Matthew 9

OGC

‹ Chapter 8 Matthew — All Chapters Chapter 10 ›

CHAPTER NINE OUTLINES

Section 18. Jesus Forgives and Heals a Paralytic (Matthew 9:2-8)

Section 19. Jesus Calls Matthew Levi to be Apostle (Matthew 9:9-17)

Section 20. Jesus Raises Jairus-’ Daughter (Matthew 9:18-26) and Heals Woman’s Hemorrhage

Section 21. Jesus Gives Sight to Two Blind Men (Matthew 9:27-34)

Section 22. Jesus Evangelizes Galilee (Matthew 9:35-38)

STUDY OUTLINE

JESUS FORGIVES AND HEALS A PARALYTIC (Matthew 9:2-8) at a Congressional Investigation.

Situation: house full of critics, Jesus in midst. Paralytic lowered through roof into Jesus-’ presence.

Crisis: Jesus forgives the sins of the paralytic

Pharisaic reasoning: blasphemy!

Jesus-’ reasoning: It is my right.

Conclusion: Jesus, as God, has power on earth to forgive sin.

II. JESUS CALLS MATTHEW LEVI TO BE APOSTLE (Matthew 9:9-17)

The Call of Matthew (Matthew 9:9)

The Concept of the Master: I am Physician for the sick, at work where I belong. (Matthew 9:10-13)

The Controversy: feasting versus fasting (Matthew 9:14-17).

Situation: Disciples of John and Pharisees fasted, while Jesus-’ disciples feasted.

Jesus-’ Defense: Things that do not harmonize should not be united.

a. Illustration: a wedding is no place for mourning b. Illustration: new patches do not repair old garments. c. Illustration: new wine bursts old wineskins

III. JESUS RAISES JAIRUS-’ DAUGHTER (Matthew 9:18-26)

Situation: Twelve year-old daughter of the leader of synagogue dead; father comes to Jesus requesting His help.

Jesus-’ response: The broken heart of the father moves Jesus.

Jesus-’ journey, interrupted by the woman He healed, was filled with agonizing delays for the father whose understanding was inadequate.

Death notice delivered to father: extreme crisis of father’s faith.

Jesus ministered comforting words to Jairus, He was healing the father’s heart also.

Jesus stopped the funeral to call dramatic attention to what He is about to do.

He then raises the daughter from death.

IV. JESUS HEALS A WOMAN’S HEMORRHAGE (Matthew 9:20-22)

Situation: Jesus hurried to Jairus-’ house, pressed by crowds on every side. Woman in crowd with unhealing 12-year hemorrhage, practically excommunicated from worship, from normal marital relations, practically penniless, decidedly incurable and unbelievably desperate.

Jesus-’ Response: healing.

V. JESUS GIVES SIGHT TO TWO BLIND MEN (Matthew 9:27-31).

Situation: Coming away from Jairus-’ house, Jesus is accosted by two blind men requesting healing, who persist in following Him indoors.

Jesus tests their faith,

They respond affirmatively.

Jesus healed them instantly with a word and a touch.

Jesus demanded secrecy.

Instead they publicized the miracle.

VI. JESUS FREES A DUMB DEMONIAC (Matthew 9:32-34)

Situation: A dumb demoniac is brought to Jesus;

Jesus-’ Response: He cast out the demon, with the result that the dumb man could speak.

The Crowd’s Reaction: Nothing ever seen like this in Israel!

The Pharisees-’ Reaction: Jesus is in league with Satan.

VII. JESUS EVANGELIZES GALILEE AND SHARES HIS VISION WITH THE DISCIPLES (Matthew 9:35-38)

Situation: Jesus goes on a preaching and healing tour of Galilee.

Jesus-’ Motivation: His compassion and intelligent love for the leaderless multitudes.

Jesus-’ Challenge: Pray for helpers to reap the waiting harvest.

DO YOU HAVE THE WORD IN YOUR HEART?

Matthew 8, 9

Where are these passages found? Who said it? On what occasion? To whom was it said? Why? What does it mean? Are there parallel passages? variant manuscript readings? important other translations of the verse? Are there problems of interpreting it? How shall we apply it to our lives?

See thou tell no man; but go, show thyself to the priests.

I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

Himself took our infirmities, and bate our diseases.

But the sons of the kingdom shall be cast forth into the outer darkness:.

… leave the dead to bury their own dead.

… thy faith hath made thee whole.

… for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.

No man putteth a piece of undressed cloth upon an old garment; for that which should fill it up taketh from the garment, and a worse rent is made.

Go ye and learn what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.

But that ye may know that the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive sins.

They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick.

Have mercy on us, thou son of David.

And Jesus went about. preaching the gospel of the kingdom.

SPECIAL STUDY:

MIRACLES

The fundamental conflict in which Christianity is engaged today, in the intellectual sphere, is between Naturalism and Supernaturalism. Beneath all the attacks of scientists and philosophers, scholars and theologians upon Christianity lies an undercurrent of naturalism, more or less concealed, according as the opponent of supernaturalism is within the ranks of professing Christians or not.[1]

[1]. Floyd E. Hamilton, The Basis of Christian Faith, (3rd rev. ed.; New York: Harper Brothers Publishers, 1946), p. 87.

Miracles, as phenomena in historic Christianity, have posed no small problem to every age of the church’s existence. Any search into the early years of the Christian religion will reveal the intense, tenacious conviction that the supernatural intervention into human history which we call miracle really occurred. The word itself might be defined:

A miracle is an event occurring in the natural world, observed by the senses, produced by divine power, without and adequate human or natural cause, the purpose of which is to reveal the will of God and do good to man.[2]

[2] Clarence E. McCartney, Twelve Great Questions About Christ, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1956), p. 70.

The question of miracle revolves around one central historic figure: Jesus Christ. Did Jesus really work miracles? This is a far greater question than just a decision as to whether Jesus worked miracles or not. It is more than simply deciding whether He fed the 5000, healed the blind, cast out demons, and raised people from the dead. It is deciding whether there be a Christ at all. There is no Christ but the Christ of miracle! It is deciding whether there is a God or not. He is morally perverse or intellectually blind who concludes that a religion can be ethically true and historically false. An ethic predicated upon a lie, by the very nature of its case, warns the world against its own truth.

Further, there is no Christ but a supernatural Christ, if any credence be allowed the claims of those writers who furnish the only reliable history of His life, There is no supernatural Christ if there is no resurrected Christ, Truly,

if the resurrection of Jesus was not a reality, all the other miracles would be valueless even if real, and all effort to establish their reality would be abandoned.[3]

[3] J. W. McGarvey, Evidences of Christianity, (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Company, 1891), Part III, p, 116.

Miracles have a way of smashing our neatly-arranged systems of thought. The miraculous commands our attention and threatens to undo our uniformities not only in nature but in religion. If there is no miracle, no trumpet-call from beyond the natural or the earthly, we can settle down into our comfortable self-pleasure and drink long draughts from the cool glass of self-satisfaction, rousing only to change the record on our philosophic stereo to the soothing, mellow voice suggesting, Enjoy yourself while you-’re still in the pink. Suddenly, into our picture of peaceful self-complacency storms a miracle, a factstubborn and realthat can not be dismissed. The out-of-the-ordinary has just startled our ordinary and we must react. It is this very feature of the miraculous that leads us to see

THE NATURE OF MIRACLES

Just what occurred back there in that age of unenlightenment? Indubitable is the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was reputed to have super-human abilities which He manifested through His short but meteoric rise to the limited public prominence of His country. To appreciate rightly the nature of His supernatural activities we must not view miracles as isolated facts, but in their actual relations to the life of the Man who accomplished them. Any exception is so rare that it is a safe observation that Jesus did not perform the miraculous needlessly. The need for the supernatural acts grew out of the situation and must not be considered independent of that situation. His miracles might be classified thus:

POWER OVER NATURE:

At a wedding feast Jesus turned water into wine. Seeing His disciples distressed in rowing against a stormy lake, Jesus walked across the lake to them, defying gravity. On another occasion Jesus spoke the word and the sea immediately became calm. One morning at breakfast time He cursed a fig tree and it withered. By supernatural knowledge He informed Peter that in the mouth of the first fish Peter hauled in would be tribute money. B. POWER OVER DISEASE AND DEMONS: Paralytics, impotent men, women with hemorrhages, sight to blind men, hearing to deaf and speech to dumb, lepers, withered limbs restored to normalcy, wounded ears replacedall these and many more Jesus did! No weeks or day of anxious waiting, no returns, no incurable cases when Jesus healed a body! C. POWER OVER DEATH: Death in others was no problem to this Jesus of Nazareth. He stopped a funeral procession to raise the widow’s son; He broke up the funeral to raise Jairus-’ daughter. He walked nearly 40 miles to raise Lazarus from the grave. Death in Himself was nothing to fear for He calmly predicted His own death and resurrection with frightening regularity:

Therefore doth the Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one taketh it away from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. (John 10:17-18)

Many passages could be cited in which Jesus foretold in detail the various features of His passion. Here again we could marvel at the supreme factHis own resurrection itself.[4]

[4] For a very clear discussion of the direct evidence for the resurrection of Jesus see J. W. McGarvey’S, Evidences of Christianity, Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, 1891), Part III, Chpt. X. Also see Wilbur Smith’S, Therefore Stand, (Natick, Mass.: W. A. Wilde Company, 1969), Chap. VIII.

At this point, our attention has been arrested by the extraordinary nature of Jesus-’ deeds but for what? Like Moses, the flame of the unusual has attracted our attention and we have turned aside to see why.

THE PURPOSE OF MIRACLES

Bible miracles are supernatural phenomena in the realm of human experience WITH A MESSAGE. Why bring up miracles if the one doing them does not have something to say for himself? Such questions are most appropriate. The Jews of Jesus-’ day could have asked these questions: Immediately we become interested when we learn that a man can supply a sumptuous meal to 5000 men on ridiculously insignificant rations. We want to know if He will provide battle rations for our national army we are raising. One who is reputed to be able to heal all manner of disease could be very useful to our purposes as we strike out against Rome. Do you suppose He would consent to being our king? What is He saying for Himself? Where is He going? What is He trying to accomplish by these miracles? So the message is all-important. Probably the most significant utterance of Jesus ever recorded was His claim to unique knowledge of God:

All things have been delivered unto me of my Father; and no one knoweth who the Son is, save the Father; and who the Father is, save the Son, and he to whomsover the Son willeth to reveal him, (Matthew 11:27; Luke 10:22)

Or another claim:

For I am come down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me. And this is the will of him that sent me, that of all that which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that every one that beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him, should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:38-40)

My teaching is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself. (John 7:16-17)

I speak the things which I have seen with my Father. (John 8:38)

But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I heard from God. If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I came forth and am come from God; for neither have I come of myself, but he sent me. But because I say the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convicteth me of sin? If I say truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth the words of God. (John 8:40-47)

Obviously, throughout His teaching Jesus is claiming to be a very revelation of God. He comes not as a supreme teacher of an exalted ethical system or a propounder of new moral philosophy but as one who comes from God to reveal God’s mind to man. In other messages Jesus asserted that He entered the world to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10) and to give his life a ransom for many. (Matthew 20:28) It is clear that Jesus intended to reveal God and ransom man but how do we know He is God’s emissary? His mighty works hold our attention and most of His doctrine we cannot verify. What is the connection between miracle and message?

It is perfectly plain that such a revelation would need to be tested and accredited, for unless it were, men would never believe that the revelation was from God Himself. man would have a right to demand of anyone claiming to have a revelation from God, that he show his credentials. showing that there is no question but that he is the authorized representative of God. Man has a right to demand these credentials, and by the very nature of the case, they must be of a kind that could not possibly be duplicated by man, for if they could be, they would lose all value as accrediting the message from God.[5]

[5] Hamilton, p. 96, 96.

Thus, not only the possibility of miracle is justified but also the probability. How else would God remind people down through the ages saying, Lo, I am here? It is the miracle, the departure from the observed uniformity of nature, that arrests the attention of man and makes him realize that a higher person and a higher power is at work. The miracle is the majestic seal that God has affixed to the revelation which He gives us. The Bible is God’s Word. An integral part of the Bible record is miracle, for the specific purpose of showing it to be God’s Word. Except for miracles, how could we know it to be a revelation of God? With no miracle, there is no evidence of deity. Miracles, then, authenticate the Christian message: (1) Jesus Christ appeals to His miracles as His divine authentication.

I told you, and ye believe not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, these bear witness of me. If I do not the works of my father, believe me not. But if I do them, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father. (John 10:25; John 10:37-38)

Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I say unto you I speak not from myself: but the Father abiding in me doeth his works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works-’ sake. (John 14:10-11)

(2) Thus, miracles are an integral part of the record which would become meaningless without the miracle. Remove, if possible, the account of miracle from the book of John and observe how much wasted breath is left in the controversies between Jesus and the Pharisees concerning miracles, which, according to the naturalists, He did not do. Most of Jesus-’ Sabbath Controversies had to do with miracles done on the Sabbath. Most of Jesus-’ most magnificent claims were made in agreement with and in company with some of His most astounding wonder-works. A clear case in point is given in Mark 2 (Matthew 9 and Luke 5) where a paralytic is lowered through the roof into the presence of Jesus and a congressional investigating committee. Jesus said simply, My son, your sins are forgiven. The scribes and Pharisees who were in the crowded house immediately considered this statement as blasphemy. Jesus answered their thoughts, Why do you question thus in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, -Your sins are forgiven-’; or to say -Rise, take up your pallet and walk? But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sinshe said to the paralyticI say unto you, Rise, take up your pallet and go home. And he did! We can conclude that (3) The miracles and the words of Christ are wonderful and perfect counterparts. Miracles do not make the claims of Jesus or His doctrines true, but they are the attestation of God that His claims are well-founded and His teaching God’S. The power of the miracle taken by itself does not assure me of the truthfulness of the claims set forth, or of the doctrines taught, alone, but of Him through whose instrumentality they are performed. May we conclude then that the primary purpose of the miraculous deeds recorded in scripture is to attest the revelation given as from God? This great salvation which is thus taught

having at the first been spoken through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard; God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders, and by manifold powers, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will. (Hebrews 2:3-4)

What was true of the Lord in those days was true in regard to His servants the apostles. The miracles also attested their message as from God. It was the miracles that made the disciples believe in Jesus, and they, in turn, made the world believe in Christ.

A secondary purpose of miracles (and it is clearly secondary) was to demonstrate the mercifulness of God in the case of individual men. The miracles illustrate and explain the teaching of Jesus on the love and mercy of God. It is one thing to hear Jesus talk; it is another thing to see Him in action. In the miracles, we see Christ dealing tenderly and yet majestically with our human lives and their sins and burdens and sorrows and fears. The apostles were no less spectacular in calling attention to God’s revelation.[6]

[6]. They had power to bless: healing sick (Acts 3:6-9); raising the dead (Acts 9:37-42; Acts 20:9-10); power to grant miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:14-17); power to curse (Acts 13:11).

A tertiary object of miraculous deeds was to wreak vengeance upon objects unworthy of God’s continued grace.[7] To the mind comes immediately Jesus-’ cursing the fig tree (Matthew 21:18-19), the blinding of Elymas (Acts 13:11), the sudden death of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:5; Acts 5:10). Bible miracles taught not only God’s love and goodness but also His power and authority, and sometimes His righteous and fearful judgments.

[7]. For Old Testament examples, consider the death of Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:6-7); Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10:1-2); the leprosy of Gehazi (2 Kings 5:27) and of Miriam (Numbers 12:9-14); the blindness of the Syrian band (2 Kings 6:18-20); the destruction of army (2 Kings 19:35).

A fourth purpose of God in the giving supernatural demonstrations of His presence among men is negative in nature: Miracles are not universal in nature. If they ever were or should ever become so, they would lose their value as deeds of a supernatural character for if universal, they would cease calling attention to God’s message and become the norm. Bible miracles were never either (1) universal in extent for they have always been limited to few and special cases. Never have they been used to relieve suffering or prolong this life for all of God’s people impartially. Some received no miraculous deliverance here, but a better resurrection for the life hereafter (Hebrews 11:35-40). John the Immerser, greatest of the prophets, worked no miracles, nor was he miraculously delivered from prison and death (Matthew 11:7-11; John 10:41). Jesus could have healed all the sick or raised all the dead. But He did not and would not. Many were healed by Paul, but Trophimus and Timothy were not (2 Timothy 4:20; 1 Timothy 5:23). A multitude of sick and afflicted lay by the pool at Jerusalem, but Jesus healed only one man (who did not know Him or ask Him to) and then hid Himself from the others. But later He sought the healed man again to teach him and to meet the debate which the Sabbath miracle had aroused with the Pharisees. Nor were the miracles (2) universal in their result: All who were delivered from sickness or affliction had other times to suffer and to die. All who were raised from the dead had to die again. Once and again Peter was delivered from prison and from persecutors but another time he was left to die, when God was no less compassionate and Peter was no less believing. So it was with Paul.[8]

[8] Seth Wilson, The Purpose of Miracles, Christian Standard, Nov. 2, 1957.

THE REALITY OF MIRACLES

We are standing on the battleground here where naturalism and supernaturalism meet and the war is not over. The question facing this age (and all ages, for that matter) which demands historical certitude, is the decision of the factuality of miracles. Indeed, the establishing of Christianity as a coherent system without historic foundation in supernatural fact can be the employment of some shadow-boxing theologians who make their living striving after wind but this cannot assuage grief, forgive sin, enable men to live in peace with each other, or prepare them for eternity, Let not him that girds on his armor boast himself as he that puts it off. The barrage begins: Intervention of a supernatural character within the universe is impossible because of

A, THE UNIFORMITY OF THE ORDERLY GOVERNMENT OF NATURE,

Miracles are antecedently possible. There can be no doubt that such a thing as a miracle is a reasonable possibility, whether we ever saw one, or believed that other men had seen one, or not. We cannot be dogmatic about what may have happened, or what can happen beyond our field of observation. It is objected that a miracle is a violation of law, or God, as He reveals Himself in nature. God, it is said, would contradict Himself if He did anything in another way. But this implies that we know all about God and His ways. Instead of that being so, how small a portion we have seen! The general uniformity of nature to which deniers of the miracles appeal is a blessing to man. It would be a terrible world in which to live if we could not count on the operation of gravity, of heat and cold, of summer and winter, of seedtime and harvest. But this uniformity is consistent with voluntary control, and therefore, for good and sufficient reasons, as the Bible tells us it has been, could be interrupted. When we speak of the uniform type of nature all we mean is that an effect is something produced by a cause, and that all the effects we see are produced by natural causes. But we have no right to conclude that therefore a miracle is impossible, for belief in miracles does not imply that an effect took place with no adequate cause, but that an effect was produced by the immediate act or will of God who ordinarily works through second causes, but sometimes, if the Bible be true, through an immediate act. Instead of being a denial of the law of cause and effect, a miracle is its highest illustration. A God who made a world and then shut Himself out of it so that He could never enter it again, never arrest, regulate, add to its laws of working, would be no God at all. He would be like a man who made a machine with whose law of operation he could never interfere. What we call interference, arresting or changing of laws may not really be such at all, but part of the great plan of God. To man it is a miracle, but not to God. True enough, nature seems to be working under a system of natural laws, which as far as scientific observation can tell, seem to be invariable in their application. But what are natural laws?

From scientific point of view, are they anything more than the way the phenomena of nature have been observed to happen within the time range of experience? The natural laws are not the forces themselves which they describe, but only the scientific formulation of the way in which the forces act. Natural laws are not to be confounded with the forces of nature which they describe. They have no control whatever over the forces themselves. Are these forces of nature eternal? They are only the power of God in action. If this is the cause, they are governed and controlled by God Himself. God is under no compulsory necessity to keep them uniform in their action. Now suppose it is part of God’s eternal plan that for some great purpose of His own He will intervene in these forces and cause a break in their uniformity and in variability. What is to prevent such an interruption from occurring? Nothing!. The only question that may arise is whether God desires the changes to occur. The question that becomes one merely of fact,. whether there is any evidence to show that He has intervened.. The fact of present uniformity of nature is no barrier whatever to the intervention of God in the past.[9]

[9] Hamilton, pp. 89, 90.

David Hume argues that miracles, as such, cannot occur:

A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the case, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined, and if so, it is an undeniable consequence that it cannot be surmounted by any proof whatever from testimony.[10]

[10] Wilbur Smith, The Supernaturalness of Christ, (Boston: The W. A. Wilde Co., 1968), pp. 142-150, 158.

