the conclusion that only one city-site was involved in our story.

Then, from the noise people were making as they passed, the blind man concluded that a multitude was going by, so he began asking what this meant. He is then told that Jesus of Nazareth is passing by. The crowd was already passing by him at the time he learned the significance of this particular multitude. Hence, some time is lost for him to start calling to Jesus for mercy. The answer of the people in the crowd who say, Jesus of Nazareth is passing by, is not fatal to this hypothesis, because they could still say it, even if Jesus had already gone by, because it would be meant in the sense that the group travelling with Jesus is passing by, Jesus being the most important personage in the entourage.

The fact that the crowd’s passing was already in progress at the time he first learned that Jesus of Nazareth is passing by, taken together with the fact that, when he began to implore Jesus-’ help, it is surprisingly those who were in front (who) rebuked him, points to a change of the blind man’s position with respect to the crowd. For, if the ones in front had already passed him on the road to Jericho and were thus closer to the city are the ones who rebuke him, then they must have turned completely around and, inexplicably ignoring the calmness of the people at that moment passing in front of the shouting Bartimaeus, begin to rebuke him for his impertinence! On the contrary, the rebuke by those who were in front may be more reasonably explained by some change in the relative positions of Bartimaeus and the crowds, a fact omitted by Luke as unimportant for his purpose. But what was the change in positions? Matthew and Mark supply the missing information? Consider the following harmony:

Matthew 20:29-31

Mark 10:46-48

Luke 18:35-39

As. he drew near to Jericho a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging;

and hearing a multitude going by, he inquired what this meant

And they came to Jericho;

They told him, Jesus of Nazareth is passing by.

And as they went out of Jericho, a great crowd followed him.

And behold, two blind men sitting by the roadside.

And as he was leaving Jericho with his disciples and a great multitude. Bartimaeus, a blind beggar, the son of Timaeus,

was sitting by the roadside,

When they heard that Jesus was passing by, cried out, Have mercy on us. Son of David!

And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out and say, Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!

And he cried, Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!

The crowd rebuked them.

And many rebuked him.

And those in front rebuked him.

The harmonization of the three accounts, reflected in the Paraphrase/Harmony, is based on the following steps:

The party in which Jesus was travelling approached Jericho. Jesus and His disciples were in the lead ahead of the others who would thus be strung out along the road behind them. (Did Jesus keep up His pace ahead of the others even after the Passion Prediction and His rebuke of the selfish ambition of the Twelve? Cf. Mark 10:32) If so, at least Jesus and His disciples passed the blind men before the latter could react. (Luke 18:35) As the main body of the multitude with its hubub of voices and shuffling feet began to come by, he began to make inquiry about what was happening, too late to make contact with Jesus. (Luke 18:36 f) This much is seen as a separate fact that occurred before Jesus entered into Jericho.

WEAKNESS: is it likely that a sharp-eared blind man could miss the soft tread of 26 feet as Jesus and the Twelve pass by him, when he was seated by the roadside begging (Luke 18:35)? Is it likely that absolutely no one in Jesus-’ immediate group said a word as they approached and passed the blind man to enter Jericho? And, if the blind man heard them and asked for alms, is it likely that Jesus and His group completely ignored his appeals?

POSSIBLE ANSWERS:

Jesus may have been walking alone in silence, ahead of the group, and so was not detected by the blind man. It may have been that He knew that He could heal the man later in circumstances that would accomplish more good. He may therefore have deliberately ignored the man this time, in order to reach that higher goal.

Then, when the Twelve and others passed, their noise attracted the blind man’s attention and he asked the meaning of the noise. Upon learning that Jesus-’ group was passing, he began calling, but too late to make himself heard by Jesus personally who had already gone by. The disciples and others do not disturb Jesus to call Him back to see what the blind beggar wanted.

So, Jesus and His group got clear into Jericho before the blind man could successfully make his request known.

Then, while Jesus stopped in the city to be the guest of Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10), the blind man, who by this time had completely lost contact with Jesus-’ particular group, may have reasoned that they would likely rest in Jericho before the final ascent to Jerusalem. This fact would give him ample time to find his way to the west side of town where he could wait for their departure and accost them as they left Jericho for Jerusalem.

(1)

Did this blind beggar take time to locate another blind beggar he knew, to share with him the hope of recovering his sight too? This would perhaps help to explain Mark and Luke’s interest in Bartimaeus, whereas Matthew mentions two blind men.