Our question to him would be this: How do we get to know what the general experience of men in respect to the course of nature is? Our own personal experience, indeed, comes from personal observation, but, as we have just seen, our individual experience has little bearing on the case and for our knowledge of experience of men in general we have to depend on human testimony. So the whole force of the argument amounts to this: we must investigate the testimony of those who bear witness to the genuineness of the miracles of Jesus as having been performed before their own observation. The proof of miracles is based on testimony and when coming right down to the question at hand, it simply puts testimony against testimony: the testimony of those who were present and observed and affirmed what they sawthese miracles; and that of those who were not present and who declare that in all their experience they never saw such wonders wrought by anyone, David Hume’s notorious argument attempts to show that no amount of evidence can establish the truth of a miracle:

When the experience of millions of people can be said to contain nothing miraculous, that is, a raising of the dead, or the sudden stilling of a storm on the lake, then the testimony of one or three people to some such miraculous event must be considered definitely of no historical value, because the testimony of millions of other people has a greater power than the testimony of, say, two or three men, for convincing us of the actuality or nonactuality of some miracle.[11]

[11] Ibid., p. 145.

The fallacy of this argument is again exposed by the questions, Whose experience? Whose testimony? He starts by stating as fact something he cannot proveIf is a miracle that a dead man should come to life: because that has never been observed in any age or country.[12] In support of this he would have to prove the gospels historically untrustworthy and he does not attempt to do so. He admits that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish. If the testimony of the gospel writers concerning Jesus-’ miracles is falsethen their falsehood is indeed a greater miracle than the miracles which they describe. But this is mere logomachy.

[12] Ibid., p. 147.

He also argues that miracles are seen mostly among ignorant and barbarous nations. The people of Jesus-’ day can hardly be described in so sweeping and so hasty a generalization. It is based on too few samples of the class under investigation! He argues that if the event harmonizes with what men normally experience, it can be believed if the evidence is sufficient; but if contrary to man’s ordinary experience, it cannot be believed. If this is true, can there be such a thing as reporting advances in scientific research and discovery? I wonder if Hume would be so smug as to deny the unique experience of the American astronaut, his view, his reaction, his gathering of real though previously unknown facts. Ah yes, says the ghost of Hume, but millions of people the world around shared vicariously in the experience of the astronaut being informed of his actions every minute by radio and television. Tugging the coat-tail of the speculating spectre, we urge, Mr. Hume, this -vicarious experience,-’ as you call it, was shared by the millions because of the reliable, competent, sincere, honest testimony, but since nothing contrary to the general experience of millions of people can be admitted as having historical value on the basis of the testimony of a few, then the testimony of such a small segment of humanity cannot be admitted. Turn back over in your grave and we apologize for the intrusion. Concluding then, it is said that since natural laws have been determined by God, then He can never exercise His power in any way as to contradict these natural laws. But God is so omnipotent and omniscient that He has the right at any time to do anything He pleases, according to His will, whether it be exactly within the limits of WHAT WE CALL natural law or not. In our ignorance of many uncertainties involved in our universe we cannot dogmatize that God cannot work a miracle contrary to natural law without violating His own character.

B. IGNORANT AUTHORITARIANISM.

One reason why many educated men take a negative attitude toward the Bible miracles is because of pure ignorance of the actual content of the Bible itself, and especially of the evidence in support of its historicity. We should not be surprised at the ignorance when we remember the great lack of Bible study in the early training of university graduates. True enough, the study of all the evidence in support of the historicity of the Bible is a science in itself and requires diligent preparation as such.

But what is both surprising and reprehensible is to find an educated man who is an authority in some other line, setting himself up as an authority on Biblical criticism without having ever given more than the most cursory study to the subject beyond swallowing whole what some destructive critic, whose own opinions are based on naturalistic premises, says about the Bible.. The saddest part of it all is that such men, because of the respect and reputation which they have rightly gained in their own line of study, received a welcome hearing on the part of hundreds, to which hearing they are in no ways entitled, and lead many astray because their hearers think that they are speaking with equal authority about the Bible as when they. speak on subjects in their own line of study.[13]

[13] Hamilton, pp. 90, 91.

It may well be that some brilliant minds have read nothing but the distorted religious views of other ignorant religionists whose very teaching, not being founded in truth, become the very cause of all religion’s overthrow through the brilliant but mistaken writing of the mentally acute specialists in some other field.

Some would say, Supernatural intervention is very improbable because of

C. THE PROBABILITY OF FRAUD.

This philosophy makes the claim that Jesus got caught up in playing the part of Messiah and to keep this popularity maintained He hired people to play blind, lame, dumb, insane, or dead so He could appear to people to heal or raise them. They even claim that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead was a fixed job! Again we have the impossible dilemma of a supreme ethical teacher violating His own ethic (practicing deliberate fraud) in which case He is nothing but a bold, bare-faced liar; or we impugn the witnesses who testify to the veracity of His miracles which they did not, in fact, ever see. At this point we have to take a choice! We find it impossible to admire as divine a Christ about whom there is only falsified, or at best, deluded testimony. We cannot have our Christ and deny some of the history from which we originally learned about Him! Either we accept the witnesses as reliable and believe their testimony or else deny all of Christ and go write our own religion, for God has not spoken in human history clearly enough for all to hear. Still others would object to miracles on the basis of

D. THE PREVALENCE OF MYTH IN ANCIENT RECORDS.

This theory would suggest that many, many years after the original witnesses were passed off the scene, mythical accounts began to arise, clothing the historical Jesus with a garb of miraculous deeds about which He knew nothing. These myths became part of the later oral traditions which were collected and recorded in the late second and third centuries in essentially the form evolved in our current New Testaments. Thus, according to these theologians, it is our responsibility to extract these mythical elements from the ethics of the historical Jesus and in this way be able to accept Jesus without these hindrances to rational minds. The attempt to reduce the supernatural acts of Jesus to myth cannot command much attention because (1) If during His life Jesus worked no miracles, the insoluble problem arises how He came to be known as the Messiah by those who looked for a miracle-working Messiah. (2) On what grounds can it be successfully denied that Jesus claimed to work miracles? (3) Formation of myths takes time not historically available from Jesus-’ death to the earliest accounts of His earthly ministry. Recent critical research demands the writing of the original manuscripts of the witnesses well within the first century and not during the late second or early third centuries, as this theory demands. Other opponents of the supernatural miracles dismiss them as

E. THE DELUSION OF THE WITNESSES.

This is the idea that the apostles thought certain acts of Christ were miracles because they could not account for them by the natural causes which were hidden from them. Proponents of this theory claim that the miracles were made to appear as such by the influence of spiritual power on the nervous system or by medicine or secret remedies. The major fault of this theory lies in the failure to explain the acceptance of Jesus-’ enemies of the concrete and objective fact of the miracles. True enough, they did not accept the implications of the facts, but there was no denying the facts! Where is the medicine, magic, or influence of spiritual power which convinces centurions, high priests, Sadducees and those critical analysts, the Pharisees? These had everything to gain by denying the miracles; the apostles had nothing to gain by affirming them in face of death, privations, maltreatment of all varieties, and social stigmatization. And yet these enemies of Jesus, when they speak, are just as agreed that the miracles of Jesus are fact, as are those witnesses favorable to Him. Some suggest that miracles of healing were due to some practice of

F. AUTO-SUGGESTION.

The theory would explain healing miracles by the power of Christ’s mind acting upon the mind and then the body of the patient through a psycho-therapeutic idea. However,

It is the clear verdict of medical science that suggestion is incapable of removing any medical malady whatever and that its curative effects are restricted to functional disorders. Only what has come into existence through an idea can be removed by an idea.[14]

[14] Smith, Ibid., p. 133.

Jesus-’ healings were instant, not the result of extensive long-process treatment. Can men today instantly make a man walk who has been lame from his mother’s womb and open the eyes of one congenitally blind? Can medical science create new arms or legs precisely like the originals instantly for the maimed? This Jesus did. Jesus was unique in this ability.

G. EXTREME CREDULITY.

has been employed as a charge levelled against the age in which Christ worked, a time when all men looked for and believed in supernatural manifestations. Jesus-’ age was not any more an age of credulity than the age of our fathers. It was an age of genuine skepticism, True, they were deceived, worshipping gods that were non-existent, but what age has not done that? Study current news events and decide how rational creatures can be so gullible as to swallow the torrent of lies told by world communism. We cannot label any one age as a time of great credulity. The whole of the New Testament itself manifests an age of skepticism. Thomas doubted the resurrection and demanded an empirical basis for his faith. See Matthew 11:21-23 and John 8:46. Is it reasonable to say that the men who wrote the four gospels, that have amazed men down through the ages, were easy dupes whose minds were so childish and under-developed as not to be able to discern between astonishing feats and supernatural miracles? The charge reduced to its simplest form is this: the miracles, having been wrought or supposed to have been wrought in an age fond of believing such events, were received as real without the application of the tests by which their reality could be demonstrated. In other words, it is claimed that they were not worked under scientific conditions.

First, we remark that, whatever may have been the habit of the age in which Jesus and the Apostles lived with respect to miracles in general, and those of these men in particular, there was certainly a large class of persons, including the most acute and intelligent of the Jews, who most persistently refused to credit them; and these men were sufficient in number and in influence to check any disposition on the part of the masses to receive them without question. Second, we have a detailed account of the way in which the miracles were tested by this class of men, and by a comparison of that with which would be applied by scientific men of our own day, we can determine how much credence we should give to the assertion in question.[15]

[15] McGarvey; Ibid., p. 112.

The notable case in point is the healing of the man born blind by Jesus (John 9). The process of investigation, reduced to the simplest statement, was this: they first ascertained that the man could see; they next inquired what Jesus had done to him; and seeing that what He had done was only to put moistened clay on his eyes and require him to wash it off, they next inquired as to the certainty of his having been born blind, and they close this inquiry with the testimony of his parents.

Let us now suppose that, instead of the Pharisees who tested this miracle, it had been done by a commission composed of physiologists, physicians, chemists and persons experienced in historical criticism as is demanded by M. Renan. What advantage would they have had over the Pharisees in determining whether the man, when first brought before them, could see? It is clear that no knowledge of physiology, or chemistry, or medicine, or historical criticism, could help them in this. The most stupid. could settle the question at once by striking with his hand toward the man’s face and seeing whether he winked. When it was settled that the man could see and the question was raised, What had Jesus done to give his sight?, the commission would have an advantage over the Pharisees, in that they would know more certainly, on account of their scientific attainments, that merely putting clay on a blind man’s eyes and washing it off could not give him sight. Uneducated and superstitious men might imagine that the clay had some mystic power; but scientific man would know better. On this point of inquiry, then, the advantage would be with the commission, but the advantage would be in favor of the miracle. As to the next question, whether the man said to have thus received sight was born blind, what more conclusive testimony could the commission obtain, or what more could they wish, than, first, that of the neighbors who had known the man as a blind beggar; and, secondly, that of his own father and mother? Who, indeed, could be so good witnesses that a child was born blind as the father and mother for they always exhaust every possible means of testing the question before they yield to the sad conviction that their child is blind?[16]

[16] Ibid., pp. 112-114.

Obviously, in testing such a miracle there could be no use made of scientific knowledge; and the same is true of Jesus-’ miracles in general. The most unscientific men of common sense can know when a man is dead; when he is alive and active; when he has a high fever; is a cripple; is paralyzed, as well as the greatest scientist. The cry, then, that the miracles of the New Testament were not done under scientific conditions, is totally irrelevant, and can mislead only those who do not pause to think

Some moderns who have too much reverence (or too little, depending on your point of view) for the gospels to allow themselves to deny the miracles claim that those events in Jesus-’ life are not to be used for

H. TEACHING SPIRITUAL TRUTHS.

Rather, it is said, these narratives are to be given a spiritual interpretation. If these miracles did not take place, what did? The writers gave the impression that it was a distinct-’ and remarkable miracle and they knew that they were giving this impression.[17]

[17] See John 20:30-31; John 2:11; John 2:23; John 3:2; John 4:45; John 4:54; John 5:1-36.

RULES OF WAR

No matter how strong the evidence may be that the supernatural has occurred, since these scholars start with the premise that the supernatural can-’t occur, all evidence for its occurrence is ruled out of court without examination. Now I submit that even from a scientific point of view such a procedure is unwarranted. Questions of fact are not to be decided by any a priori principle laid down by any scientists, however erudite they may be! If facts and principles are at odds, so much the worse for the principles! The only thing we must be sure of is our facts. Facts are decided by evidence, and by evidence alone.[18]

[18] Hamilton, Ibid., p. 92

The only way we can decide whether or not God has given a revelation of Himself in human history, is by an examination of the evidence tending to show that such revelation has been given. Since the matter is one purely of fact and of fact alone, it can be decided by the evidence. If God has given a revelation, no amount of theorizing to the contrary can change the fact.

The force of human testimony depends on three things: first, the honesty of the witnesses; second, their competency; and third, their number.[19]

[19] McGarvey, op cit., p. 146.

That these qualities obtain in the witnesses of the miracles who record them for posterity is, in my opinion, demonstrated.[20] The writers of the gospels that record the miracles of Jesus did not consciously deceive or lie. These men were hard-headed, practical men who, even when Jesus was resurrected, had to be rebuked for their unwillingness to believe that He had, in point of fact, risen from the dead. Neither were the miraculous events that they record the kind that men readily imagine to have taken place. The writers of the gospels that picture Jesus as the miracle-working teacher were with Him day in and day out while Jesus walked the dusty trails of Palestine. There was nothing secret about His working of miracles. These men were competent to pronounce judgment upon the miracles. If they knew they were false, why should they declare them to be true fact, not merely supposed fact? What did they have to gain?

[20] See MacGarvey, Evidences, Part III, chapter XII, p. 146ff. Also Wilbur Smith, Therefore Stand, chapter VIII, especially p. 422ff.

All evidence of Christ’s miracles is contained in the New Testament. There can be no doubt as to the meaning of the evidence or _the nature of the events witnessed to. The men who wrote about these miracles are either deceivers or deceived or else telling the sober truth. If they were conscienceless fabricators, how was it that such men produced that picture of moral excellence before which all the ages have fallen down in the reverent admiration? How could men who lied about the facts of Christ’s life have produced so marvelous a character? Of this we can be sure, the men who relate the miracles of Jesus were not conscious deceivers and liars.

JESUS CLAIMED TO WORK MIRACLES

Jesus answered the disciples of John the Baptist:

Go and tell John the things which ye have seen and heard; the blind receive their sight, the lame walk. the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have good tidings preached to them. (Luke 19:22)

Earlier Jesus had said to the Jews:

But the witness which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father hath given me to accomplish, the very works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. And the Father that sent me, he hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his form. And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he sent, him ye believe not. Ye search the scriptures because ye think that in them ye have eternal life: and these are they which bear witness of me. (John 5:36-38)

Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works-’ sake. (John 14:11)

How can we believe in Jesus if we do not accept His own testimony that He worked miracles? People say that Jesus was the greatest of moral teachers of all time and His ethical standard amounts to absolute perfection. Some will even claim for Him that He lived His own supreme ethic which He taught! Yet how can they think this and still say He did not work miracles when He claimed to have done so? It gets down to the foundational question: Is Jesus telling us the truth when He claims to work miracles? Did Jesus lie or falsify His credentials? If we say that Jesus was somehow the world’s greatest teacher and yet was deluded into thinking He was working superhuman acts (when in fact He did no such thing) we have little more than a self-deceived imposter. There is no middle ground. Do we reject so easily Jesus-’ moral integrity, or His intellectual soundness?

PROBABILITY FACTORS

By examination of the gospels, the following reasons may be employed to prove to us that the miracles are the subject of adequate and reliable testimony:

A. THERE WERE MANY MIRACLES PERFORMED BEFORE THE PUBLIC EYE.

Jesus healed in the cities, at the busy corners, when surrounded by a mob, when speaking before multitudes in the open or in a house. They were for the most part not done in secret or seclusion or before a select few. Most of them were public property, as it were. There was every occasion and opportunity to investigate the miracle right there. Such clear, open, above-board activity is good evidence of the actual occurrence.

B. SOME MIRACLES WERE PERFORMED IN THE COMPANY OF UNBELIEVERS.

Miracles are always popping up in cults that believe in miracles. But when the critics are present the miracle does not seem to want to occur. But the presence of opposition or of critics had no influence on Jesus-’ power to perform miracles. More than once, right before the very eyes of His severest critics Jesus performed miracles. Now certainly, to be able to do the miraculous when surrounded by critics is a substantial token of their actual occurrence.

C. JESUS PERFORMED HIS MIRACLES OVER A PERIOD OF TIME AND IN GREAT VARIETY.

The imposter always has a limited repertoire and his miracles are sporadic in occurrence. Not so with Jesus. His miracles were performed all the time of His public ministry from the turning of water into wine in Cana to the raising of Lazarus. Further, He was not limited to any special type of miracle. Sometimes He showed supernatural powers of knowledge, such as knowing that Nathanael was hid in a fig tree; or He showed power over a great host of physical diseases: blindness, leprosy, paralysis, fever, demons, and death itself; or He was able to quell the elements at a command as He did in stilling the waves and the wind; or He could perform acts of sheer creation as when He fed thousands of people from very meager resources.

Imposture on this scale is impossible. The more times He healed, the moreimpossible it would be if He were an imposter. Further, it is incredible to think that for three and one-half years He maintained one consistent imposture. The number of miracles, their great variety, and their occurrence during all His public ministry are excellent evidence that Jesus actually performed the miracles the gospel writers record.

D. WE HAVE THE TESTIMONY OF THE CURED.

Many times when Jesus healed, it is recorded that the healed person went broadcasting far and wide that he had been healed, even in those cases where Jesus cautioned the person or persons against it. Certainly the report of His miracles found their way all through the hamlets and villages of Palestine. Consider too, that two of the gospels were written by men who were not eye witnesses, so available was the data of the life of Christ. Thus, part of the reason for the sudden and energetic growth of the church in Acts was the memory of the marvelous life and miracles of Jesus Christ. The result of the personal testimony of the many who were healed, as they spoke to their -loved ones, their relatives near and distant, and their townspeople, cannot be ignored in accounting for the great success of the preaching of the gospel in the book of Acts.

E. THE EVIDENCE FROM THE GOSPELS CANNOT BE UNDONE BY APPEALING TO THE PAGAN MIRACLES.

Miracles are believed in non-Christian religions because the religion is already believed, but in Biblical religion, miracles are part of the means of establishing the true religion. This distinction is of immense importance. Israel was brought into existence by a series of miracles; the law was given surrounded by supernatural wonders; and many of the prophets were so indicated as God’s spokesmen by their power to perform miracles; and the Apostles from time to time were able to work wonders. It was the miracle authenticating the religion at every point. Pagan miracles lack the dignity of Biblical miracles. They are frequently grotesque and done for very selfish reasons. They are seldom ethical or redemptive and stand in marked contrast to the chaste, ethical, and redemptive nature of the miracles of Christ. Nor do they have the genuine attention that Bible miracles have. Therefore, to examine some pagan miracles and show their great improbability, and then to reject all miracles on that ground is not fair to Biblical miracles or to the science of historical research,

THEREFORE?

Jesus from the commencement to the end of His public ministry wrought many miracles. Christianity claims to be a revelation from God confirmed and vindicated by mighty signs and wonders. The miracles are a strand woven into the fabric of the garment of Christ’s personality, and you cannot tear them out without destroying the fabric itself. THE ONLY CHRIST IS THE CHRIST WHO WALKED ON THE SEA, RAISED THE DISEASED TO HEALTH AND CALLED THE DEAD OUT OF THEIR DEATH CHAMBER!

Miracles form part of the foundation of our faith, being divine demonstrations witnessing to the origin of the message we have believed. But they are not part of the faith or part of its practice in the lives of obedient believers. The miracles wrought by the messengers of God while the faith was once for all delivered to the saints are still effective evidences to establish the truth and authority of that faith.[21]

[21] Wilson, Ibid.

Finally, whether we believe that miracles happen or not depends on our attitude toward historic testimony to their reality.

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God; and that believing ye might have life through His name. (John 20:30-31)

Matthew 9:1

Section 17 JESUS FREES THE GADARENE DEMONIACS

(Parallels: Mark 5:1-20; Luke 8:26-39)

TEXT: 8:28-9:1

And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, there met him two possessed with demons, coming forth out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man could pass by that way.

And behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

Now there was afar off from them a herd of many swine feeding.

And the demons besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, send us away into the herd of swine.

And he said unto them, Go. And they came out, and went into the swine: and behold, the whole herd rushed down the steep into the sea and perished in the waters.

And they that fed them fled; and went away into the city, and told everything, and what was befallen to them that they were possessed with demons.

And behold, all the city came out to meet Jesus: and when they-’ saw him, they besought Him that he would depart from their borders.

Matthew 9:1.

And he entered into a boat, and crossed over, and came into his own city.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

From the information given in this text in the-’ speeches of the demons themselves, what is revealed about their nature?

Why did the herd of pigs react so violently?

What is the value of the testimony of those who kept the swine in this incident?

Why should people, whose public enemies numbers one and two had been completely rehabilitated, request their Benefactor to leave? Why, do you think, did Jesus so meekly leave this territory -without actively opposing His expulsion? Could He not have reasoned with this superstitious populace and have gained thus entrance into the Decapolis?

Since it was apparently under Jesus-’ orders that the disciples took the boat back to Capernaum with Jesus on board, what does this indicate about Jesus-’ original desire to get away from Capernaum for awhile? (See Notes on Matthew 8:23) Did Jesus change His mind after He left Capernaum? If so, tell the sequence of events which may have led the Lord to decide to return to Capernaum instead of sailing further south on the east side or else landing on the western shore south of Capernaum.

Do you think that we have anything today similar to the demon-possession as described in the Bible? What is the basis for your conclusion?

Why do you suppose the demoniacs lived in the tombs?

Could these demons foretell the future? What makes you think so?

Explain why the men who tended the swine fled.

Do you think the following question is fair: If Jesus is truly just, why then did He permit this loss of property to the owners of the swine? If you think it is fairly stated, answer it; if not, show how it does not justly represent the situation involved. In this latter case, how would you rephrase the question and then answer it?

Why do you think the freed demoniac made the request that he did?

Can you give at least one reason why Jesus sent the man back to his own city to tell them what God had done for him?

How does Jesus-’ technique of sending the freed demoniac back to his own people in the Decapolis, harmonize with Jesus-’ own admission of the general proverb: A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and among his own people? (cf. Luke 4:24; Matthew 13:57)

From an objective reading of the three synoptic accounts of the demoniacs-’ approach to Jesus, can you decide whether the actions of these two are attributable to the influence of the demons or to the men themselves, as they struggle against the malign influence? For instance, what prompted them to worship Jesus? Would demons have been likely to worship Him? What makes you say so?

If you decide that the demons actually worshipped Jesus through the outward actions of these demoniacs under their influence, what may be learned regarding the respective positions of Jesus and the demons in relationship to each other?

If you decide that the men actually worshipped Jesus in a wild, desperate attempt to seek help in being rid of the demonic influence, then what may be deduced respecting the personal responsibility and control or freedom of anyone who is demon-possessed?

Some suggest that the demons chose to enter the swine with hatred for Jesus and planned to drive the hogs to destruction in a deliberate attempt to discredit Jesus before the local populace through the eradication of the swine herd. If so, could not Jesus have foreseen this and forestalled the consequent rejection by the townspeople? Do you think Jesus was gullible enough to let Himself be tricked by the demons?

Where do you think the ex-demoniacs found the clothes in which they were seen dressed, sitting at Jesus-’ feet, by the time the crowds from the town arrived? Considering their former manner of life under demonic control, their wild, naked existence, would they have been likely to have a suit packed away in one of the tombs? Where did the clothes come from?

Whose idea was it to make the plunge into the lake, the demons-’ or the hogs-’? Or was this the purpose of neither, hence, an accident?

If you conclude that the demons upon entering the swine had no intention of driving them into the lake, but rather deceived themselves into supposing a peaceful habitation in those animal bodies in order to postpone being hurried into the abyss, are the commentaries right in suggesting that the demons-’ succeeded in thwarting Jesus-’ further work among these people?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

Then, after the calming of the tempest, they arrived on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee (which is opposite the province of Galilee, as you look at it on the map), to the country whose chief Roman city is Jerash or Gerasa. Closer to the sea is the town of Gadara while Gergesa is located on the shore. All three towns have given their name to the territory. As Jesus came ashore, there met Him two demoniacs from the nearby city who were coming out of the tombs where they lived. For a long time they had worn no clothes and did not stay in a house at all. They were men in the grip of an unclean spirit. They were so violent that none dared use that road anymore. No one had yet been able to subdue them, not even chains could hold them. Many had been the times they had been secured with fetters and lengths of chains but they merely snapped the chains and broken the fetters to pieces and made off for solitary places. No one was able to do anything with them. And so, unceasingly, night and day, they would scream among the tombs and on the hills, gashing themselves with stones. When they saw Jesus in the distance, they ran and flung themselves down on their knees before Him and worshipped. (Jesus commanded the foul spirit, saying, Come out of him!) Then the demons began yelling at the top of their voices, What business have You here with us; what do You want of us, O Son of the most high God? Have You come here to torment us before the appointed time? For God’s sake, we beg of You, do not torture us! Jesus questioned him, What is your name? To this, the most prominent demoniac replied, My name is Legion, for there are many of us, for many demons had entered the men. The spirits begged and begged Jesus earnestly not to banish them from the country into the bottomless pit. In the distance on a hillside there was a large drove of hogs feeding. So the demons begged Jesus, Send us over to the pigs and we will take possession of them! So Jesus gave them permission, saying, Go! and the unclean spirits came out and went into the pigs. The whole herd of about two thousand head stampeded over the edge of the cliff and down the steep slope into the sea, where they were drowned. When the hog-feeders saw what had taken place, they took to their heels, and made for the town where they poured out the whole story, not forgetting the part about what had happened to the demoniacs. All over the countryside they told the news! Notice that the whole town came out to meet Jesus and to learn what it was that had happened. They saw Him and former demoniacs sitting at Jesus-’ feet clothed properly, and in full control of themselvesthe very ones who had had the legion of demons! The crowds were afraid. Those who had seen the incident told them what had happened to the demon-possessed men and about the tragedy of the pigs. Upon this all the inhabitants of the surrounding country near Jerash began to implore Jesus to get out of their neighborhood; for they were terrified. When Jesus was boarding the boat, one of the former demoniacs begged Jesus to let him go with Him but Jesus would not allow it but sent him away, saying, Go to your own home and friends and tell them how much God has done for you and how the Lord has had mercy on you. So the man went all over the town spreading the news of how much Jesus had done for him. He did this, in fact, throughout the Decapolis. Those who heard him were simply amazed. So, Jesus, boarded the boat and crossed over the lake to the other side and came to His own city of Capernaum.

SUMMARY

After the stilling of the tempest, perhaps even the same evening, Jesus and His disciples landed at Gergesa. They were met on the shore by two demoniacs who recognized Jesus for His divine authority. Jesus cast out the demons, giving them leave to enter a swine herd. The frightened swineherds alerted the local populace to come see what had happened. The superstitious folk unanimously begged Jesus to depart. The chief ex-demoniac pleaded to be permitted to accompany Him, but was sent home to testify to God’s goodness in his behalf.

NOTES

I. THE VIOLENT

Matthew 8:28 And when He was come to the other side of the Sea of Galilee following the stormy crossing, the events occur which follow. However, the time element is not clear since this event follows hard on the stilling of that tempest, which, in turn, took place after the disciples and Jesus set sail when evening had come (Mark 4:35) This phrase used by Mark (opsìas genoménes) must be interpreted according to context to determine just what time is meant, whether before or after sundown. (Arndt-Gingrich, 606) So, if the storm blew the disciples in an easterly direction, like the wind after the feeding of the five thousand (cf. John 6:17 with Mark 6:48), it would not be impossible for them to have arrived at Gerasene shore not too long before sunset, Thus, the freeing of the demoniacs possibly took place that evening. Rejected by the native population, Jesus and His disciples either slept in the boat for the return trip to Capernaum, or else slept on the beach where the local people found them the next morning and asked them to leave.

to the country of the Gadarenes. A quick survey of the parallel texts in various translations will reveal divergent names for this area. The Greek texts are not much more help, although there is a firmer consensus of opinion among the editors of Greek texts that Matthew’s original wording was Gadarenes while that of Mark and Luke was Gerasenes. This apparent confusion is due to the error of scribes, seeking to correct what was thought to be an error in an earlier manuscript, when they had the correct original reading in hand. The country of the Gadarenes is the political territory around Gadara, the chief city having jurisdiction over the land on the southeast side of the Sea of Galilee. This could certainly include the lesser town, Gergesa, a name also found in the manuscripts at this place. Gadara was one of the well-known cities of the great Decapolis city much farther away from the Galilean Sea to the south-east about 30 air-miles. Or, this latter name may be a pronunciation variant of the word Gergesa, found in the manuscripts. (See ISBE 1217b) Barnes (Matthew, 91) notes that these different names simply prove that the Evangelists are not deceivers, since, were they imposters attempting a hoax, they would have sought to agree! But their testimony is the more valuable, since this divergency demonstrates that these independent witnesses knew their land!

One fact stands out clearly: as will be seen from the map, the Arabic name Khersa or Kurseh clings to the ruins of a city mentioned by McGarvey (Lands, 328). At the southern side of the mouth of a deep ravine through the eastern mountains called Wady Samakh are to be found these remains. McGarvey describes the area:

Immediately south of (Khersa) rises a rocky mountain penetrated by tombs, which extends more than a mile along the lake-shore, at first leaving a plain more than a quarter of a mile wide between its base and the water’s edge, but finally projecting one of its spurs close to the shore. Here, as Captain Wilson has clearly shown, must be the place where the hogs into which the demons entered ran violently down a steep place into the sea. (Matthew 8:32) He says: About a mile south of this (Khersa), the hills, which everywhere else on the eastern side are recessed from a half to three-quarters of a mile from the water’s edge, approach within 40 feet of it; they do not terminate abruptly, but there is a steep, even slope, which we would identify with the -steep place-’ down which the herd of swine ran violently into the sea, and so were choked.. It is equally evident, on an examination of the ground, that there is only one place on that side where the herd of swine could have run down a steep place into the lake, the place mentioned above.

Angry, fear-filled eyes had been following the progress of the boat in which Jesus and the Apostles had crossed the Sea of Galilee. Apprehension grew in the two as the boat bearing the Son of God drew nearer and nearer the shore. As the Creator and Lord of heaven, earth and hell stepped ashore, the two watchers ran to accost Him. There met Him two possessed with demons, coming forth out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man could pass that way. See the Paraphrase-Harmony for the full description of their terrible case. Mark (Mark 5:6) intimates that from their home in the tombs, from a distance, the demoniacs had watched Jesus and the disciples disembark. Now they run to Him, fling themselves on the ground at His feet and worship. (Luke 8:28) Here is tragedy; these men belonged to the city (Luke 8:27), but they came out of the tombs.

Out of the tombs is probably not intended to suggest that the demoniacs became such by some league with the devil through communication or companionship with the dead, for Luke (Luke 8:27) states the natural antithesis of this abode thus; He lived not in a house, but in the tombs.

However, see Isaiah 65:4 which connects base idolatry with sitting in graves. Is there some connecting link between idolatry, necromancy and demon possession? The gods of the Gentiles are called demons. (See Deuteronomy 32:17; Psalms 106; Psalms 36-37; Revelation 9:20; 1 Corinthians 10:20-21) False religions are also connected with demons. (1 Timothy 4:1; 1 John 4:3-6; 2 Thessalonians 2:2-3; 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12; 1 Corinthians 12:10; Revelation 16:13-14; 1 Kings 22:22-23; Zechariah 13:2)

The hillside between the ruins of modern Khersa (Gergesa?) and the spur closest to the sea is literally studded with natural and hewn caves which were used as tombs. These two demoniacs were able from their shelter in the tombs to hinder passage along the road that followed the seacoast by rushing out screaming, terrorizing all who attempted to use the road.

Two possessed with demons. This alleged contradiction with Mark and Luke who mention only one demoniac is a simple difference in style of writing, since there are several cases where Matthew speaks of two persons or things in a given situation, while the other two Synoptic authors, in describing the same situation, mention only one. (See McGarvey, Evidences of Christianity, III, 57) Obviously, Mark and Luke mention only the more fierce of the two, while Matthew objectively describes the total picture. In addition, the other two authors do not affirm that there was only one demoniac; hence, there is no contradiction.

Demons. For fuller notes on Demons, see the special study Notes on Demon Possession by Seth Wilson in THE GOSPEL OF MARK by Johnson-DeWelt, pp. 509-513, with its selected bibliography. The very mention of demons brings us moderns to an immediate crisis of conscience: here before us are records that purport to be true, which includes the assertions that Jesus Christ talked with, and cast out of their human victims, certain spiritual beings of which there is very limited scientific knowledge today. Did Jesus really cast out demons?

Assuming the accounts which record this phenomenon are false, we can have no certain knowledge about Jesus, since there are no objective grounds whereby the accounts themselves can safely be excised from the total record without destroying the fabric of the whole testimony of each Evangelist that mentions Jesus-’ casting out of demons. Only the subjective presupposition that demons do not exist (a prejudice in itself) has been perilously offered. (See special study on miracles at the end of chapter nine.) Foster (syllabus in loc.) lists the following radical explanations offered by some:

The whole story is a myth. But there is just not time historically available for the development of the legend between the supposed occurrence of the facts and the writing of the record and its reception by hundreds of witnesses who both knew the facts and could testify to the contrary, were that necessary.

The freeing of the man from the demon and the people’s rejection of Jesus are true but the swine detail is a later, untrue addition. Again, there is no objective evidence, textual or otherwise, of any addition.

The demoniacs frightened the swine: thus the supposed transfer of the demons into the swine was imagined. But again Jesus-’ own words are proof against this: He permitted the demons to go. Nor is there any evidence that the demons left the men with such a paroxysm so great as to scare the hogs.

The drowning of the swine and the casting out of the demons are simultaneous events with no connection between them. However the inspired Apostles record the connection, for they were eyewitnesses and could not confuse hearsay reports about the two events.

The demons were just mentally insane, whom Jesus humored by granting permission to imaginary demons to enter the swine, giving rise to the fable of the demons entering the swine so producing their destruction. Explain, please, the two thousand dead hogs bobbing up and down in the water.

Thus we are compelled to reject not merely the objectionable parts of the narrative that do not suit our preconceptions, but rather the narrative in its totality, since there is no sure method whereby we can safely reject one part of the eyewitness-’ testimony and accept any other part. Further, we must admit that the record is free from the influence of popular Jewish ideas. Edersheim (Life, I, 480-485, also Vol. II and appendix XIII, p. 748-763 and appendix XVI, 770-776) demonstrates that it is not merely deceiving, but totally untrue to assert that these reports are tainted with the ideas prevalent in that superstitious age. These reports are just as different from the ideas that Judaism expressed on demons and demon possession as the difference between empty superstition and what is sober, credible history. (See also ISBE article, 828, 829.) We are driven to:

Assume the accounts which contain the reports of demon possession and the casting out of demons are true, But even the assumption that the accounts are true, does not free us from responsibility to weigh carefully this evidence. For:

Either Jesus did not know demons did not exist.

In this case He was Himself deceived, for He actually thought He was casting them out, which, in fact, He never did.

And He is as ignorant and superstitious as the people He pretended to teach and help.

Or else Jesus knew that demons did not exist.

In this case He is a conscious deceiver, since He continually went through the motions of casting out demons, encouraged His disciples to believe that they too had the power to do the same (Matthew 10:8); scolded them for their failure to do so (Matthew 17:14-21). He Himself claimed to cast them out and gave God thanks for this power (Luke 10:17-18; Luke 10:21) as well as argued on the basis of the actual fact, not the hypothesis, that He had so done. (Matthew 12:27-29)

Even a theory that describes Jesus as accommodating Himself to the popular superstitions of the day, in order to deal with what modern scientific knowledge would term an unbalanced mental condition, manias, insanity, etc. leaves Jesus under the morally fatal charge of deception, by permitting even His closest disciples to remain under the old delusion. He is hereby to be charged with withholding vital information from us on so important a subject in the modern period.

Or else Jesus knew that demons exist and dealt with them accordingly.

But Jesus did not treat demoniacs as merely sick, nor demons themselves as another disease, although when the demons were gone out of their victims, who had shown also characteristics of disease, the demoniacs were well.

Nor did Jesus treat demons as mere sins. There is no evidence that He regarded demoniacs as particularly guilty, beyond other sinners.

However, Edersheim (Life, I, 481) argues that there is no evidence for permanent possession or that the demonized were under constant power of the demon. An illustration of this is the impression of a sudden influence in the demoniac in the Capernaum synagogue as if occasioned by the demon’s reacting to the spiritual effect of the words or Person of Jesus (Mark 1:21-28). Consider also the epileptic demonized boy (Matthew 17:14-21; Mark 9:14-29, esp. Mark 9:18; Luke 9:39). The boy was possessed from childhood (Mark 9:21). Accordingly, says Edersheim (op cit., 484), this fact establishes a moral element, since, during the period of their temporary liberty, the demonized might have shaken themselves free from the overshadowing power, or sought release from it. Is Jesus discussing demonology when He taught that when the unclean spirit has gone out of a man, he passes through waterless places seeking rest, but finds none, whereupon he returns with seven other spirits more evil than himself? (Matthew 12:43 f)

Jesus dealt with demons as spirits who inhabited the body and governed the mind of human beings. He addressed them as evil visitors from the spirit world whose malignant control over those made in God’s image roused His indignation and sympathy.

There met him two demoniacs, but Jesus saw them as men:

Violently antisocial: they lived not in a house but in the tombs, fierce, night and day among the tombs and on the mountains, driven by the demon into the desert.

Indomitable: None could bind him any more with fetters and chains, no one had the strength to subdue him,

Extremely tormented to the point of brutal self-abuse: he was always crying out and bruising himself with stones,

Unclean spirit (Mark 5:2) Up to this point one might have pointed to natural mania or some other violent insanity. Here the line is sharply drawn, for the man was the vile home of other personalities who were destroying him.

There met him two demoniacs, and Jesus met them. He stood His ground calmly while the fiercest, wildest beings alive ran, screaming toward Him. He had earlier been charged by the Pharisees with being the very incarnation of Satan’s power, but now is the moment of truth as He stands calmly awaiting the most terrifying conflict with naked evil, What thoughts race through the minds of the disciples as these frightening figures rush toward their Master? The Apostles-’ worst nightmare was occurring in broad daylight. They probably did not run because Jesus did not. When Jesus is in this thing, we are not to panic regardless of the danger or fear we feel! The Pharisees had snarled that Jesus had some secret agreement with the Devil. This calumny is about to be brought to its most startling test.

II. THE VANQUISHED

The two demoniacs ran and worshipped Him (Mark 5:6). But why? Who really did this: the demons or the men themselves?

a. If the demons worshipped Jesus, then out of what motives?

(1)

Recognition of their real Master, greater than Satan, and their final Judge for eternity? (See on Matthew 8:29)

(2)

McGarvey (Matthew-Mark, 289) supposed two malignant purposes:

(a)

The demons perhaps used cunning flattery and fawning to dissuade Jesus from casting them into the abyss;

(b)

By pretending friendship between themselves and Jesus, they could hope maliciously to injure His cause, and show thereby that the wicked calumny of the Pharisees was true.

If the men worshipped Jesus, then this could be seen as a desperate bid for freedom against the awful possession which seemed unending. But, how could two mere men recognize in Jesus the potential Savior when they terrorized all others who passed that way? Or, did Jesus-’ personal calm tame their habitual fierceness by showing them a reaction never before experienced, and in their surprise they are reduced to abject submission? Did Jesus-’ moral courage temporarily restrain the demons, giving their victims opportunity to express themselves thus? Could it be that the demons-’ fear of God’s Son was communicated to the harried minds of their victims?

In this same general connection, it will be seen in the Gospel narratives several apparently contradictory elements in the speech of the demoniacs, both in frequent changes from singular to plural and vice versa as well as changes from the man who seems to be speaking, to the demons who use the man’s voice to speak their will. Edersheim (Life, I, 608f.) deals with these phenomena thus:

In calling attention to this and similar particulars, we repeat that this must be kept in view as characteristic of the demonized, that they were incapable of separating their own consciousness and ideas from the influence of the demon, their own identity being merged, and to that extent, lost, in that of their tormentors. The language and conduct of the demonized, whether seemingly his own, or that of the demons who influenced him, must always be regarded as a mixture of the Jewish-human and the demoniacal. The demonized speaks and acts as a Jew under the control of a demon. Thus, if he chooses solitary places by day and tombs by night, it is not that demons really preferred such habitations but that the Jews imagined it, and that the demons, acting on the existing consciousness, would lead him, in accordance with his preconceived notions, to select such places. The demonized would speak and act in accordance with his previous (Jewish) demonological ideas. He would not become a new man, but be the old man, only under the influence of the demon.

This note argues the difficulty of deciding whether the men themselves worshipped Jesus or whether it were the demons, since their self-identity was lost in that of the other. As Mark (Mark 5:9) and Luke (Luke 8:30) say, Jesus endeavored to bring out the slightest possible trace of the demonized men’s self-identity, but the answer reveals the depth of the confusion of the man’s consciousness with that of the demons.