(2)

That a blind man could find anything or anyone and move so deftly around a city crowded with pilgrims is no problem for a beggar who has no doubt worked that city for years, deriving his only income from begging. He would naturally have learned to make his way around this ideal place for begging, since Herod the Great had built this city as a new capital and it became the resort for the rich from Jerusalem. And, because of its ideal geographical location as the last stopping place for pilgrims bound for Jerusalem, beggars could hope for some alms from the pious among them who accounted alms as highly meritorious. In fact, on how many other occasions had Bartimaeus met the crowds coming from the east on one day, to beg from them, and then moved around to the west gate the next day to ask alms from them again as they left?

Then, when he once again heard the movement of many people next day and asked the meaning of the sounds, he cried out to Jesus for the first time as He left the city for Jerusalem. (Matthew 20:30; Mark 10:46 b, 47; Luke 18:38)

The legitimacy of Luke’s reorganization of the materials need not be questioned.

As a literary device his style is a procedure completely vindicated by the deliberate style of Moses in composing Genesis. That is, even as Moses so often completed a given person’s history immediately upon mentioning him before returning to take up that of another more prominent figure, even though the former was not yet dead, so here too Luke may be thought of as desiring to complete the blind man’s story after the first notice, in order to return to narrate Zacchaeus-’ story. He succeeded thus in preserving the unity of the story of healing by finishing it before the visit with Zacchaeus, although the healing actually occurred thereafter. Then, having disposed of the healing incident, Luke omitted any mention of it after Zacchaeus, proceeding rather to the Parable of the Pounds. (Luke 19:11)

Why did Luke put the blind man first? This may be the wrong question. The real question may be: why did he desire to put Zacchaeus-’ story last? Perhaps for theological, rather than chronological considerations. (Matthew does a lot of this too. See on The Problem of Order in Matthew’s Narration, Vol. II, p. 1ff; What is Matthew’s Order or Plan of Presentation? Vol. I, pp. 4-6) Accordingly, Luke may have wished to give particular emphasis to the salvation of Zacchaeus. However, he did not desire to ignore the healing of the blind man, because of its well-established importance for a correct understanding of Christ, and certainly because of its place in the historical information Luke had gathered from his sources. (Cf. Luke 1:1-4) Since he alone narrates the salvation of Zacchaeus before Jesus-’ arrival at Bethany for the beginning of the Final Week events, and since he concludes Jesus-’ reaction to Zacchaeus-’ decisions with the words: Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost (Luke 19:9 f), it may well be that he chose this method to underline Jesus-’ purpose for going to Jerusalem, even as Matthew and Mark state the death-mission of Jesus in the preceding section (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45). He may also have considered the salvation of Zacchaeus as illustrating, a bit more vigorously than the healing of the blind men, the astoundingly merciful condescension of Jesus. So he arranged his materials, so that, as the reader pondered the self-revelation of Jesus at Jericho, the last thing upon which his mind would linger is the amazing grace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ who can so gracefully and graciously win the incredibly unworthiest of sinners, a chief tax collector!

There have been other attempts to harmonize these same details. (Cf. Plummer, Luke, 429f) However, the above explanations seem to be the simplest, most cohesive and least problematic.

Matthew 20:30 And behold, two blind men sitting by the way side. Were there two, as Matthew affirms, or only one, named Bartimaeus, as Mark and Luke have it? Both, because where there are two, there is at least one! Matthew recorded the objective fact that there were two such beggars, but the names were not important for his narration, whereas Mark named one of the two and then carefully translated his Aramaic name into Greek, as if something connected with the man or his name would be important for his readership. (Was Bartimaeus and/or his father, Timaeus, a well-known disciple in Christian circles of Mark’s and/or Peter’s acquaintances?) Another motive for noticing this blind man may have been the high quality of his trust in Jesus (cf. Mark 10:50), whereas the other man was perhaps less spectacular, less memorable for his expression of faith.

Two blind men sitting by the way side. Because Jericho was the winter palace of Herod and resort for the rich from Jerusalem, it is more than understandable that any one should place themselves by the roadside to beg. Moreoever they could especially hope for alms during this period, because of the heavy traffic of Passover pilgrims on their way up to Jerusalem via Jericho, Their deplorable situation, arising as it does out of their physical handicap, is the more pitiable, since they had to depend upon the capricious generosity of passersby. It is remarkable that neither Matthew nor Mark affirm that they were now begging. If the above-suggested harmonization of the Synoptics-’ data is correct, the two blind men, convinced that Jesus-’ coming would bring them sight and relief from all future begging, calmly await His arrival, whereas Luke, the only Evangelist to affirm that Bartimaeus was begging, only affirms this before the blind man learned that Jesus was in the neighborhood. No longer begging, their entire attention is directed toward regaining their sight. The single-mindedness of their straining to learn of the near approach of the Messiah rebukes those fools who, although their only Source of spiritual light and life is passing by as the Gospel of Christ is proclaimed, divide their attention between the immortal value of their soul and their busy collecting a few pennies by the wayside! These blind beggars, customary objects of public charity, knew when to sacrifice temporal, material gain for grander blessings. O my soul, are you really earnest about receiving the blessing of Christ that you will consider it so important and so urgent that every other problem must wait until you have settled this momentous question?