Matthew 8:29 And behold they cried out, What have we to do with thee thou Son of God? The report of Mark and Luke includes Jesus-’ personal name and describes God as the Most High God, Plummer (Luke, 229) believes that this expression as a description of God given by the demons, rather indicates that the man was not a Jew, and there is some evidence the owners of the swine were not Jews, The Most High-’ (Elyon) is a name for Jehovah which seems to be usual among heathen nations, His references cited are Genesis 14:20; Genesis 14:22; Numbers 24:16; Micah 6:6; Isaiah 14:14; Daniel 3:26; Daniel 4:2; Daniel 4:24; Daniel 4:32; Daniel 5:18; Daniel 5:21; Daniel 7:18; Daniel 7:22; Daniel 7:25; Daniel 7:27; Acts 16:17. However, some of these are statements by Daniel not necessarily directed to heathens or spoken even for Gentile ears, even though stated within a Babylonian context, as Plummer notes. Further, see Stephen’s thoroughly Jewish sermon, (Acts 7:48) and many other undoubted Jewish references in the OT (Psalms 7:17; Psalms 78:35; Deuteronomy 32:8; 2 Samuel 22:14 etc.) Thus, the demoniacs could well have been very Jewish indeed.

Jesus, thou Son of God. It is remarkable that these denizens of hell refer to Jesus in terms totally contrasting with the common Jewish expectations regarding the Messiah. (See additional references to Jewish views made by Edersheim at Matthew 8:28 under A.) Further, they use terms that even Jesus had not publicized as often as His use of the title Son of man, even though He accepted and used the term Son of God as true concerning Himself on other occasions. This fact immediately gives the lie to the possibility that these anachronistic terms were mythologically originated or else derived from supposed Jewish parallels. The point is that these demons, then, really did know Jesus! (cf. Mark 1:24) They, however, are not the proper witnesses by which Jesus would have His identity proclaimed, even though these supernatural voices from the spirit-world provide corroboratory testimony.

What have we to do with thee, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time? Here the personal testimony of the demons clarifies the true relationship between themselves and Jesus, and, at the same time, shows that they recognized Jesus-’ authority above that of Satan:

By their cries to be let alone. But, let alone to do what? They preferred their past course to be far better than any temporary or permanent judgment Jesus would bring.

By their denial of all connection with Jesus: What have we to do with thee? (Tí hemîn kaì soí) means what do we have in common? What is there between us that unites us in a common bond? Nothing! (See other examples: 2 Samuel 16:10; John 2:4) Here the demons implicitly declare the total lack of connection between Jesus and themselves. Now none could make the mistake of supposing that Jesus casts out demons with Satan’s blessing and aid.

By their expressed understanding that He had the right to cast them into abyss. Have you come here to torment us before the time? There is no question in their minds about the torment: for them it is but a question of timing. It is a fair question whether this pained question by the demons, which is reported by Mark and Luke as an earnest pleading and, ironically, an adjuration by God, be further illuminated by the demons-’ later entreaty not to command them to depart into the abyss (Luke). That is, are these latter requests an expression of the demons-’ understanding of the meaning of the torment feared? The time referred to can be no other than God’s final vindication of His wrath against all rebellion in His creation. (cf. Matthew 25:41; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6; Revelation 12:12.) They are sure of the torment. (cf. Luke 16:23; Luke 16:25; Luke 16:28; Revelation 14:10-11; Revelation 20:10)

This adjuration, I adjure you by God, do not torment me. (Mark 5:7 b) probably represents the desire of the demons, but expressed in the conscious thought-form of the Jewish speakers, since the men are so confusedly identified with them. (For similar form of adjuration see Matthew 26:63. For an example of exorcism by use of this same formula, see Acts 19:13.)

The abyss (Luke 8:31) is a figure used in the OT for ocean depths (Psalms 33:7; Psalms 77:16; Psalms 107:26) or even deep fountains (Deuteronomy 8:7) which gives the figurative picture of anything deep out of which immediate or easy escape or access is impossible. Thus, by the time of the NT period, it became a figure of the depths, of the underworld, in the sense of the abode of the dead (Romans 10:7); the dungeon where the devil is kept (Revelation 20:3), abode of the beast (Revelation 11:7; Revelation 17:8), of Abaddon (Revelation 9:11). But in Revelation the abyss denotes only the abode of evil spirits, although not the place of final punishment, since it is apparently distinguished from the lake of fire and brimstone wherein the beast and false prophet are thrown alive and into which the Devil is to be finally cast (Revelation 19:20; Revelation 20:10). (See ISBE, article abyss, 26, 27; Arndt-Gingrich, 2)

Out of the country (éxõ tçs chóras) may be the antithesis in the demons-’ mind with do not send us into the abyss, meaning do not send us out of the district of this earth into the abyss, But this phrase is also perfectly consonant with the confusion, in the demonized wretches, of their interests with those of the demons: he does not wish to leave his home country to be sent into the unknown. Edersheim (Life, I, 612) supposes this means that the demons desired to remain in Gilead too, and gained their purpose through the permission to go into the hogs. But the destruction of the hogs frustrated this, although it is left unknown whether the demons yet had to go into the abyss or were left wandering homeless throughout the Decapolis.

By their overt acts of worship, the demons vigorously expressed their recognition of Jesus-’ authority. This focuses more clearly an answer to an earlier question: who worshipped Jesusthe demons or the men? Perhaps both, but certainly it is the demons that expect the final triumph of Christ!

By their implicit knowledge that it was useless for them to fight or flee, though they were an obvious numerical majority, while He was only One against a Legion. Though they had easily overpowered humans and terrorized the countryside, they stood calmly bowed before Jesus of Nazareth, knowing that their only respite could be gained through parley.

By their parleying for another place of abode, in place of banishment to the abyss, they reveal the almost certain knowledge that He could and would cast them out. This is more than insanity: this supernatural knowledge comes out of the spirit world.

This protest shouted by the demons is the expressed admission that the demons themselves stand in the presence of God’s Holy One, before Whom all the powers of moral destruction cannot hold their peace: they must speak and confess their subjection and doom. It is unnecessary for Jesus to discuss or debate with these evil spirits. It is sufficient for them that Jesus is the Christ: He had already won the victory. Now it was merely a question of what to do with the captives! James-’ words (Matthew 2:19) ring true: The demons believeand shudder! In another connection McGarvey comments: Let the sinner listen to that cry and learn what is to be under the domination of Satan.

At this point, Mark and Luke report that Jesus asked the principle demoniac, What is your name? His answer was: My name is Legion; for we are many, for many demons had entered him. Note the changes from singular to plural. Legion: There is no necessary connection between the usual size of a Roman legion, 4000-5000 men, and the actual number of demons in the two demoniacs. Edersheim (Life, I, 612) offers as a suitable translation of Legion a purely Jewish expression representing a large number, an idea more general than, strictly, a Roman legion. Who answered therefore, the man speaking for himself or the demons? Probably the demons spoke, still being in control, since it was not until they were ejected that that man’s own rationality returns, showing itself in reasonable speech. (Mark 5:18-20; Luke 8:38-39) But why did Jesus ask the man his name?

Perhaps Jesus was trying to draw out of the human being himself all the human identification He could possibly reach. Had this demoniac so completely lost his original identity with his family and the society from which he had come, that, as far as he was concerned, his own true name was completely blotted out from his disordered existence? If so, it is because he must see that he is a person, once free from, and even now not permanently bound to, the demons.

Perhaps to reveal the name of the demons to His Apostles. But if so, for what future purpose? Was it to expose the demons-’ vulnerability to His men, who would later cast them out? If so, these disciples must learn that even the fiercest of these spirits from the unseen world, however strong or numerous they may be, they are all subject to Jesus-’ world and to those who stand against the demons in Jesus-’ name!

Plummer (Matthew, 134), placing emphasis upon Jesus-’ human nature, suggests that He asked him for information, since Jesus may have chosen not to know by supernatural insight. If so, this question becomes another manifestation of the historical dependability of the narrative, since it would seem to imply some ignorance (even though willed) on the part of Christ, which the Evangelists, on the basis of apologetic motives, would have sought to remove. Any sharp-eyed critic can see the scandalous character that would be pictured for Jesus among those who do not understand His unique incarnation.

Matthew 8:30 Now there was afar off from them a herd of many swine feeding. Two thousand head of swine (Mark 5:13) were feeding on the hill overlooking the Sea of Galilee about a mile south of modern Khersa. (See map of the Sea and notes on Matthew 8:28) But what were so many pigs doing in Jewish country? But that is just the point: this was not merely Jewish territory, but rather the sub-territories of the famous independent cities of the Greek Decapolis. (Mark 5:20) It may well be that that herd of swine represents Greek contempt for Jewish prejudices. Yet, since this event occurred within the tetrarchy of Philip, the owners of these swine could well be Jews, seeking profits from Gentile purchasers. They could have justified themselves, whining, But we don-’t eat the stuff! We just grow the hogs and sell the pork to the heathen neighbors!

Matthew 8:31 And the demons besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, send us away into the herd of swine. If thou cast us out is no expression of doubt, since Jesus had commanded the unclean spirit to depart (Mark 5:8; Luke 8:29). It is rather a dickering device, whereby the demons can escape their worst fears and yet hope to pacify Jesus. They did not instantly obey Jesus-’ command, since they began to protest and barter instead of leaving. This fact, too, demonstrates the trustworthiness of the record, since the Apostles would probably have tried to cover up the obvious disobedience to Jesus-’ commands.

Send us into the swine. Why did they make this strange request? Several answers are possible:

They did not ask to be sent into other humans, Such a request would be self-defeating, as they would only be cast out again.

They apparently did not wish to remain disembodied. (cf. Matthew 12:43-45). If so, this suggests their inability to read the future, since they probably would not have made this request had they been able to foresee the outcome that ensued. Desperate to have a home, any home but the abyss, they seized upon those brute beasts which they probably must have surmised to be less precious to Jesus.

It might be that they requested this with malicious intent, surmising, from the damage that they had been able to do while inhabiting the two humans, that they could turn the swine into savage beasts, hence, damage Jesus-’ reputation. It would thereby appear that this Benefactor brings no unmixed blessings.

To any who would reject any of these reasons on the basis of the fact that the demons, in driving the herd into the sea, defeated their own supposed purpose, let it be noticed that nowhere is it stated that the demons drove the herd anywhere. What we see in the hogs-’ action is THEIR decision, not that of the demons! If it be asked why the demons, who had so obviously taken men under control, could not have prevented the swine from destroying themselves, thus disembodying the demons again, it might be suggested that the demons could not control these beasts without as much intelligence or will power as men. The hogs turned savagely wild, ran the easiest direction i.e. downhill and the herd found the lake in its path and could neither turn nor stop.

Matthew 8:32 And he said unto them, Go. And they came out and went into the swine: and behold, the whole herd rushed down the steep into the sea, and perished in the waters. Down the steep slope that fell away toward the road that skirted the seacoast. For a description of the land, see on Matthew 8:28 and ISBE, 1166a. This was not necessarily a sheer precipice, as some artists draw it. Mark notes that the herd numbered about two thousand. There is no necessary connection between the number of demons i.e. Legion Roman legion of 4000-5000 men, and the size of the herd. Actually, just a few wild hogs could stampede the whole herd. There is no need to seek a harmony between 2000 hogs and 4000 demons, since no Gospel writer affirms the latter figure.

And he said to them, Go. Whether this word be construed as mere permission or as a repeated command (cf. Mark 5:8 and Luke 8:29), by its use Jesus unleashed the demons to go their chosen path. But by the same word, Jesus unleashed another storm of controversy among modern scholars about His right to say it. The moral problem, it is said, lies around the question: How could Jesus allow this destruction of personal property which did not belong to Him? How could Jesus have permitted the demons to have what they requested without becoming also morally responsible for the damage that was produced? Several answers have been suggested:

If evil blinds its victims to hinder them from considering all possibilities in a real world, could the demons have foreseen the reaction of the hogs, that, finding themselves in the fearful grip of this horrible power, rushed around in wild panic until, against the will of the demons, they plunged further and more wildly down the hill to their destruction? Thus, the demons, victims themselves of the deception of evil, had not foreseen the frustration of their desire, as Jesus could well have planned.

Would Jesus, thus, have been so short-sighted and gullible as to have accepted so apparently benign and harmless a plan as the demons proposed? Did He not, rather, foresee both the destruction of the herd and the frustration of the demons? Otherwise, would He not have simply demanded the immediate passage of the demons into the abyss? As it is, He accomplishes a double purpose of His own, presuming that His permission was a judgment upon the swine owners too. If these latter were Jews, then they were violating the spirit of Moses-’ Law in keeping swine, (See Leviticus 11:7-8; Isaiah 65:3-5; Isaiah 66:3; Isaiah 66:17) Jesus-’ permission to destroy the herd becomes to them a shocking reminder of duty to God.

Another suggestion describes Jesus-’ permission as like God’s general permission of all evil and all evils till the end of all evil. God permits tornadoes, floods, animal diseases and other natural disasters to destroy herds or portions thereof every year. Hence these owners had no more right to complain than other owners who lose animals to whatever cause.

Others say that, as Creator of the universe, Jesus had a right to do what He wished with His own. The local owners of the swine were but temporary stewards of their possessions, whereas the Owner of the world suddenly chose to liquidate His swine holdings. What is so unusual about this act of God incarnate? (See Psalms 50:10-12) Is it not He who gives and He who takes away, in order that thereby He may bless His children? (Study Job 1:21-22) Why should He not decide to destroy the man’s herd of hogs in order to give him a brother for whom to care? Plummer is right in saying (Matthew, 133), Brutes and private property may be sacrificed where the sanity and safety of human beings is concerned. The slaughter of these brute beasts, were it personally willed by Jesus Himself (of which there is, of course, no proof), is of no relative importance compared with the saving of the souls of two men! As God, Jesus could dispose of His own possessions as He choose, and what human subject could object?

Those who see a real moral difficulty here and thereby endeavor to reduce Jesus to a mere man, face the equally great difficulty involved in succeeding. For if they can reduce Jesus to a mere man, He could not have foreseen this destruction and cannot be blamed anyway! Thus, the answer to the apparent dilemma lies elsewhere.

Trench (Miracles, 102) suggests an interesting principle that is worth studying:

To the evil all things turn to evil. The wicked Satan (Job 1:11) and his ministers are sometimes heard, and the very granting of their petitions issues in their worst confusion and loss. (Numbers 22:20; Numbers 22:35; Joshua 13:22; Psalms 78:29-31) So it is now: the prayer of these evil spirits was heard but only to their ruin. They are allowed to enter the swine; but the destruction of the whole herd follows. they defeated their own purpose. there reveals itself here the very essence and truest character of evil, which evermore outwits and defeats itself.. In seeking applications of this principle, it would be well to be aware of the fact that not all evil turns to evil immediately. Some evil men seem to succeed to turning all things to good during their lifetime. (cf. Job 21) These inequities will, however, be rectified at the judgment.

III. THE VILLAGERS

Matthew 8:33 And they that fed them fled, and went away into the city. If our identification of the site of Gerasa, or Gergesa, as the location of the steep place is correct, then the herdsmen had about a mile to run. But why flee? What reaction is more natural, when the herd you are watching as it calmly roots or rests, suddenly begins to squeal and bellow, then rushes headlong down the slope into the lake below? You can give no normal explanation for this mad dash of the drowned herd now only so many corpses floating at the shore. You were charged with the safe care of this valuable herd. Why not run? But why flee to the town to shout the news of the herd’s destruction? Who would believe the fantastic story about Jesus and the demoniacs?

They fled out of fear of the unknown: What had really caused the inexplicable actions of the hogs? Were they demonized? If there were spirits in the neighborhood, it is best to leave the place!

Fear of the consequences to the swineherds themselves if other mouths brought the owner word. It is better to tell it yourself than let him find out about it himself: he could hold you liable and punish severely.

But the swineherds were also eyewitnesses of the whole event. They had seen the whole proceeding. The still air of the quiet countryside had been pierced by the shrieks of the demoniacs as they approached Jesus, drawing also the interest and attention of these swineherds. So they told everything and what was befallen to them that were possessed with demons. It was this message about the casting out of the demons that was foremost upon their lips as they rushed through the town shouting the news, It was the one fact that would lend credibility to their story about the swine.

Matthew 8:34 And behold, all the city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw him, they besought him that he would depart from their borders. All the city means the majority of its inhabitants, as we say, Everybody and his dog was there, although we never mean the absolute totality of any population. The people had come:

to meet Jesus, because the swineherds had testified that it was Jesus that had cast out the demons. There could be no doubt that He possessed unlimited, supreme power.

to see what it was that had happened. (Mark 5:14 b) This was for these citizens a time of severe testing even though they probably did not realize it.

To the demoniacs. The very fact, that these their own fellow citizens had been delivered from Satan’s bondage, should have signaled beyond doubt to the gathered crowd that God’s Kingdom had suddenly come among them. (cf. Matthew 12:28 and Acts 14:8-13 for a true pagan reaction) They were being tested whether they would hold all else cheap in comparison to the victory and joy at the release of two human beings, God’s creatures and their townsmen. Was it to be nothing to them that the former demoniacs now freed, were sitting at Jesus-’ feet, clothed and in their right mind?

The expression in his right mind certainly implies that the demoniacs had been insane, which is correct. McGarvey (Matthew-Mark, 292) comments wisely: This detracts nothing from the reality of demon possession; it only shows that the presence of the foreign spirit within a man disturbed, as from the nature of the case it must, the normal workings of his own spirit.

And to the swine. The corpses bobbing up and down in the lake gave tangibility to the story told by the swineherds, who according to Mark and Luke, undoubtedly repeated their testimony to all comers.

**And when they saw Jesus, they besought him that he would depart from their borders. **They knew that He could not be treated indifferently nor safely ignored: they must decide. They chose to ask Him to leave! Why?

Did they fear the loss of more property? Was it that they considered the loss of only two thousand hogs of more importance than the restoration of two men to useful life as citizens of their town? If so, what a horrid warped sense of values! Can it be that they would hold fast to the most forbidden sins, the most despicable life and the most perishable property, rather than rejoice in the presence of Jesus and the happiness, peace and blessing He brings?

Luke (Luke 8:37; cf. Mark 5:15; Luke 8:35) emphasizes the depth of their fear: (they) asked him to depart from them; for they were seized with great fear. (Study Luke 5:8; Luke 8:25 for similar responses.) These sinners, when they had sized up the whole picture of Jesus, the freed demoniacs, the dead swine, they realized they were standing in the presence of naked super-naturalism, in the presence of sheer otherworld power. They stood on the battlefield of a spiritual-world and it unnerved them. These sinners stood in the presence of Jesus, the Holy One, the Son of the Most High God. But their gross ignorance of His mission of mercy and help to earth hindered them from understanding God’s power and holiness. They found God’s holiness incarnate, standing in their presence, intolerable, so they asked Jesus to leave. What other consequences would follow in their lives if He were allowed to remain? If illegal hogs could be destroyed in a flash, what would He do in their personal lives? Would they too soon be visited for their own many sins? Their own fear and guilt is the pain of their sinfulness in the presence of God’s holiness, and it blinds them to God’s mercy. (Cf. Job 21:14 where the same words reflect not so much fear as rebellion.) Perhaps the only reason none dare present Jesus with a bill for the payment for the destroyed swine is both secret acknowledgement of His right to have destroyed the animals and fear to admit the ownership of the illegal animals. Besides their suspicions, and proof He did it was circumstantial. Only the swineherds had seen the facts but perhaps had not heard the direct connection between Jesus-’ permission to the demons and the destruction of the hogs.

Plummer (Matthew, 134) points out that this request of the inhabitants is a guarantee for the general trustworthiness of the narrative. Fiction would have made the inhabitants anxious to detain Him that He might work other wonderful cures, where He was regarded, not as a dangerous magician, but as a great prophet,,. .

IV. THE VALIANT

Mark and Luke narrate the anxious clinging of the freed demoniac to Jesus, Just as Jesus was boarding the boat to depart, the man begged Him that he might accompany Him. Here occurs one of the starkest lessons of discipleship: Jesus refused his request, even though so natural and apparently so needful, Why did Jesus do it? Edersheim (Life, I, 614). puts it so poignantly:

It would have seemed to him, as if he could not bear to lose his new found happiness; as if there were calm, safety and happiness only in His Presence; not far from Himnot among those wild mountains and yet wilder men. Why should he be driven from His fellowship, who had so long been an outcast from that of his fellow-men, and why again left to himself? So, perhaps, should we have reasoned and spoken; so too often do we reason and speak, as regards ourselves or those we love. Not so He Who appoints alike our discipline and our work. To go back, now healed, to his own, and publish there, in the citynay, through the whole of the large district of the.. Decapolishow great things Jesus had done for him, such was henceforth to be his life-work. In this there would be both safety and happiness.

All of his fear, that the demons, in the absence of Jesus their Master, might return to repossess their former victims, then, diminishes in the man’s confidence that Jesus-’ command to return home has become his assurance that Jesus-’ authority is complete. The demons will not return: he is safe even with Jesus gone. So long as the man is engaged in this mission on which Jesus sends him, his safety is guaranteed. If he fears the unfriendly populace which had rejected his Savior, then Jesus-’ command to evangelize them, to take the offensive, is his best defense. If his desire is to accompany Jesus as a close disciple out of deep gratitude for his salvation, Jesus indicates the direction his discipleship and gratitude must take: Go home to your friends, and tell them how much the Lord God has done for you and how He has had mercy on you. (Mark 5:19; Luke 8:39)

Note that both Evangelists record that the man did go home and told how much JESUS had done for him. The theological connections between God and Jesus might not have been crystal clear to the man yet, but he could speak in concrete terms about the power of Jesus. Contrast this commission given by Jesus to this ex-demoniac to go tell what God had done for him, with the injunctions to silence given to others:

This area is not Galilee but Gilead, less thickly populated and less excitable by Messianic rumors. Also Jesus had not yet worked here and needed this man’s enthusiastic pre-campaign advertising here, not over in Galilee to which Jesus was soon to return.

The others healed by Jesus needed more inner reflection upon God’s great action on their behalf in order to learn deeper appreciation of God’s power and goodness. As Jesus-’ disciples, they needed to learn submission and self-control. But this ex-demoniac needed immediate association with people, to reenter human society once more. He needed to be drawn out of himself, out of his lonely environment into usefulness to his fellows. Jesus knew that by his public proclamation of God’s mercies this man could certainly maintain the spiritual health with which Jesus left him. (Psalms 66:16)

Jesus laid no unnecessary burdens of great sacrificial discipleship upon the man. He restored him immediately to his family and, friends. He sent him home (Mark 5:19; Luke 8:39) and to go home and work for Jesus was just as much obedience as for others to leave home to work for the Master! (Luke 9:59-62)

Read the enthusiastic reports of Mark and Luke about the man’s ministry, or should we say, that man’s obedience after the disappointment of not being permitted to join Jesus-’ immediate company!. He went away and began proclaiming throughout the whole city, nay, in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him. And all men marveled. Oh my soul, can I take no for an answer from Jesus and still love Him and go right on preaching His Word where He is largely an unknown, rejected miracle-worker from Galilee?

It is easy to think of the valiant Twelve who remained by Jesus in His ministry and suffering; but they are also valiant servants of God who go it alone, knowing only that Jesus wills it? This man’s preaching must have been tremendously effective, since everyone could remember him as the mighty terror of Gerasa. But now he was the living monument to the power and mercy of God in Jesus of Nazareth! No wonder he succeeded: his mission method was personal witnessing to the change wrought in his own life.

V. THE VICTOR

Matthew 9:1 And he entered into a boat, and crossed over, and came into his city. To entitle this section which describes Jesus-’ retreat from Decapolis the Victor, would seem to some exaggerated, since Jesus obviously accepts the fear-filled request of the selfish, superstitious villagers as sufficient reason to leave. But -this is to forget the total picture painted by the three Evangelists: Calmly Jesus had stepped out of the boat to face the fiercest inhabitants of the Decapolis. The mere fact that He was the Christ was itself victory, and the demons must confess their submission and condemnation. With but one final authoritative word, He drove the unclean spirits from their victims. Against His ultimate command there was no appeal. What had been proved thereby? Edersheim answers so picturesquely (Life, I, 613):

He that had erst been the possession of foul and evil spiritsa very legion of themand deprived of his human individuality, is now -sitting at the feet of Jesus,-’ learning of Him, clothed and in his right mind.-’ He has been brought to God, restored to self, to reason, and to human societyall this by Jesus, at Whose Feet he is gratefully, humbly sitting, -a disciple.-’ Is He not then the Very Son of God? Viewing this miracle, as an historical fact, viewing it as a parabolic Miracle, viewing it also as symbolic of what has happened in all agesis He not the Son of the Most High God? And is there not now, on His part, in the morning light the same calmness and majesty of conscious Almighty Power as on the evening before, when He rebuked the storm and calmed the sea?

But what is so victorious about His retreat? Here is written the meekness of the Son of God. He could have mustered all manner of invincible argument why they should permit Him to remain. He could have shown a demonstration of supernatural power that would have overpowered their reason and frightened them into abject submission. But. He did not, Jesus did not stay long where He was not wanted. (cf. Luke 9:51-55; Matthew 13:54-58; Luke 4:16-30) He simply left without a word.

But He left behind Him a one-man advertising campaign that would more than prepare for His Decapolis ministry next year! (See Matthew 15:29-39; Mark 7:31 to Mark 8:10) Jesus-’ real purpose for coming to the Decapolis area was to save it. Though He must postpone His actual ministry there till a later date, yet the activity of this freed ex-demoniac brought a deep change in the attitude of the people. Later when Jesus returned He met an open-hearted reception. Contrary to several commentators who ignore Jesus-’ Decapolis ministry cited above, Jesus DID come back. His mercy is long-lasting. He gave Decapolis a second chance!

What is the proper theology regarding this section and many more like it? Jesus is NOT in league with Satan, but is successfully routing the devil’s infantry at every encounter! Casting out demons, defeats also their lord, Satan. (cf. Luke 10:17-18; Matthew 12:29) No wonder Peter, in retrospect, described Jesus-’ ministry thus: He went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.

FACT QUESTIONS

Where is the country of the Gadarenes? Explain about the three different wordings of this and how they harmonize.

How many of the Gadarenes were possessed with demons according to the Gospel accounts? Explain the apparently conflicting reports regarding the number of demoniacs by listing other occasions where Mark mentions one thing or person where Matthew mentions a multiple number.

What symptoms or actions indicated that they had demons?

How could people tell that the demons were gone from them?

Quote accurately what the demons said to Jesus and tell four or five things that are clearly indicated by their speeches.

What did the general populace ask of Jesus after the demoniacs were healed? Why?

What did one demoniac ask of Jesus after he was healed?

What did Jesus command him to do?

Explain the meaning of the demons-’ expression: Are you come here to torment us before the time? To what did they allude? What were they afraid of?

Tell what the NT teaches about the abyss, the bottomless pit which was the horror of these demons. What is the difference between this and hell?

State the pleas made by the demons in reference to their future state, whereby they hoped to secure a compromise from Jesus. What other NT passages may explain why they made this particular plea?

This map of the Sea of Galilee indicates in a general way the movements of Jesus when He left Capernaum by boat, calmed the storm, debarked in Gadarene territory, freed the demoniacs and sailed directly back to Capernaum.

Matthew 9:2-8

Section 18

JESUS FORGIVES AND HEALS A PARALYTIC

(Parallels: Mark 2:1-12; Luke 5:17-26)

TEXT: 9:2-8

And behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, be of good cheer; thy sins are forgiven.

And behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.

And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?

For which is easier, to say, Thy sins are forgiven; or to say, Arise, and walk?

But that ye may know that the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive sins (then saith he to the sick of the palsy), Arise, and take up thy bed, and go unto thy house.

And he arose, and departed to his house.

But when the multitudes saw it, they were afraid, and glorified God, who had given such authority unto men.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Why do you suppose so many theologians began to gather around Jesus on this occasion? Were they slowly becoming His disciples too?

Why did Jesus declare first the forgiveness of the man’s sins? Would it not have been better first to heal the man and then declare his sins forgiven? It certainly would not have scandalized the religious leaders so drastically. What do you think about Jesus-’ method? What was He trying to accomplish by this abrupt approach? Did He not know that He would shock them by this method?

Why did Jesus command the man to carry off his pallet?

Why could not the four men have waited until Jesus finished teaching and dismissed the crowds? What was so important about their friend’s illness that demanded that they interrupt Jesus-’ teaching?

If the four men had had the opportunity to express their desire to Jesus regarding their sick friend, would they have been more likely to ask for healing for him or forgiveness? Why do you say that? If you think they would have asked for healing, then why does Jesus give them what they would not have requested? Is not He being a bit presumptuous?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

After several days He returned to Capernaum. On one of those days the news spread that He was at home, and so many people gathered together that there was soon no longer room for them even about the doorway. He was preaching the word to them. Now as He was teaching, there were some Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting near Him. They had come from every town in Galilee and Judea, even from Jerusalem. The power of the Lord was with Him to heal people. Meanwhile, there came some men bringing to Him a paralytic lying on his pallet which was carried by four men. They were trying to bring him in to lay him down before Jesus. However, finding no way to get near Him on account of the crowd, they went up on the roof. They removed the roof above Him, and when they had dug an opening, they lowered the stretcher on which the paralyzed man lay, down through the tiles into the midst of the crowd in front of Jesus. When Jesus saw their faith, He addressed the paralytic, Take courage, my son, your sins have been forgiven you. At this some of the scribes and Pharisees who were sitting there began debating in their minds, saying to themselves, This fellow is blaspheming. Who is this blasphemer? Why is he talking this way? It is blasphemy! For who can forgive sins but God alone? Now Jesus, knowing their thoughts, realized in His spirit that they were reasoning in this fashion within themselves, answered them, Why do you argue this way and think evil in your hearts? For which is easier to say to a paralyzed man, -Your sins have been forgiven you,-’ or to tell him. Get up, take up your stretcher and begin walking? But, to make you know that the Son of man has on earth the right to forgive sins (He then said to the paralyzed man) Stand up, I tell you; pick up your pallet and return to your home! And immediately he stood up in their presence, took up the pallet he had been lying on, and went out in the sight of them all. He walked home, giving praise to God. When the crowds saw what had happened, they were afraid, for astonished amazement seized them all. They began praising God who had granted such authority to men. They were filled with awe, saying, We have never seen anything like this! We have seen wonderful things today!

SUMMARY

Jesus returned to Capernaum after His first general tour evangelizing Galilee. While teaching, He was the center of immediate attention, especially of investigating committees from all Palestine. Four friends of a paralytic show real ingenuity in placing their friend before Jesus. The Lord took the opportunity to demonstrate His divine prerogative to forgive sin, by showing Himself to possess power that only God could claim. This He did by healing the paralytic.

NOTES

Matthew 9:2 And behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy. The brevity of Matthew here emphasizes the fact that he has sharpened this story down to the barest facts in order to set in sharp contrast just the major points. Mark and Luke, however, add the following details:

There were four men who carried the paralytic on a portable mattress or pallet-type bed, easily rolled up and carried over the shoulder.

The room in which Jesus sat teaching was packed with people, primarily the Pharisees and teachers of the law who had come from many cities. Secondarily, other people jammed into all the rest of the available space, blocking all entrance to the house. This concentration of religious leaders around Jesus is probably no accident. This is a congressional investigation carried out by these recognized authorities in Israel. Certainly these rabbis had gathered at this time in Capernaum from as far away as Judea and Jerusalem! Considering the distance, we may conclude that they were not merely dropping in on Jesus after a Sunday afternoon jaunt! They had probably walked the 75-100 miles to be here in Capernaum at this moment. Why? There is a revolution afoot, not only religious but possibly political, for all they knew about it, They were here to hear Jesus and arrive at some definite conclusion about Him: what is the general trend of His doctrine? What of His authority or right to teach? Where is His movement leading? What does He say about himself? For these reasons what occurs on this occasion becomes the more significant, Jesus is literally on trial before the leaders of Israel and He well knows that their report will be circulated throughout the higher echelons of the highest governing body of Judaism. One can not be too careful how he talks before such an august assembly. But observe well how Jesus comports Himself in their presence! Luke (Luke 5:17) records that the power of the Lord was with Him to heal. Is this a simple, general statement, prefacing what is to follow or does this imply that other miracles had been wrought that day prior to the climactic cure of the paralytic? If the former, then it is made abundantly clear by Luke that Jesus-’ power to work miracles was not at all hindered by the critical disbelief of the opponents present. This incident, along with other similar situations, becomes the best kind of evidence that Jesus-’ miracles are historic fact, since they were done in the presence of enemies who had everything to gain by successfully disproving the reality of the miracle.

The four men, finding they could not enter by usual means, went up on the roof of the house. They either climbed the outside stairway leading to the flat roof, or else they went from roof to roof over the neighboring, contiguous houses until they stood above where Jesus was teaching. Then, by removing the roof tiles, they made an opening just above Jesus through which they lowered their friend into Jesus-’ presence.

Why did they not simply wait until Jesus-’ message was over and the crowds dismissed, before they brought their helpless friend to Jesus? These men’s hearts were probably so burdened with the real need of their friend, that they were driven by the urgency to seize this precious opportunity to help him. Nothing else is said in the text of the seriousness or urgency of the man’s condition, except the hurry of these his friends to take emergency measures to get help for him fast. Was his paralysis of such nature as to lead to heart stoppage and death? If so, it was now or never. Certainly, the one element that caused these men to overcome the practical obstacles, even the objection that they should have waited until Jesus were free to help them, is their great faith in Jesus Christ as Healer. Such a One as He, could also be merciful about interruptions.

Though Jesus was concentrating all His efforts and attention upon teaching the word to this representative cross-section of His people, He did not regard the interruption, caused by the four men’s de-tiling the roof above Him, as an unwelcome intrusion. As the event which follows indicates, He saw it as but the opportunity for perfect confirmation of the authority of His teaching. Also, since the entire event takes place in a private house (for this is the distinct impression given by Mark 2:1-2), the entire situation was less formal than would be a synagogue service. Thus, the interruption would be less offensive, however unusual the method used by four men to make their need known.

sick of the palsy (paralytikon) Luke (Luke 5:18) follows better medical terminology, apparently, since he uses the more specific phrase a man who was paralyzed, whereas the other two call him a paralytic. (See Plummer, Luke, in loc.) Lying on a bed: this oriental bed consisted of perhaps no more than a low mattress upon which the man was carried by his four friends, each one holding up a corner. For lowering the pallet into the presence of Jesus, they may have tied ropes to the four corners.

Jesus, seeing their faith. Mark and Luke tell in detail what hindered these intrepid friends of the paralytic and to what lengths they went to overcome these obstacles. Jesus saw their faith and was pleased. Their vivid, detailed planning which they dared execute is more eloquent than words. No great confessions or pious words were uttered. All three Gospel writers unite here in describing their deeds as their faith. Jesus apparently spoke first. Either the paralytic had no strength to utter his request for healing or else Jesus gave him no opportunity, his faith being so obvious. He had permitted himself to be laid before Jesus, regardless of the unusual method or the social or physical obstacles they must overcome. Their faith cheered Jesus too, because of the contrast to the unbelief and critical prejudices in the scribes and Pharisees in the room with Him.

Jesus. said unto the sick of the palsy, Again, Jesus may have spoken first in order to speak, not about the obvious disease of the man, but about forgiveness of sins. Jesus seizes here the initiative, temporarily taken from Him by the interruption caused by the four men’s digging through the roof. Dust and small clods of dirt had been falling down on the Pharisees-’ fine robes and while they were brushing themselves off, half laughing at the interruption Jesus-’ followers brought Him, half complaining at the disagreeable soiling of their clothes and warm air in the crowded room, Jesus graciously takes charge of the moment. He knows what He will ultimately do about the paralytic’s disease, but He must speak first, before the request for healing is made, lest this cloud the issue He has chosen to bring before the critics in the room: His identity and consequent authority.

Son, or as some Greek texts have it in Mark 2:5, My son, as well as Man, (Luke 5:20) all indicate that Jesus is being especially friendly, speaking in this kind, familiar way to the man lying helpless at His feet.

In the article ànthropos, Arndt and Gingrich, 67, say that in address ànthrope, friend, indicates a close relationship between the speaker and the one addressed, Luke 5:20. However it can also have a reproachful connotation, as well as express some familiarity between the one who uses it and the one addressed. (See Luke 12:14; Luke 22:58; Luke 22:60.)

Jesus did not hold Himself aloof from sinners, as might the reverend doctors from Jerusalem seated around Him. He dared show his affection for these weak, helpless sinners who came to Him!

Be of good cheer, your sins-’ are forgiven. Jesus saw more than their faith: He saw also the despair of a guilty conscience facing judgment. He saw the discouragement of an enslaved heart that has learned, through long experience of failure, to take sin for granted. With a gesture of loving tenderness, Jesus dealt with the man’s greater need for forgiveness. Your sins are forgiven. This was no mere wish or description of some future pardon, but a declaration of fact. Jesus speaks as a kindly Father (Son) and an acquitting Judge (your sins are forgiven.) For the moment Jesus turns His full attention on this man, seemingly ignoring the scribes and others around Him, disregarding their attention almost as if it mattered not what they thought, while He took time to encourage and save this lost soul hanging between the hospital and hell. The urgency with which the man was brought suggests that his paralysis was critical and could become fatal if not helped immediately. If so, this man, staring death and judgment in the face, needed pardon before God, even if he were NEVER healed! Jesus gave him both pardon and healing!

Why did Jesus address the man first in relationship to his sins, and not rather regarding the healing of his paralysis? Because a man who is right with God and KNOWS it certainly, can endure all manner of suffering and waiting. (Consider 2 Corinthians 12:5-10) He can even face death calmly, though horribly paralyzed, because he knows that death in God’s grace is his final freedom and highest joy. But a man who is merely healed but not forgiven before God does not share this certainty, until he makes it right with God. But why had not Jesus forgiven other people before He healed them prior to this occasion? Why begin here? Why not forgive, then heal, in every ease? There had been many other opportunities to say it before now. It is obvious that Jesus has a special purpose at this time and place:

Jesus deliberately brought up the question of forgiveness for clarification and teaching. He must communicate the message to men that He has authority on earth to forgive sins. This is as good a time as any to start telling them. But this fact, that He must clarify this doctrine for the scribes, must not obscure the greater truth that He was helping the sinner who had the need.

Jesus needed, in the nature of evidence, just such occasions to connect His claims to divine prerogatives with demonstrations that verify His claims as true. He had come to earth, not to work miracles, but to identify Himself as the Forgiver of sins.

The fact that Jesus mentioned forgiveness in place of a declaration of the healing of the paralytic must not be taken to mean that Jesus sees a direct and necessary causal connection between one’s individual sickness, disease or death, and his personal sins. Even though Jesus declared the man’s sins forgiven, he was not immediately healed. A discussion about Jesus-’ alleged blasphemy intervened before the man was casually released from his paralysis.

However, it is true that in SOME cases diseases are directly attributable to a course of indulgence in certain sins or vicious practices, as for example, intemperate eating and drink, fornication or any other misuse of the body. (See Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:13-18) If this is the case with this paralytic, then Jesus removes whatever fears the paralytic may have had that Jesus would not help so great a sinner. The Lord speaks forgiveness to his soul, a far greater need than mere freedom from his paralysis.

One may well doubt whether the man’s paralysis be caused by a consciousness of guilt, even though psychosomatic paralysis is not impossible. One may doubt the psychosomatic connection, since Jesus-’ argument is based on the evidence presented through a real healing uniquely produced by the instantaneous exercise of the power of God. But, even if the man’s paralysis were 100% psychologically based, still the obvious instantaneity of his total cure, without weeks of consultations and therapy, is miraculous, in the supernatural sense of the word. And even if all the rabbis in Palestine had taught, as some of them actually did (see citations by Barclay, Matthew, I, 334), that there is no sickness without some transgression back of it, is it necessary for Jesus to accommodate Himself to that view, in order to deal with this paralytic whose personal views may have been influenced by that thinking? (Cf. John 9:1-3) While it is true that Jesus dealt with men in their own situation and culture, yet it is not necessary to conceive of Him as leaving men in this belief, if He knew it were not true, While it is true that disease and death are in the world because of sin (Romans 5:12), yet we err greatly in presuming to describe as sinners everyone whom we find personally afflicted, as if God had smitten them on the basis of the greatness of their sins. If this paralyzed man has been attacked by some malady that is paralyzing him, then there may be no direct connection between his present condition and specific, past sins. A person who is bitten by a poisonous spider or serpent is not morally responsible for the physical results that ensue.

Whatever Jesus-’ reasons may have been, the scribes-’ personal views certainly affected their understanding of Jesus-’ words. Barclay (I, 334) notes:

Rabbi Alexander said, The sick arises not from his sickness, until his sins are forgiven. Rabbi Chija ben Abba said, -No sick person is cured from sickness, until all his sins are forgiven him.-’ This unbreakable connection between suffering and sin was part-’ of the orthodox Jewish belief of the time of Jesus.. Now remember that these scribes believed that no one could get up and walk unless his sins were forgiven. If Jesus was able to make this man get up and walk. then that was unanswerable proof that the man’s sins were forgiven, and that Jesus-’ claim was true.