When they heard that Jesus was passing by. They could determine that a multitude was passing by the growing murmur of voices talking and laughing and by the scuffle of feet. From some passerby they learned that their only Hope was drawing near. They cried out, saying, Lord, have mercy on us, thou son of David. That they understood what we do by the title, Lord, is doubtful. Since Lord (kúrie) is also the standard form of respectful address for persons with whom one is not familiar (= Sir, Mister), it may not indicate special faith in Jesus as Lord of all. What can be affirmed is that their understanding is greater than those who think of Jesus as John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets (Matthew 16:13 f). Others might refer to the Son of David as merely Jesus of Nazareth (Mark 10:47; Luke 18:37), a man differing from others only in hometown. But the bold faith of these blind men asserts itself when they unashamedly entitle Him Son of David, the Messiah. (See on Matthew 1:1-17; Matthew 1:20; Matthew 9:27; Matthew 12:23; Matthew 15:22.)

By now, Jesus-’ Davidic lineage is known, but more significantly, His ample qualifications for this Messianic title are common knowledge among disciples. Even these isolated beggars in a city where Jesus had probably never before preached, know His name and fame. How significantly is this event placed! Jesus is ascending to Jerusalem to suffer and die, to be defeatedas men deem it (Matthew 20:17-19; Luke 18:34; Matthew 20:28)and yet He is the Son of David, the Messiah of the prophets. Even though He is about to face the decisive suffering that would complete His earthly mission, He does not hesitate to stop to help these blind men who address Him as Son of David. He does not forget to serve men by healing their bodies nor to do the far more important things, such as dying for them too, because both are at the heart of His true mission, two facets of the same loving obsession.

Matthew 20:31 And the multitude, i.e. those who were in front of the crowd moving toward the beggars, rebuked them, that they should hold their peace. What motives could have produced this reaction? Did they suppose that this raucous shouting was out of character for the high dignity of Jesus? Were they irked that these tatterdemalion mendicants were using inflammatory language loaded with embarrassing, political implications that could lead to trouble with the Jerusalem authorities who regularly vacationed at Jericho? In their own blindness to Jesus-’ mercifulness and true Messianic dignity, did they merely suppose that the blind beggars, by this piteous yelling, were only asking that the great Rabbi accord them alms? Or are they merely angry that their shouting interrupted their own conversations? If so, the people are far less concerned about the needs of these unfortunates than they are about their own comfort. Are there some slit-eyed enemies of Jesus in this crowd, who resent anyone’s attributing Messianic dignity to Jesus by the use of such titles? Were there friends who, hoping to stage a Messianic demonstration in Jerusalem, hurriedly shush up this premature acclamation? Were there disciples crowding around Jesus, even now straining to pick up His every word, who resented this vigorously noisy interruption of their concentration? Whatever the cause, these cold-hearted, presumptuous people have more concern that everything operate smoothly than that two suffering human beings should receive the blessing of their lives! Some might have growled, The participation of ragged beggars lowers the spiritual tone of our pilgrimage! We-’re on our way up to Jerusalem to worship God; neither we nor Jesus can be bothered with your problems now. We have our schedule to meet and our program to follow. Perhaps the Teacher could work you into His schedule when and if He returns this way sometime after the Passover. Don-’t call uswe-’ll call you! These pitiless patrons of orthodoxy were despising little ones who believe in me (Matthew 18:10), forbidding and blocking their way to Jesus. (Cf. Matthew 18:6-9; Mark 9:38 f)

But they cried out the more. This frustrating hindrance only increased the intensity of their determination to receive help. Unlike the rich young ruler, these undiscourageable believers would not be rebuffed by setbacks and baffling handicaps. Their persistence evidences their conviction that the Son of David is their only hope and help. What spirit: the greater the resistance encountered, the more they throttle their rising despair and struggle to overcome it and gain their goal! They feared that the opportunity of a lifetime was slipping through their fingers, so they grasped it the tighter lest it be forever lost. (Cf. the Syrophoenician woman’s pluck and persistence, Matthew 15:21-28)

B. RESPONSE: A miracle of mercy proves Jesus to be the Messiah.

Matthew 20:32 And Jesus stood still. Whereinsofar He was the central figure in the westbound caravan now, when Jesus stopped, He drew instant attention to Himself and what He is about to do. By this single action, He halted the thoughtless crowd plunging sightlessly past two blind men who need help. Despite the din and hubbub of people’s voices, He too heard the passionate cry of human need over there on the edge of the road. A person can hear what he is listening for!

Jesus stood still, and called them, but, because of the crowd noise (What are we stopping for?), He apparently could not make Himself sufficiently heard by the blind men themselves, so He gave two quick orders: Call him! (Mark 10:49), or better yet, Bring him to me! (Luke 18:40). The reason Jesus did not personally leave His place in a merciful gesture to save the blind men the effort of having to feel their way forward to Him, may have been to let their anticipation grow into confidence in His power to heal them. At this point people in the crowd encourage the blind men: Take heart; rise, He is calling you. (Mark 10:49) What a rebuke is thus handed to those who had rebuked the blind men!

Mark (Mark 10:50) provides a vivid touch of human realism to Bartimaeus-’ faith: Throwing off his mantle, he sprang up and came to Jesus. His mantle is the long overcoat so essential to the protection and comfort of the inhabitant of the Middle East. Why he threw it off is a mystery, but the eloquence of the fact that he did is not. If this blind man casts aside his most precious article of clothing (cf. Deuteronomy 24:13; Exodus 22:26-27) and risks disorientation in a crowd of strangers, he has only one solid hope of refinding it later: he can go looking for it afterwards, after David’s Son has given him his sight! If Jesus should fail, his one hope of breaking out of his dark world would be gone anyhow, so what comfort could an old overcoat offer against the chilling disappointment of a world in which the one Man who had seemed to be gifted with God’s power had suddenly failed in this case? But He would not fail! What is an old, dusty overcoat to a man with EYES who can SEE to work and earn a thousand suits of clothes? But why did he throw it off? Could he not have worn it? Did he consider it a hindrance in reaching Jesus through the crowd? More likely, since an overcoat might be laid aside when the wearer must begin strenuous exercise, such as walking or running, his casting it aside here may suggest his hurry and earnestness to get to Jesus as quickly as possible.

And Jesus stood still, and called them, and said, What will ye that I should do unto you? There is no partiality with Jesus. Note how He turns His full attention equally to blind beggars or wealthy rulers. (Matthew 19:16 ff) What will ye? The men had asked for an unspecified expression of His mercy. The Lord therefore in His royal majesty asked Bartimaeus to name the mercy, thus suggesting to him the fulness of the treasury of power and grace to which he came. (McGarvey, Fourfold Gospel, 561) What will ye? What a question! And yet, Jesus needs to ask it, for even though it is roughly the same request made by the mother of James and John (cf. Matthew 20:21; Mark 10:36), He has no fear that these blind men will abuse His generosity. They would not ask for gold and glory, honor and positions of power in the Kingdom. Rather, they will shame the Apostles by paring away from their request all those superficialities, and seize upon the one essential that will bless their life more than any other.

Because His intelligent question is not intended to seek information from men so obviously in need of sight, it is clear that He means to imply, What do you believe that the Messiah can do for you? The Lord’s query, rather than elicit information, aims to draw public attention to what He, who has just been repeatedly addressed publicly as Son of David, is about to do. Whereas these men had been beggars asking alms earlier (Luke 18:35), is that the extent of their asking pity of Him? Let the crowd pause for their answer and witness His reaction.

Matthew 20:33 They say unto him, Lord, that our eyes may be opened. This simple request is the result of countless hours of sightless meditation upon the meaning of life. All that is extraneous and superfluous has been eliminated: this is rigorous reduction to the essential, It goes straight to the point: nothing less than sight will do! Were the Lord to ask us what we need specifically when we pray for His grace, would our answer readily reflect our self-knowledge, our real needs and our long-range goals? Or is there much vagueness and unreality to our requests? If so, it may be that we receive not specifically, because we ask not specifically. (James 4:2 c) Let us learn to answer with true insight the Lord’s question: What will ye that I should do for you?

Matthew eliminates many interesting details in this story which are included by Mark and Luke. May we not ask if it is his point to lay the essential facts before his reader, as if to ask, Dear Jewish reader, as you contemplate Him whom these sightless men hail as the Messiah, the Son of David, Him who not only accepts this high title, but majestically proves His right to wear it by answering their prayer, cannot their prayer become yours?Lord, that our eyes may be opened!?