Matthew 9:3 And behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, this man blasphemeth. If they had been surprised at the intrusion, and disgusted by the discomfort of dust falling down into the room around them, and contemptuous at Jesus-’ common familiarity with the paralytic, this is all forgotten in the greater shock caused by Jesus-’ claim to forgive sins. Not only is this a surprise to the Jewish scholars present, since the Mosaic law of pardon was then in vigor. But this would surprise Jesus-’ closest disciples also, since this is apparently the first of very few times in Jesus-’ personal ministry when He pronounced a person forgiven. (See Luke 7:48; Luke 23:43). We moderns can share this sense of shock only to the extent that we have learned to feel deeply the horror for and heinousness of blasphemy. This depends upon the depth of our jealousy for God’s honor. But Jesus-’ purpose for risking this jolting of the conscience of all present is clear and necessary (Matthew 9:6 a). Jesus could have eased tensions by simply healing the man without a word about forgiveness. The oppositions and anger He aroused might have been avoided. But Jesus must reveal the astounding truth that the whole human race has Someone who understands them perfectly, whose perfect life condemns all their sins, but whose divine prerogatives qualify Him to bring forgiveness and righteousness to all who trust Him. This is truth in which not only that generation was interested, but which all honest men have longed to hear. And, best of all, Jesus announced this truth in the presence of those most interested in exposing it, if false, and most able to explode it, had it not been true. Whether His words were truth or blasphemy, was the controversy between Christ and the rulers from that day to the end of His Ministry, Matthew 26:65. (McGarvey Fourfold Gospel, 186)

The scribes said within themselves. See on Matthew 9:4

This man blasphemeth. This secret declaration of their consciences signaled the beginning of the scribes-’ hostility and opposition to Jesus. The criticisms developed into open confrontations in five specific areas:

Alleged blasphemy: here

Having common fellowship with people with whom no self-respecting rabbi would ever be found: (Matthew 9:11; Luke 7:36-50)

Neglect of traditional religion with its ascetic practices, such as the ablutions (Matthew 15:1-20); the fasts (Matthew 9:14-17)

Violation of the sabbath: (John 5:15-18; Matthew 12:1-14)

Being in league with Satan: (Matthew 9:34; Matthew 12:22-45)

Although from a Jewish standpoint, all these charges were serious enough, it was this charge of blasphemy for which they crucified the Lord. (See Matthew 26:63-66)

There are two means of blasphemy: direct, by which one calls God unjust or unholy, or disparages anything that speaks of the sovereign majesty of God; or indirect, by which one holds anything or anyone as equal with God, hence, placing oneself in the place of God, or assuming any of His unique prerogatives. Thus, Jesus deserved to die, if He were not the very incarnation of God Himself! The Jews were right in their attack. Their horror in the presence of this apparently common human being, who lays claim to one of God’s unique rights, is proper. But when they refuse the evidence that He IS the Son of God, then THEY become the blasphemers. But their horror was not so innocent as it may seem at first glance. Their contempt is unwarranted, since all Jesus-’ other miracles should have identified Him to them as possessing this right without further proof. This man, on the lips of these accusers, is decidedly emphatic: Who does this guy think He is anyway? (Cf. Luke 4:22; Luke 7:39; Luke 7:49; Luke 9:9; Luke 14:30; Luke 15:2; John 9:33 for other emphatic uses of hoûtos, this one, this fellow, this man,)

The Pharisees arrived at this conclusion through a syllogism perhaps similar to this one:

Major Premise: No man can forgive sins but God alone. Minor Premise: But Jesus of Nazareth is not God in any sense. Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus is blaspheming God in arrogating to himself authority to forgive sins, a prerogative which is God’s alone.

Their major premise is a right principle, (Isaiah 43:25; Isaiah 44:22 etc.) The fundamental question lay in the minor premise: is Jesus God in any sense that affects the truth of His claim to forgive sins? For the correction of this false conclusion drawn by the Jews, see on Matthew 9:5, where Jesus-’ argument shows the fallacy of their minor premise and conclusion.

Matthew 9:4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said. Several factors combine to lead us to the unshakeable conviction that Jesus super-naturally perceived the content of their mind. While the probability is great that anyone could have read the minds of these scribes, given the knowledge of their views on blasphemy and the overt expressions on their face and perhaps the tearing of their garments, yet the capacity to divulge with unerring accuracy what had not been said is an obvious miracle of omniscience. At first view Luke (Luke 5:21) gives the impression that at least some of the scribes expressed their thoughts openly in words, which are, in fact, reported by all three Evangelists. Or is Luke’s expression to be interpreted in light of the supposedly fuller statements reported by the other two? This is the case here, for, as Plummer (Luke, 155) demonstrates, légantes, saying, may be used of thoughts, even when not uttered. (See Luke 12:17; Matthew 21:25) So, if we conclude that the scribes said nothing about what was going on in their minds, although they were deeply agitated, this event identifies Jesus as God who knows men’s hearts, come in the flesh. (Cf. 1 Samuel 16:7; 1 Chronicles 28:9; 2 Chronicles 6:30; Ezekiel 11:5; Jeremiah 17:10; Acts 1:24; Revelation 2:23; John 2:24-25) While Jesus did not here directly claim omniscience, yet he challenged their thoughts with such pointed reference to them, that had this not been the direction of their thoughts, the scribes could have objected to Jesus-’ misrepresentation of their reaction to His words. No such objection is recorded. Rather:

Matthew and Mark describes the objectors as saying to themselves or questioning in their hearts.

All three Evangelists picture Jesus as knowing their thoughts, or as perceiving in His spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, or perceiving their questionings.

Jesus did locate openly the place where their evil thoughts and questionings arose: in your hearts, a fact cited by all three Gospel writers.

This power to pronounce with certainty the hidden, innermost thoughts of the human mind, qualifies Jesus as the perfect Judge, not only of the Pharisees and scribes whose hearts He has just laid bare before them all, but He, as Judge, can acquit the paralytic too!

Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? The scribes-’ conclusion was not illogical, granted the premises. But they refused to admit the evidence which would have corrected their minor premise and led them to a different conclusion. Their reasoning was evil, not merely faulty or incorrect, since it was produced by hearts bent upon rejecting evidence, bent upon destroying Jesus. Jesus-’ question, therefore challenges the motivations and purposes behind their rejection of His deity. These hidden reasons for their objections were morally indefensible. And their objections lay in their own preconceived notions about what God’s Messiah had to be like. The evil lay in adhering to these prejudices rather than follow the clear evidence He had so faithfully and continuously presented of His divine right.

Note that Jesus does not object to the right principle upon which the theologians state their case. He respected their zeal for God’s honor, by claiming to forgive sins, not in His right but upon God’s authority. He tacitly admits that they are right in affirming that anyone who would presume to forgive sins on his own authority would be guilty of blasphemy. As we follow Jesus-’ method of argument, we see that if He had claimed to forgive this man’s sins, without God’s authority to do so, He Himself would be what they had claimed, a blasphemer. The fact that He virtually accepts their way of stating the case, makes His further declarations and proof of His right so much stronger.

Matthew 9:5 For which is easier, to say, Thy sins are forgiven; or to say, Arise, and walk? The twice repeated expression to say, is the key to Jesus-’ meaning. Even though Jesus asks which is easier to claim, His obvious intention is to place both claims on the same level, because both statements are ridiculous claims for the man who can do neither. Both claims demand the identical power and authority of God, before either can be seriously meant. Jesus is not asking which is the easier to do, but which is easier to claim. Naturally, the easier to claim is to forgive sins, for none can examine any external, visible evidence that proves it. But to claim to heal a paralytic is capable of visible, immediate verification. It is here that the real test of Jesus-’ authority will lie, if He can demonstrate through this latter claim that He is God and possesses therefore the proper and personal authority to forgive sins. This He proceeds to do, because, even though He has proven it over and over again, Jesus would not ask these present to believe without evidence. They must have a rational ground on which to rest their faith in His word. Though they have more than enough evidence to convince the honest heart, mercifully Jesus gives them more. But this is not simply more evidence, since it is inextricably linked with His majestic claim to forgive sins here on earth.

Matthew 9:6 But that you may know, i.e. with the specific purpose of making my authority clear and obvious to you. Here Jesus draws the direct, immediate connection between His works and His claims. (See John 10:38; John 14:10-11) that the Son of man (See Notes on Matthew 8:20) This use of this title by Jesus forms the conclusive proof that Jesus does not intend thereby to identify Himself with mankind, in the sense of making the title equivalent to man or Everyman, as opposed to Son of God. The authority to forgive sins does not belong to men. Jesus uses this title in its true Messianic sense, determined from Daniel (Matthew 7:13-14). For fuller notes on Son of man, see also Plummer (Luke, 156, 157).

But that you may know that the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive sins (then saith he to the sick of the palsy), Arise, and take up thy bed, and go unto thy house. Jesus establishes hereby His entire claim to the possession of personal authority to forgive sins on the reality of this miracle. In effect, He was saying to His critics: You presume that it is a safe, easy thing for me to pretend that I can forgive sins, since no one on earth can verify whether, when I address this paralytic, saying, Your sins are forgiven,-’ they are actually pardoned or not. So, let me provide you a test that you can verify. You know that only a person possessing God’s full authority could say to this paralyzed man, -Rise and walk.-’ with the result that he be actually healed, in exactly the same way that it really demands God’s authority to say, -Your sins have been forgiven you,-’ with the result that he has the certainty that God really has forgiven him. Now, if a physical cure of his paralysis takes place when I say to him, -Get up, pick up your bed and go home, then you can be certain that when I say to him, Your sins have been pardoned,-’ his forgiveness is a reality. In which case, of course, I am not guilty of blasphemy, as you charge. On the contrary, my high claim to God’s authority shall be vindicated.

The logic of Jesus-’ argument may be stated like this: Major Premise (tacitly): No man but God can heal paralysis with a word of power. Minor Premise (demonstration): But I have power on earth to heal paralysis with a word of power. Conclusion: I possess on earth the authority of God to heal paralysis.

This conclusion becomes the minor premise of further argument:

Major Premise: None can forgive sins but God alone. Minor Premise: But I have shown that I possess God’s authority. Conclusion: Therefore, I have power on earth to forgive sins.

Or, the alternative, implicit reasoning arrives at the same conclusion:

Major Premise: Only those who pretend to divine prerogative without right or authority are guilty of blasphemy. Minor Premise: But Jesus has demonstrated by this miracle that He does possess the proper right or authority to exercise divine prerogatives. Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus is not guilty of Blasphemy.

Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thy house. There could be no bolder challenge than this. It is at this point that Jesus-’ claim to the right to exercise divine prerogatives stands or falls. If the paralytic can do what Jesus says, then his forgiveness is real. Jesus healed the man, not merely because He was anxious to vindicate Himself, but out of great tenderness and mercy He felt for the man’s need Instantly He healed him, that the people might have the required evidence upon which they could base their trust in Him.

Matthew 9:7 And he arose, and departed to his house. That settles the question. One fact is worth more than a thousand theories. Luke (Luke 5:25) reports the man as arising immediately on the presence of the people. Then he probably rolled up his pallet and walked through the amazed crowd. The point to be noticed is that Jesus knew with unerring certainty exactly what would happen before anything took place. In one sense He was taking no chances, for with divine foresight He could see the paralyzed man arising even before He forgave him. But from a strictly human point of view, Jesus had taken an awful chance of losing everything He had won! Who but Jesus could have had the necessary knowledge? Who but Jesus could have had the power demanded to heal the paralytic? Who else could have given the required proof of His identity?

Whereas the man’s friends could not even carry him into the house due to the crowd jammed into the doorways, now the astounded people open the way for him to leave. Luke (Luke 5:25) reports that this grateful ex-paralytic walked out glorifying God. Whereas the scribes had accused Jesus of blasphemy, this man had nothing but praise for God. Had he understood the connection between Jesus and God? Whatever he may have understood, his exuberant example of rejoicing and praise was contagious.

Matthew 9:8 But when the multitudes saw it, they were afraid, and glorified God, who had given such authority unto men. This mixed reaction stands in perfect harmony with human nature and is psychologically sound, since these people felt their own sinfulness in the almost touchable presence of God. They knew they were standing in that no-man’s land, that twilight zone between the natural world and the supernatural. They knew that this earth had just been invaded from outer space where they supposed God dwells. And they recognized the Invader as God, and they feared. Yet the joyful surprise and marvel of the seemingly impossible healing drew out of them this glorifying praise for the God they feared so near. They had heard Jesus pronounce that word which the honest heart of sinful mankind longs to hear more than any other. They had not believed Him. Rather they had concluded that He had blasphemed, saying something incapable of proving. They had questioned His right to say something they could not accept as truth. Now they had to reckon with the shock of truth breaking into their personality: they could not deny its reality without denying the dependability of their own senses with which they observed it. In response to this manifestation of God’s presence seen among them, they glorified God. (Compare similar experiences of the Jews on mount Carmel as the fire fell from heaven after Elijah’s prayer, 1 Kings 18:36-39, and Peter’s reaction to the miraculous catch of fish with his own nets and boat, Luke 5:8.)

They glorified God, saying in their amazement and awe, We never saw anything like thiswe have seen strange things today! (Mark 2:12; Luke 5:26) They had seen things transcending ordinary human experience and reason: sins forgiven, omniscience and healing of paralysis. But they had also seen the greatest difference between Christ’s religion and the message of all other isms: while all other philosophies glorify and save the fittest through survival of all natural forces or through perseverance in progression through an infinite number of stages or steps or through the endless accumulation of an undefined number of merits or, to sum them all up, while all other systems save the powerful, the good and the worthy, the greater glory of Jesus-’ mission lay in His stooping to concentrate divine attention upon the lowly, the sinful, the poor, the weak, the damned. He brought forgiveness within reach of all. And this miracle proved it! The crowd is convinced that the charge has been disproved and that Jesus is acting with the full authority of God. What effect this miracle produced in the theologians present is not mentioned in the text, but it may be suggested from their growing opposition on later occasions that they remained unconvinced.

God who had given such authority unto men. Though Matthew does not cite the words of the crowd directly, it is probable that he is quoting the content of their praise, even as Mark and Luke cite directly their words: McGarvey (Matthew-Mark, 82) well says: It was to the man, Jesus, that the power was given, and to men only as He was contemplated as one of the race. These people were honest enough to admit that God had actually granted such authority to Jesus. His claim was vindicated in their eyes.

What does this miracle prove about Jesus? It proves that Jesus has the right to speak with all the authority of God. It means that He can be relied upon to speak authoritatively the message of God. It means that we must accept Jesus-’ word provided by this miracle and we do not need to ask for more miracles to back up everything else He may affirm. It means that we may be 100% certain that what we had asked of God, i.e. forgiveness, we may now ask of Jesus of Nazareth, for He is God come in person to tell us that He is the real Ruler who is able to present us without spot or blemish before God, forgiven, pardoned, cleansed, fit for fellowship with God.

COMPARE

For a similar case which touches this narrative at several points, see the healing of the paralytic in Jerusalem. (John 5:1 ff.) Edersheim (Life, I, 500) suggests the following interesting points of similarity:

The unspoken charge of the Scribes, that in forgiving sins Jesus blasphemed by making Himself equal with God, has its exact counterpart in the similar charge against Him in St. John 5:18, which kindled in them the wish to kill Jesus;

as in that case the final reply of Jesus pointed to -the authority-’ (exousia) which the Father had given Him for Divine administration on earth, (John 5:27), so the healing of the paralytic was to show the Scribes that He had -authority-’ (exousia) for the dispensation upon earth of the forgiveness of sins, which the Jews rightly regarded as a Divine prerogative.

the words which Jesus spake to the paralytic. are to the very letter the same.

alike in the words which Jesus addressed to the Scribes at the healing of the paralytic, and in those at the Unknown Feast, He made final appeal to His works as evidential of His being sent by, and having received of, the Father -the authority-’ to which He laid claim. (John 5:36; cf. Mark 2:10)

FACT QUESTIONS

Locate this incident in the chronological history given by Mark and Luke. When did this miracle occur during Jesus ministry?

Identify the city meant by Matthew when he used the cryptic expression His own city. Prove your answer.

Describe the situation on this occasion, borrowing materials from Mark and Luke, which give clarity to the situation here narrated by Matthew. In other words, explain why it was necessary for the four men to bring their paralyzed friend to Jesus in the exact manner they used.

What more important need did this man have than the cure of his paralysis?

State the evidences of Jesus-’ deity expressed in this passage.

What kind of bed did the four men hoist up on the roof? How did they manage to get the friend into the presence of Jesus? What was hindering them?

Is there any evidence in the narratives of this miracle that the paralytic himself expressed any faith in Jesus? If so, what is the evidence?

What did Jesus see, when, as the Gospel writers put it, He saw their faith? What was visible about so invisible a quality as faith?

What was the effect of the miracle on the crowds present?

State the response of Jesus to the expression of faith on the part of the four men who had brought their friend. What did Jesus actually say?

What was the response made by the Pharisees and theologians to Jesus-’ declaration? Express the principles behind their assertions about Jesus-’ declaration. Though you may disallow their application to Jesus, justify their conclusion when applied to anyone else who said what Jesus said. Quote Jesus-’ answer to their complaint.

Show the conclusiveness of Jesus-’ rebuttal of the theologians-’ conclusion. Explain the relationship between what Jesus said and the miracle He performed in the presence of these people.

What did Jesus mean by the expression: authority on earth to forgive sins?

Explain why these reverend doctors from Jerusalem were even present on this occasion. What was their special interest in Jesus-’ message and ministry?

What kind of roof do Mark and Luke describe the house as having, wherein Jesus sat with the crowd of people? What does this fact have to do with the event itself?

Matthew 9:9-17

Section 19

JESUS CALLS MATTHEW LEVI

(Parallels: Mark 2:13-22; Luke 5:27-39)

TEXT: 9:9-17

And as Jesus passed by from thence, he saw a man, called Matthew, sitting at the place of toll: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.

And it came to pass, as he sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with Jesus and his disciples.

And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Teacher with the publicans and sinners?

But when he heard it, he said, They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick.

But go ye and learn what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice: for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.

Then come to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?

And Jesus said unto them, Can the sons of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then will they fast,

And no man putteth a piece of undressed cloth upon an old garment; for that which should fill it up taketh from the garment, and a worse rent is made.

Neither do men put new wine into old wine-skins: else the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins perish: but they put new wine into fresh wine-skins, and both are preserved.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

We all know how important it is to choose our friends with care. The more important the person, the more care he must exercise in the selection of his friends. On what possible basis, then, how can Jesus be justified for being intimate with the riff-raff of Jewish society? A man is known by the company he keeps. Yet, ironically, how does this very fact identify Jesus as the finest of men ever known?

Why do you think Jesus chose to call such a man as Matthew to be an Apostle? Would not He have run too great a risk to call a publican?

How is it possible for Hosea to declare that God did not really care for sacrifices, since it was mercy He wanted? After all, had not God originally ordered that the sacrifices be given? What could Hosea mean that reflects not only God’s original command but also the true purpose behind the law of sacrifice?

Do you feel that Jesus-’ hobnobbing with sinners justifies a man in seeking bad company? In what way would he be right in so doing?

Can you give a possible reason why the Pharisees and legal experts were on the scene when Jesus went to the dinner party with Matthew? Had they been invited too?

Paul says (Romans 3:10-18; Romans 3:23) that there are none who are righteous and that all are sinners. Who, then, are those whom Jesus describes as righteous? Are there some righteous persons on earth whom Jesus did not need to call to repentance?

Do you think the disciples of John the Baptist were criticizing Jesus? On what basis?

What effect would Jesus-’ cryptic declaration have on the Apostles when He said, But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then they will fast?

Do you think that we too should fast? Why? Under what circumstances.

Does it not seem to you that the call of Matthew to follow Jesus was a little abrupt? On what basis is it possible to comprehend Matthew’s instant, deliberate response?

Why would Matthew invite Jesus to the dinner party in his own house?

Why would Matthew have invited also all his old cronies, when he knew that, the pure Jesus of Nazareth would be there? What possible purpose could he have for making this social blunder? Or was it a blunder?

If you decide that fasting is something a follower of Jesus can do today, do you feel that fasting is a ceremony to be observed regularly, or should the circumstances in which you find yourself determine your choice?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

As Jesus was passing on away from the seashore where. He had taught the gathered crowd, He saw a man, a tax collector, named Matthew Levi, son of Alphaeus. Matthew was busy at the tax office, but Jesus invited him, Come, be my disciple. Matthew left the whole business, stood up and went along with Jesus. Later, Matthew made Him a large banquet in his home. While the Lord was at his house as dinner guest, there was a large number of Matthew’s old cronies, sinners and other people who came as guests. They all sat down with Jesus and His followers, for there was also a large group who came with Him. Now when the Pharisees and their legal experts saw that Jesus sat there enjoying dinner with such notorious sinners, they murmured against Jesus-’ disciples, How can you and your rabbi enjoy the fellowship of such scum?

When Jesus heard what they were saying, He argued: People who are well do not need a doctor, just sick folk do. You go study what this Bible text means (Hosea 6:6): It is not just your sacrifices that I wantI want you to learn to be merciful! And besides, why should I spend my time trying to get the -righteous-’ to turn from their sins? It is the SINNERS who need my help!

Now the disciples of John the Baptist as well as the Pharisees fasted regularly each week. So the disciples of John approached Jesus with the query: Why do we regularly go without food to spend time in prayer? The Pharisees and their disciples do it too. But your followers, what do they do? They wine and dine! Then Jesus responded like this, You cannot make the wedding guests go without food or be sad during the wedding festivities, can you? No, with the bridegroom present, it would be out of place for that. The time will arrive when the groom will be taken away from them. Then it would be appropriate for them to refuse to eat. He illustrated His point with this parable: Who would tear a piece from a new suit of clothes and sew it on a worn-out garment? If he does, he will tear the new material, and the new piece would not match the old anyway. In a similar way, no one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, because if he does, the new patch rips away from the old cloth and you have a bigger hole than before. Neither should you store freshly pressed grape juice in old goatskin bottles. If you do, the pressure of the expanding new wine will burst the skins. The wine gets spilled and so is lost and you have destroyed the skin bottles too. No, new wine must be stored in new, flexible wineskins. That way, both are preserved. No one who is accustomed to drinking vintage wines calls for this year’s wine. -The old,-’ he claims, -is pleasant; it suits me.-'

SUMMARY

Leaving the seashore where He had been teaching the multitudes, Jesus passed by Matthew-Levi’s tax office and called him to intimate discipleship. Matthew, in turn, responded joyfully by giving a huge farewell dinner party for his former associates. Jesus-’ friendly fellowship with this level of society aroused the criticism of the Jewish Puritans, the Pharisees, but Jesus defended His ministry among such sinners as absolutely essential. The disciples of John the Baptist too were scandalized that Jesus and His followers paid little of any attention to the traditional fasting practices. Again Jesus defended His practice and views as being so new and different in nature from the old system that John’s disciples hoped to purify, that one would do violence to both systems to try to mix them. Jesus concluded by warning them about being prejudiced against the new ideas by thinking the old ways to be better.

NOTES

A. THE CALL OF MATTHEW

This account of the call of Matthew to close companionship with Jesus, following as it does upon the foregoing account of Jesus-’ divine right on earth to forgive sins, is in its proper logical place. Jesus-’ call of him who, in the minds of popular Judaism, was a most flagrant sinner, is a thrilling exercise of Jesus-’ power to forgive sins and transform a man.

Matthew 9:9 And as Jesus passed by from thence. Between the astounding narration of Jesus-’ proven ability to forgive sins on earth, demonstrated by His instantaneous cure of the paralytic lowered through the roof, and this record of Matthew’s call, Mark (Mark 2:13) and Luke (Luke 5:27 a)-’ both report that Jesus left the crowded house in which that cure occurred. Perhaps it was precisely because of the pressing crowds that He went outdoors, in order to have more space. As He had done on other occasions, He led the people to the Capernaum wharf, where He could speak to them all with greater facility. Apparently, when Jesus had finished His discourse before these people, He dismissed them and walked directly toward the toll office of Matthew.

He saw a man, called Matthew, sitting at the place of toll. This could be the most beautiful sentence in the New Testament and the most incredible declaration in all of Jewish literature! Jesus, the mover of multitudes, could see the individual, Matthew. Levi was no mere number to the Lord, no warm body whose living personality could be ignored. How many timeshad thousands of other Jews passed by that same toll office without ever seeing this human being called Matthew sitting there? How often had their own awareness of his hated occupation caused them to shun him deliberately, turning their head the other way, pretending not to have seen him? But Jesus saw Matthew as he was and loved him. We too must learn to see people, not for the clothes they wear, the position they occupy, the relationships they represent to us. This latter only hides the individuality of that person. We must see the man or woman as human beings in need of God. We must see, as Jesus saw Matthew, the individual possibilities they have to grow into the image of God. Jesus was not afraid that the moral filth and contamination, of which the Pharisees were so afraid, would cause Him to lose His own purity. Nor should we withhold help for fear of contamination from those to whom Jesus felt irresistibly drawn. Jesus was not deceived by a contact with Matthew elsewhere, for He saw Matthew precisely as he was, engaged in his universally despised occupation.

Sitting at the place of toll. For detailed bibliographies on publicans place of toll, etc., see encyclopedic articles and special studies, especially Edersheim, Sketches, 51ff.; Life, I, 515-517;. ISBE, 2920a, b, 2921a, Arndt-Gingrich, 820 on telõnçs. The official position of the tax official in Jewish social life, regardless of the education, wealth or power of the individual who exercised that office, was despicable beyond belief for those unaware of the peculiar religio-political situation that existed in Palestine during this period. Religiously, the Jews owned no king but God and to Him alone should they bring proper tribute. (Though for convenience-’ sake, they acted otherwise more often than not, as for example, John 19:15; yet their religious ideal was this.) Politically, they were a small political unit of the Roman empire to which they owed tribute, custom, and duty. Although in a period previous to the Roman imperial era, the taxes were collected by wealthy men who purchased from the Greek kings the right to collect them (see, for example Josephus, Antiquities, XII, 4, 1-4), under the empire the direct taxes were not farmed out, but collected by regular imperial officers in the regular routine of official duty. The customs or tolls levied upon exports and imports, and upon goods passing through the country, were sold to the highest bidders, who were called -publicans-’ (ISBE, 2920b). Even though the publicans themselves were apparently not Roman officials, they possessed all the authority of Rome behind their exactions. As a Jew, the publican was viewed as a traitor to his nation and to God, because of his willingness to collaborate in this way with a pagan, foreign conqueror. Worse still, the Roman system encouraged greed and graft by selling the right to collect taxes at auction, from which the publican repaid himself for his work and risk involved by collecting all he could. The tax collectors naturally enriched themselves at the expense of their own nation. The indefinite rate of taxation plus the exaggerated and arbitrary value placed upon goods by the publicans rendered their position indescribably odious to all other Jews,

Scripture notices of the publicans reveal in passing in what light they were considered in Jesus-’ time: they were typically selfish (Matthew 5:46-47). They were classed on a par with heathens. (Matthew 18:17), prostitutes (Matthew 21:31) and other notorious outcasts (Matthew 9:10; Matthew 11:19; Luke 18:11). Even though Jesus Himself viewed them as people to be loved and saved, yet His use of popular language in regard to the publicans reveals profoundly in what light they were viewed by the majority of the people before whom Jesus used this language.

And He saith unto him, Follow me. Matthew knew that Jesus could have found plenty of other, respectable men who had no embarrassing past to live down. Jesus could have eased tensions between Himself and the orthodox by selecting His disciples more discreetly. By Pharisaic principles, Jesus should have prudently passed right on past Matthew, but He chose not to. These two words of invitation are Jesus-’ deliberate demonstration of His determination to show what He could do with a man completely surrendered to Him, regardless of background or lack of previous religious virtue. Jesus intended to take this dull, rough, crude, sinful man and help him to be transformed into His own image. Jesus could see Matthew as he could become, so invited him to follow. Jesus could see in Matthew more than Matthew himself dared dream; because He was seeing the possibilities in personality. Jesus knew the man that Levi might become, quite as well as the man Levi already was. It was Jesus-’ unshakeable faith in the better Matthew that became the power to make Matthew die to be that better man! He was literally calling this man to greatness. The tragic question that renders them the more guilty is how many times had Jesus offered the same invitation to the Pharisees?

And he arose and followed Him. This was the vital difference between Matthew and the Pharisees: he could properly evaluate this invitation. He responded differently from the Pharisees precisely because he was a different man. He had endured hate from his fellow Jews for years. He knew that he had sold out to the Romans for this well-paying job, but all he had earned in human relations, of which are made the real treasure of life, was the contempt and snubbing of his own people. He had felt the power of greed, cruelty, gouging and cheating in his own heart. Sick of soul, Matthew does not surprise us by responding this way. And yet, Matthew’s own will could have hindered all that followed this moment, for, as Morgan (Matthew, 92) points out, Jesus could offer the highest invitation of heaven, but He stood limited before the surprising reality that a man can say, No.

Matthew could gratefully appreciate how much it cost Jesus to involve Himself with such as Matthew. But this publican had never witnessed a man sacrifice his reputation like this before. This customs agent could never have dared hope for such personal recognition, much less could he hope to be called to personal companionship with Jesus and Apostleship! How long had he been a secret admirer of the Prophet from Nazareth?

One interesting problem is noted and adequately handled by Bruce (Training, 22), i.e. why and how Matthew should respond to Jesus-’ invitation so promptly without any apparent or at least recorded psychological preparation. The Gospels give the impression of abruptness surrounding Matthew’s call, as if Matthew had not known Jesus quite well previously. Two factors combine to suggest very strongly that this acquaintance actually existed:

The call of other Apostles is surrounded by the same sort of abruptness, whereas we know that several of them had been previously acquainted with Jesus. (See on Matthew 4:18-22) As Bruce (op cit.) notes, The truth is that, in regard to both calls, the evangelists concerned themselves only about the crisis, passing over in silence all preparatory stages, and not deeming it necessary to inform intelligent readers that, of course, neither the publican nor any other disciple blindly followed one of whom he knew nothing, merely because asked or commanded to follow.

Considering Jesus-’ close connection with the city of Capernaum, His mighty works done and repeated before a grateful and at first, responsive populace, and remembering that Matthew probably lived and worked in Capernaum, we conclude that Jesus and Matthew had been fellow-citizens of Capernaum and could well have known each other. It would have been more psychologically improbable to believe that Matthew had never heard of Him. (See on Matthew 11:23).

Had he had business relationships with the fishermen and ship-owners among the Apostles? Had he been watching the growing opposition to Jesus-’ ministry? Or had he failed to notice the fact that Jesus seemed always to be surrounded by common sinners like himself? Could not this fact have encouraged Levi to leave his table on various occasions to slip in at the back of the crowds to hear Jesus personally? But when Jesus came right up to his table, placed before him this invitation to destiny, it took not even a moment’s deliberation to make that decision that forever sealed his future and gave to the world Jesus-’ first publican-Apostle. As Edersheim paints him, His soul was in the speechless surprise of unexpected love and grace; but he rose up, left the custom-house and followed Him!

And he arose and followed, The significant omission of the word immediately allows us to surmise that Matthew first settled his accounts, closed out his books and turned over his responsibilities to others. His good rapport with publicans later indicates that he did not leave them embarrassed by his absence. While he may well have concluded his work to leave all to follow Jesus, why did he rise up to readily?

Was it because he still retained influences of a godly upbringing? Is his deep knowledge and use of the Old Testament shown later in his Gospel, only the result of supernatural inspiration, or was it the result of a proper godly training, from which he in mid-life badly strayed in search of wealth?

Or was he reflecting a deep, personal dissatisfaction with a life, which from its beginning had been empty, shallow, hopeless? Had he realized the depth of his desperate condition as a sinner, depicted so well by Barker (As Matthew Saw the Master, 41)? The broken intentions, the wasted dreams, the splintered personality, the poisoned mind, and the calloused heartit added up to a loathesome, hopeless case.

Or was Matthew simply a better man than the average publican?

Whatever his preparation to be called by Jesus, Matthew responded, leaving a comfortable job and the security of a good income for a life of destiny, adventure, peace and joy. His talent was turned to serve in composing one of the most extensive records of Jesus-’ teaching ministry that has ever come down to us.

B. THE CONCERN OF MATTHEW

Matthew 9:10 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat in the house. Modestly, Matthew omits details that would glorify himself, reserving himself only to the barest facts. However, Mark and Luke describe the arrangements Matthew prepared in his own house:

Levi made a great feast (Luke 5:29), such as one would expect a former publican, probably wealthy, to be able to give. Nothing is spared to make this moment a memorable occasion for all who hear of it.

Levi made Him a great feast: Luke is affirming (Matthew 5:29) that Matthew arranged this banquet for Jesus Himself, in His honor.

All Synoptic writers agree in the large number of guests, not only Jesus and many disciples that followed Him (Mark 2:15), but also a large company of tax collectors and others (Luke 5:29).

Notice the elaborate plans carried out by this one repentant publican. His conversion must have caused quite a sensation in Capernaum! After all, here is a wealthy but notorious publican suddenly called away from his occupation to leave everything to enter the companionship of the most truly holy Rabbi people in Capernaum had ever known, All who heard about it would wonder not only at the readiness of Levi’s response and the completeness of his change, but also the purpose behind Jesus-’ unusual choice.

Apparently Matthew planned this feast with the specific purpose of introducing Jesus to all his former associates. He cared enough to invite all his old cronies to a feast where the issue of his own former life and present association could be faced head-on. Certainly Matthew invited his friends to the feast: who else COULD he invite? This is the reason the guest-list contained so many publicans-’ names. But why, in re-telling his story, does Matthew use this particular expression: many publicans and sinners came and sat down with Jesus? Is this a fixed phrase in popular Jewish speech, or is he writing with tongue in cheek, preparing the mind of the reader for the hypocritical question of the Pharisees which follows? Or, by saying, publicans and sinners, is he revealing the purpose of his own heart? The men he invited are sinners like himself, This former lover of gain has begun to act like his Lord; he has become a lover of souls, immediately doing all he can to bring his fellow sinners under the influence of Jesus-’ voice.

It took great insight on Matthew’s part to have been able to plan in precisely this way, knowing surely that he could bring his friends to Jesus in this way that would be perfectly in harmony with Jesus-’ character. C. E. B. Reed comments: (Preacher’s Homiletic Commentary, XXII, 224)

One can see that Matthew had already studied to good purpose his Lord’s character.

First of all he perceived that he could best serve Him, not by eating and drinking alone in His presence, but by inviting the outcasts of society and befriending them for the sake of Him who made their cause His own.

II.

He invited to the feast his own associates. Many men would have forsworn the class from which they had been called and sought some new field of benevolence; whereas he does not disown his publican comrades, but selects them as earliest recipients of his bounty.

III.

He recognized that the best thing he could do for them was to bring them into contact with Jesus. Instead of going among them and talking about his new Master, he wisely brought them face to face with Him whose teaching he could not match for breadth or power.

IV.

This intercourse between Christ and the publicans Matthew contrived to bring about by means of an entertainment. He knew well that most of them would never come to hear a formal discourse from the Lord, but that meat and drink would open their hearts to receive the scattered seeds of His teaching.

Note that Matthew’s call to become Jesus-’ personal disciple had not turned his head. He could still see his old friends. He was still interested in them, still loved them, though he had made a definite break with his old life among them. See how he reflects that new love from Him who loved Matthew as no other! Is not this repentance at its best?

C. THE CRITICISM OF MATTHEW’S MASTER

Matthew 9:11 And when the Pharisees saw it. What were THEY doing there? It is not too likely that they had come to the feast of publicans in order to take part! Storm clouds of opposition to Jesus-’ ministry had already begun to form, because Jesus had already begun to succeed at the very business He had come to earth to do. These critics would never have bothered criticizing Him, were He not making real headway. His was a movement that was going somewhereit was alive. Nobody bothers to criticize something that is all but dead. Nor were they particularly interested in Matthew, one of the sinners with whom Jesus ate. What these eagle-eyed censors were after was Jesus. Matthew could have eaten with all the sinners in town and no one would have noticed. But when Jesus of Nazareth is willing to risk His reputation for Matthew by eating with him, these Pharisees attack.

It is not necessary to suppose that these Pharisees who see this spectacle of a Rabbi among publicans are theologians only, although Mark and Luke both affirm that there were theologians present. The fraternity of the Pharisees included people from all walks of life, (See Edersheim, Sketches, 226ff.) some of whom may have seen Jesus and His followers enter the publican’s house. They may have then reported the incident to their scribes (Mark 2:16; Luke 5:30) who, reinforcing those first on the scene, now begin to complain.

They said unto His disciples. Notice the sheer cunning in-’ this approach made to Jesus-’ disciples, although the cunning might be motivated by moral cowardice, or that fear to face Jesus directly. These theological lawyers, instead of introducing some deep, debatable theological objection to Jesus, try to shake the disciples-’ confidence in Him by showing how their Master violates acknowledged Jewish propriety. If they succeed in undermining Jesus-’ influence by demonstrating that, while in theory He may mean well, yet in practice He fails at a critical point, then is His ministry ruined.

Why eateth your Teacher with the publicans and sinners? This question has perhaps less point for us westerners than it would for an oriental to whom a meal was a sacred matter. (Remember how Peter too violated this Jewish taboo by eating with Gentiles, Acts 11:2-3) To break bread together pledged each to solemn friendship and mutual help. Consequently, self-respecting people eat only with other respectable people with whom they wish to associate. Thus would these accusers inculpate Jesus through guilt by association, making the false assumption: You are known by the company you keep! Thus they would insinuate that Jesus was of like character, It was as if they were asking, What kind of God does He think He represents, keeping company with scum like that? He is unable to discern their character perhaps, in which case He disqualifies Himself to be a proper rabbi! Any way the statement is phrased, their complaint shows no obvious love for these lost ones. Their merciless self-righteousness had shut their heart and frozen their concern for those who need God so desperately.

As Edersheim teaches, (Life, 1, 507), this text highlights the fundamental distinction between Christianity and all other religions, especially Rabbinism, since all other religions must stand confessedly helpless regarding the positive forgiveness of sins and welcome for the sinner. They have nothing to say in contrast to the personal, merciful approach of God in Jesus Christ to the sinner, welcoming him back to repentance. This welcome produces repentance like no other stimulus in other religions could ever do. The burdened soul struggling toward God finds the answer of Jesus convincing and helpful like no other. Worse yet, the very title Pharisee, or separated one, underlined the very character of Rabbinism, even of Sadducees too in this respect, since the goal of the system was the exclusion of the unlearned, the unworthy, the sinners. So it was that this very feast of Matthew could only be looked upon by these Rabbis as a kind of reproach to the most fundamental principles they espoused. They were pledged to the maintenance of the separation of the wicked from the righteous, the Israelites from the Gentiles, the people of God from publicans and sinners. Here Jesus refused to maintain the arbitrary lines they had drawn. This was not mere supercilious pride they felt; it was deep-running religious indignation. Jesus-’ goal, by striking contrast, was the INCLUSION of sinners, welcoming them to repent, assuring them of mercy and power to change their lives. The ideal of the rabbis was the welcoming of sinners after they had repented, with only the sterile stimulus to do so that is inherent in the repeated exhortations to repent and in the praise of repentance itself, with no definitive proof that the sins have actually been forgiven. This fact leaves the heart of the person trying to come back to God desperate and pessimistic. Instead of reinforcing the Pharisees separatism, Jesus is seeming to sanction confusion of the traditional lines along which righteousness and holiness had been defined. It is no wonder that the Pharisees should be excited!

But Christ could not help arousing opposition. He was teaching the truth of God about sinners and about God, that would lead men to know genuine reality, as opposed to the sham or partial realities of their limited knowledge and experience. However, for doing this and for claiming to be the Son of God, He was opposed. For receiving sinners and eating with them, He was blamed. (Luke 15:1-2) Matthew himself was one of the chief reasons why the opposition so resented Jesus. It was but the age-old problem of the new idea presented in a context where people do not judge it on its own merits. They evaluate and its propounder only in terms of the way they are accustomed to interpreting it.

Ironically, for the very reason that they supposed themselves to be of superior righteousness and despised all others, these Pharisees thereby ceased to be righteous and manifested their own real sinfulness and need of mercy from God. The Pharisees were masters of refined sin too, and Jesus made strenuous efforts to win them to discipleship through repentance. Jesus-’ gentle speech here is an illustration. Usually, however, rather than repent, they got mad and tried to kill Him.

D. THE CONCEPT OF THE MASTER

Matthew 9:12 But when He heard it, He said, They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick. This vital question, so important because it involved the fundamental direction and purpose of Jesus-’ mission to earth, was asked of the disciples, but answered by Jesus. From Jesus-’ answer we get His own view of the work He came to accomplish. Had the disciples tried to deal with the critics, perhaps we would have something of less weight, depending upon their apprehension of His goals. Perhaps they even tried, but the Evangelists are satisfied only to report Jesus-’ definitive answer, which forever settles the issue.