Matthew 20:34 And Jesus, being moved with compassion, touched their eyes. The warmth of Jesus-’ compassion for these blind men stands out in marked contrast with the cold, heartless hindering by the crowds. He heard their piteous cry, felt deeply their need, suffered with them their hurt, was thrilled by their persistence that pushed their abilities to the limit, and was touched by their irrepressible, unembarrassed faith in Him. No wonder He willingly showed Himself to be the Rewarder of those who by faith diligently seek Him! (Hebrews 11:6) Mark (Mark 10:52) and Luke (Luke 18:42) record His words: Receive your sight; go your way; your faith has made you well. Absent from His words is any order to be silent. He does not bother to recommend circumspection now. Since the final hour is about to strike, the earlier concern about ill-timed, wrong-headed publicity now has little if any reason to exist. In fact, the entrance into Jerusalem which will occur shortly, will be nothing but the most public proclamation possible that He is indeed the Son of David. (See on chapter 21.)

As He touched their eyes, straightway they received their sight. With this single, majestic, yet warmly human, act, He fully justified their confidence in Him and the appropriateness of their use of the glorious Messianic title, Son of David. Without any direct word and by His own tacit acknowledgement, He let the full impact of this miracle ripple over the multitude. Naturally, this sign of Jesus-’ true Messiahship would not be lost on people sensitive to Isaiah 29:18; Isaiah 35:5 in their relative contexts. (See notes on Matthew 11:5.)

Although Jesus had said, Go (your way), Matthew says they followed him. Naturally enough, they chose His way. This is not disobedience, but grateful loyalty, because their reaction means: Lord, your way is now our way! These two blind men who had formerly had little hope of traveling clear to Jerusalem, except with someone patiently guiding them the 25 km (15 mi,) uphill trip, now march spiritedly along with every other pilgrim on the way to worship God. No wonder their exuberant joy pours itself out in unabashed praise to God! (Luke 18:43) Their infectious enthusiasm and the exciting effect of the miracle opened the mouths of their fellow travellers who also took up God’s praise for the miracle they had witnessed. These penniless beggars, rather than seek first a stable income to care for their creaturely necessities, seek first the Kingdom of God in the personal discipleship of Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah.

Matthew concludes the final section of Jesus-’ public ministry before the Last Week with this significant tag line: They received their sight and followed him, almost as if to nudge the reader: And you, does this miracle by the Son of David say anything to you? If so, let it be written of you, as it is of them: They received their sight and followed Him!

FACT QUESTIONS

Who called Jesus Son of David? What others in Christ’s ministry also called Him this?

Why did they call Jesus this? What did they mean by it?

What difficulties did Bartimaeus have in making his request known and in coming to Jesus?

What difficulties are there in the accounts about the blind men?

How did Jesus perform the miracle of healing their blindness, i.e. with words, acts, clay, etc.?

What text(s) in Jesus-’ sermon on personal relationships in Matthew 18 find their practical application or illustration in this section?

**DO YOU HAVE THE WORD IN YOUR HEART?

Matthew 19, 20**

Who said the following? To whom? Why? Under what circumstances? Be sure to give all various forms in different gospel accounts, all possible manuscript readings, translations and interpretations.

What do you think is the true meaning? 1.

Whosoever would become great among you shall be your minister.

So the last shall be first, and the first last.

Lord, have mercy on us, thou son of David.

It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good:.

There are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.

… for to such belongeth the kingdom of heaven.

If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast, and give it to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

Who then can be saved?

Whoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

If thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments.

Ye who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Old Green Commentaries

The College Press Bible Study Textbook Series — 59 volumes by 25 authors, published between 1961 and 1992 and affectionately known as the 'old green' commentaries for their green hardback bindings. Each volume is a commentary, workbook and teaching manual in one, written by Restoration Movement …

View all chapters →

Old Testament

GEN EXO LEV NUM DEU JOS JDG RUT 1SA 2SA 1KI 2KI 1CH 2CH EZR NEH EST JOB PSA PRO ECC SOS ISA JER LAM EZK DAN HOS JOL AMO OBA JON MIC NAH HAB ZEP HAG ZEC MAL

New Testament

MAT MRK LUK JHN ACT ROM 1CO 2CO GAL EPH PHP COL 1TH 2TH 1TI 2TI TIT PHM HEB JAS 1PE 2PE 1JN 2JN 3JN JUD REV

‹ Chapter 19 Matthew — All Chapters Chapter 21 ›