But observe how Jesus answered the captious question leveled at Him. As Bales (Jesus the Ideal Teacher, 92, 93) puts it: Jesus appealed to a principle which they endorsed, and showed by an apt illustration which they could not dispute successfully that His conduct was endorsed by that principle. Jesus made another point wherein He indicated that they need to learn the meaning of certain teaching in the very scriptures which they accepted. The principle accepted by practically every Jew was that a teacher of the Law was, symbolically, a physician to the sick. (Cf. Edersheim, Life, I, 520), It would seem that Paul in Romans 2:17-20 is listing appellatives by which the Pharisees, among whose number Paul used to count himself, loved to identify themselves!.

Thus Jesus is using here no innocuous or merely interesting figure of speech: He is refuting His opponents with a reply that cuts them two ways:

According to the Pharisees-’ own view of themselves and of the publicans, Jesus, even had He been a member of the Pharisees-’ own party, was precisely where He should be, thus His course was justified. Jesus is saying, I am a Physician to those whom we all describe as sick, the ignorant and sinful people of the land. As Physician, I must make contact with those whom I would help. Were I to ignore them or despise them, I would not be true to my mission as a doctor. The doctor that spends his time only with other doctors or with the well is not worth his salt as a healer of the sick. Instead of being contaminated by the disease or carrying their contagion to others, I am bringing salvation and healing. These publicans with whom Iam now feasting are the very people to whom we should minister, hence I am right. where I should be, making my rounds.

By the same principle, the Pharisees themselves and all who shared their views were unfaithful to the ideals they espoused! If you admit that you too are teachers of the soul and physicians to the unrighteous, why are you not mercifully ministering among these publicans too? But you shun and excommunicate these people as outcasts, never offering them the mercy of a forgiving God. Thus, by your obvious failure to live by your own ideals and principles, you confess that

you are unqualified for the high honors you receive or the high pretenses you make at being righteous! You doctors, ironically, are letting the sick die!

Jesus-’ rebuttal has a third undertone that, by the way His argument is stated, shatters the force of the Pharisees-’ most fundamental presupposition. When He says: They that are whole, He has no intention whatever of subscribing to the Pharisees-’ self-estimate of themselves as righteous, fit to stand proudly before God’s judgment. This expression, as well as the righteous in the following verse, are to be taken as ironic. As Lenski (Matthew, 366) asks:

Could they really be righteous when they knew no mercy for the sinners, were blind to the prophet’s word demanding that they have mercy, and railed at the merciful Physician who labored among those who, according to the Pharisees themselves, so sorely needed His help?. Thus, even their claim to be righteous, by which they attempted to justify their contempt for sinners (cf. Luke 18:9-10), exposed not only the hollow falseness of their religion and the emptiness of their hearts, but also disqualified them from being the great teachers of the Law they pretended to be.

The Pharisees, in short, are here exposed as common sinners, whose best attempts at separation from sin had only left them miserable and in need of repentance. There are none in so dangerous a position as those who think they are not sick and thus refuse the healing mercies of the Physician! But lest we become too smug and pray, Thank God I am not a Pharisee, snubbing the weak and despising the sinful!, let us remember that Jesus ministered with patient mercy even to these sinners too.

Matthew 9:13 But go ye and learn what this meaneth. Edersheim (Life, I, 520) affirms that this command is a rabbinic formula so often used when superficial speciousness of knowledge is directed to further thought and information. If so, the Lord assumes His proper place as the Teacher of these rabbis, using a language they can understand. But this command is much more: Jesus, being the real Physician that He is, cannot send even these Pharisees away without providing them too a cure for their own soul sickness. But was the Lord requiring that these theologians spend further time in book study and not, rather, in learning the true meaning of sacrifice by actually showing mercy? Much of God’s will is not to be learned by pondering and intellectual perception, but rather by obedience.

I desire mercy and not sacrifice. The parallel phrase in this citation of Hos 6:6 completes the couplet: And the knowledge of God, rather than burnt offerings. This is a highly compressed saying, stating in Hebraistic style of absolute negation what we would express in relative terms. Paraphrasing this verse in a manner that would interpret the verse in its proper relative sense, we might hear God saying to Israel something like this: When I commanded you to make sacrifices, it was not burnt offerings that I wanted; I wanted you thereby to learn mercy and the knowledge of God! (See Notes on Matthew 5:23, volume I) The mercy of God and the mercy demanded by God of His people mean more to Him than all the perfect fulfilment of any empty ritual. Hosea does not represent God as refusing the sacrifices in themselves, but simply those sacrifices which did not represent the heart of those wicked people who supposed that thereby they could cover their sins. The mercy that God requires is that intelligent love of one’s neighbor which is based upon the knowledge of God and moves one to share God’s mercy with one’s fellow sinners. (Cf. Matthew 18:1-35 for an even stronger polemic against that selfish mercilessness which compounds the guilt of those who sin thereby.) For similar declarations, study 1 Samuel 15:22; Isaiah 1:11-17; Micah 6:6-8; Psalms 40:6-8; Psalms 50:8-23; Proverbs 21:3; Mark 12:28-34; Hebrews 10:5-8; Hebrews 13:16.

Jesus-’ use of this highly revealing text, that indicated God’s real purpose behind all the positive commandments of the Mosaic system, is to show that God is far more concerned to show mercy to sinners, far more anxious that sinners show mercy than He is to have heartless, punctilious performance of meaningless forms. The superior claims of mercy rise higher than strict justice, or that righteousness based upon the letter of the law. (Cf. James 2:13 and notes on Matthew 5:7 and Matthew 6:12) Instead of freezing out the publicans and sinners, the truly righteous would have made every effort to show God’s mercy by endeavoring, as patiently and loving as Jesus, to help them to understand the mind of God, repent of their sins and become the greatest of saints. Thus, for Jesus, merely to live a moral life that is devoid of practical expressions of merciful helpfulness to fellow sinners is not enough. Worse yet, it is plain deceiving, since it gives a false sense of accomplishment to the man who would shut his personal goodness off to himself. For Jesus, merely to live a religious life, made up of the outward functions and rites of religion without the spirit and content which the forms were intended to hold, is worse than useless. It blinds the man to that whole way of life which is God’s service, permitting him to see only a few convenient commandments while ignoring justice, mercy and faith. (Cf. Matthew 23:23) These Pharisees, though extremely religious, had followed their limited views to the logical extremes and had become harsh critics, proud, completely inhuman to the point of hating all lesser breeds. Thus Jesus exposes their character as, in God’s sight, being far more condemnable than those they condemned.

For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners. Jesus is not disclaiming concern for the truly righteous or even admitting that there really are people so righteous that they do not need what He has to offer. Note that neither Mark nor Matthew specify to what Jesus had come to call sinners, even though Luke adds the words to repentance. Jesus called men not only to repentance, but to Himself. It must be said, however, that a proper understanding of all that is involved in repentance is the secret of joy in the Kingdom of God. (See Notes on Matthew 3:15).

I came not to call the righteous. There are none who qualify for this title: we are all sinners! (Romans 3:10-18; Romans 3:23) Hence, we are to take Jesus-’ words in an ironical sense: I came not to spend time with the self-righteous, whose self-satisfaction would keep them from appreciating the righteousness I offer. Only those who know how much they need me will accept my invitation. If Jesus-’ purpose is only with sinners, with the unrighteous, to give them the true righteousness, then for all the world, I would not be righteous (in my own sight)! For, in that case, Jesus could not help me! The duty of the truly righteous man, according to the Lord, is to admit his own sinfulness, believe Jesus and share the good news of God’s mercy with his fellow sinners, regardless of the relative righteousness (or sinfulness) they may possess. Unfortunately, it never enters the head of most self-righteous individuals that UNBELIEF, a failure to accept Christ, is sin. (John 3:36) The gospel of culture, civilization, morality and humanitarianism has not enough power in it to save one sinner. Only Jesus can save,the cultured, the civilized, the moral humanitarians as well as the other common sinners!

I came to call to repentance. (Cf. Luke 5:32) This should be the true mission of any man of God, who serves a holy God and dwells among a rebellious people. It is also, at the same time, Jesus-’ significant hint that His program would not stop short of anything but total religious revolution, bringing salvation, not to the privileged few, the righteous, the whole, the elite, but to the despised outcasts, to the socially disgraced, to sinners, in short, to the world. As Bruce explains, with deep insight, (Training, 28): It was one of the pregnant sayings by which Jesus made known to those who could understand, that His religion was an universal one, a religion for humanity, a gospel for mankind, because a gospel for sinners,

I came to call sinners. How far do WE share the vision and purpose of Jesus? Are there people whom we ignore or for whom we do not pray? Are there certain individuals or classes for whom we dare not soil our righteousness, because of the apparent gravity of their sin (in our sight)? Do we refuse to pray for or withhold every evangelistic effort to help the poor, the rich, the Indians, the Negroes, the whites, the city dwellers, the country folk or any other such group? To the extent that we are able to say, Yes, Lord, but they are too wicked and unworthy, to that extent we do not share His vision. To that extent we do not have a universal gospel that is capable of saving ALL sinners, and it may well be doubted that a gospel that is incapable of saving EVERY sinner, is also incapable of saving the sinners that preach it. The seriousness of people’s sin is never to be considered a barrier which we may use as a reason for not loving or helping anyone. Jesus came to overcome these barriers and save the sinner. To Him, the biggest sin in the world is that closed-hearted attitude of the self-righteous that never thinks of the desperate need of those whom we condemn, hence ignore. One might almost say, that, to Jesus, the greatest display of mercy is that shown to the person who needs mercy the most, the greatest sinner, the most despised.

I came to call, not the righteous, but sinners. The so-called righteous have separated themselves along lines of national pride, privileged monopolies on God’s grace and sectarian exclusivism But the sinners Jesus calls learn the truly desirable, proper separation. In contrast to the separation that the Pharisees demanded of others, Matthew’s holiness, learned from fellowship with Jesus, was separation unto Christ, not merely separation from his fellows. His desires and acts became really holy, or separate, unto God, because he had learned the mind of God revealed by Jesus, something not true of those self-righteous, and, ultimately, unholy Pharisees who had despised him and criticized Jesus because of His association with Matthew and Matthew’s kind. But it was this very discipleship, that made publicans and sinners truly righteous, actually holy, and not merely outwardly so. Jesus showed no mercy to the sinners-’ sinto Jesus, Matthew’s sins were still sins. To call those whom He had come to save sinners, is a declaration of unvarying divine judgment. But to come to call just such people out of those. sins, offering them the opportunity to become the greatest of saints, is a declaration of divine mercy. This demonstrates the exceedingly practical nature of Jesus-’ ministry as well as its divine origin, because He proves by the purpose and direction of His own ministry that God is more interested in showing mercy than in holding people to the letter of the law.

E. THE CONSCIENTIOUS

One might almost entitle this next section the Controversy were it not for the very spirit with which the question contained therein was brought to Jesus. It is precisely this notable difference in attitude seen in the disciples of John, in contrast to the Pharisees, that makes the difference in the way the section is considered. Admittedly, John’s disciples bring up a criticism of Jesus-’ program, but more in the spirit of inquiry for information, than to discredit Jesus before His followers. As Bruce (Training, 67ff.) rightly judges in a masterful discussion on this section, this very portion of the Gospel is fundamentally a lesson on Christian liberty, the first of three that reveal the genius of Jesus-’ program in sharp contrast to every other religious system, Judaism in particular. These lessons arise out of His approved non-conformity to Judaism which He expressed by disregarding minute mechanical rules and by repeatedly placing much more emphasis upon the great principles of righteousness and morality. These three lessons, pointed out by Brace, will be studied in their separate texts:

Fasting (here)

Ceremonial purifications prescribed by tradition (chap. Matthew 15:1-20)

Proper observance of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-15)

The significance of these seemingly dusty texts for the modern Christian is the fact that out of just these situations grew the religious revolution and spiritual freedom that characterize Christianity. That is, Jesus-’ revelation was originally made in these historic situations, in contrast to the views held by the people of that period. Hence, an appreciation of these situations is absolutely necessary in order to grasp the fundamental difference between Jesus-’ revelation and all legal religion (i.e. religion based upon perfect fulfilment of an infinite number of regulations, but having no assured guarantee of personal mercy for all failure). Otherwise, we moderns will rewrite the once-abolished traditions, ignore the totally new spirit Jesus intends to put into us and conclude by repeating all the same mistakes made by these ancient rabbis in relation to God’s Word given at that time, losing ourselves in minutiae and missing the grand moral principles of real righteousness.

From the point of view of Jesus-’ disciples themselves, as they developed into Apostles under Jesus-’ leadership, this non-conformity towards the established usages and customs of proper Jews, is, as Bruce notes further,

a solemn crisis in any man’s life when he first departs in the most minute particulars from the religious opinions and practices of his age. The first steps in the process are generally the most difficult, the most perilous, and the most decisive.. It is well. for apprentices in religious freedom when they make their first essays in the company of an experienced friend, who can rescue them should they be in danger. Non-conformity invariably gives offence to many, and exposes the offending party to interrogation at least, and often to something more serious. Custom is a god to the multitude, and no one can withhold homage from the ideal with impunity.

This is a particularly valid reason for letting these texts guide our reflections as we meditate upon our own discipleship as Jesus perfects us in His image. Often this loyalty to Him will bring us into conflict with the established views, customs and usages of our age, even into conflict with the Established Church. Only as we have comprehended Jesus-’ message well will we be able to respond to each situation in a manner that will please Him.

THE SITUATION

Matthew 9:14 Then come to Him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not? This critical question comes from an entirely different source than the usual carping complaints of the Pharisees, a source that, at first, surprises us: the disciples of John. This phrase suggests that those followers of John who had not left him to follow Jesus, as had many others, were maintaining their commitment to John, even though his ministry is entirely eclipsed by that of Jesus (see John 3:26) and practically terminated by his imprisonment (Luke 3:19-20). But why did they come? Several factors may help answer:

All three Evangelists unite in including this section immediately after their reporting the feast of publicans, almost as if to display the two sections by contrast: feasting versus fasting.

Mark’s observation (Matthew 2:18): Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting (çsan nçsteúantes), suggests that Matthew’s feast took place on one of the traditional fast days. (Cf. Luke 18:12) This is the more noticeable since, though this periphrastic imperfect may stand for a simple imperfect, one may well ask whether Mark intended merely to record, as a matter of habit these fasted, and not rather to remember, at this particular time they were even then fasting. Either way, the fact is that, though there was little or nothing in common between the religion of John the Baptist and that of the Pharisees (see, for example, Matthew 3:7 ff; Matthew 21:28-32), yet, in contrast to the acknowledged practice of Jesus, both groups fasted. So whether it was the self-imposed empty stomach that gnawed at John’s disciples as they hungrily looked in on Jesus-’ feasting disciples, or whether they merely heard of Jesus-’ general reputation (cf. Matthew 11:19), their question still finds its cutting edge in their customary practice.

But why did John’s disciples, who framed the question, put it just that way? Why mention the Pharisees at all? Why should Mark also mention the practice of these latter, whereas they do not step into the foreground? Could it be that John’s followers were instigated by the Pharisees, since their last encounters with Jesus had left them silenced (Matthew 9:2-8) and rebuked (Matthew 9:9-12)? If so, they could gain much by enlisting the aid of these zealous disciples of the Baptist, since these represented a strong religious force in Judaism. In this case, this objection, lodged by John’s disciples would be all the more damaging, since a contradictory diversity in practice would be exposed, placing John and Jesus in clashing opposition. The result would be disastrous for both Jesus-’ and John’s groups, but definitely advantageous to the cause of Established Religion which had continually withstood, both. Had the Pharisees not been behind the disciples of John, would it not have been more consonant with their discipleship to John to have asked, Our master, John, has taught us to fast, but your disciples feast!? In the absence of the guiding force of their master, were these John’s disciples developing a sectarian mentality of rivalry and jealousy? Were they desiring, by their inclusion of the reference to the Pharisees, to set Jesus-’ disciples in the minority on a question that surely was already decided by the opposing schools of John and of the Pharisees?

Bruce suggests another motive as possibly motivating this criticism: surprise, The disciples of John were astounded that in respect of fasting they should approach nearer to a sect whose adherents were stigmatized by their own master as a -generation of vipers,-’ than to the followers of One for whom that master cherished and expressed the deepest veneration.

Why had they come? Perhaps they had been tormented by uncertainty caused by John’s imprisonment, not knowing whether to leave, to rot alone in Herod’s dungeon, him who had given them the first real glimmer of messianic hope and the first real taste of genuine righteousness, in order to follow Him to whom John pointed. Any hope that they may have nurtured of John’s deliverance from prison and vindication before Israel lay in Jesus-’ hands and He was to be found down at Matthew’s house enjoying a feast with the despised scum of Jewish society! It was not the fact that Jesus received publicans and sinners that piqued them, since John himself had not rejected them. (See Luke 3:10-14) What shattered their confidence in Him was His feasting at a time when, in their opinion, fasting and prayer would have seemed so much more appropriate. Could Jesus be the Christ if He sits down to eat and drink at a feast of publicans, while John is lying in the dungeon of Herod?

However strident the contrast might seem between Jesus-’ practice and their views, yet Jesus was training His disciples to act on a principle of which John’s disciples neither understood the truth and validity nor the meaning. Further, until these latter asked Him, they would never grasp it. But they did come and they did ask.

JESUS-’ REPLY

Note the difference in approach used by the Lord in dealing with John’s disciples and His method in dealing with the Pharisees (Matthew 15, 23, etc.) Toward these He is respectfully defensive, giving reasons for His position, whereas with the Pharisees, He denounces their marked preference for their own rules while despising God’s commandments. Here, however, He is definitely on the defensive, not wounding their conscience nor attacking their practice until He could teach them, They were probably more open to learn than were the Pharisees. If it could be proved that John’s disciples had not at all been motivated by the Pharisees, then their coming to Jesus reflects that attitude of anguished confidence shown later by their leader, John himself, in the hour of his great perplexity and soul anguish, when he too asked Jesus the torturing question of his heart. (Matthew 11:3)

Jesus-’ gentleness with John’s disciples is further significant because in no way did the Lord put in doubt the validity of John’s message or practice. It is not necessary to decide whether this fasting practiced by John’s disciples were actually part of his program of repentance required of Israel. Tolerant of the present state of things, which, in Jesus-’ view, would soon pass away, the Lord contents Himself with an appeal to His critics-’ sense of propriety, in order to help them see that His program and that of John were not mutually exclusive or contradictory but represented different, progressive phases, the old and the new, of God’s continuing message to Israel. In fact, Jesus-’ response is so very gentle that He does not actually state His conclusion directly, as though He would force them to see the truth. Rather, by means of three brilliant illustrations, He leads their minds to make His unstated conclusion. Were we to formulate the actual conclusion to which Jesus was leading, we might state it something like this: Real religion is that harmonious outward expression that corresponds with what the heart really feels and is. False religion involves the attempt to act without reference to that correspondence, or else to cause others to do certain acts or acquire habits without any connection to the inward condition of their heart. Fasting does not reflect the present spiritual condition of my disciples, hence should not be forced upon them artificially by some mechanical rule. While the old Judaism out of which John would preserve the finest elements and the new Christianity I represent have their respective place, it would be a catastrophe to endeavor to mix the quite different dynamics of the two.

a. FIRST ILLUSTRATION: A WEDDING IS NO PLACE TO FAST

Matthew 9:15 And Jesus said unto them, Can the sons of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? The sons of the bridechamber is a common Hebraism referring to those closely connected with the groom, i.e. the wedding guests. (cf. the use of the Hebraism elsewhere: Luke 10:6; Luke 16:8; Luke 20:36; Acts 4:36; Matthew 23:15; John 12:36 and Edersheim’s observation, Sketches, 152, 153) As used by Jesus here, the wedding guests are Jesus-’ disciples. Jesus thus calls attention to a very definite and accepted exception to the rule of fasting: must wedding guests fast? (See Edersheim, Life, in loc., Sketches, 151-156; cf. Matthew 22:2; John 2:1-10; John 3:29; Revelation 19:7-9) This question in Greek, beginning as it does with the negative mç, shows that Jesus expected His hearers to answer, No, of course not. By universal custom the marriage week was to be marked by unmixed festivity, a period when fasting or mourning would be especially inappropriate.

This illustration would perhaps appeal to the disciples of John with particular force, since John himself had called Jesus the bridegroom, while referring to himself as the friend of the Bridegroom. (John 3:29) John’s use of this figure actually proved the contrary of his disciples-’ present position, since rather than fast and mourn over Jesus-’ ministry, John rejoiced greatly, his joy was now full. However, whether these disciples now questioning Jesus ever heard that comment from John does not matter, since Jesus-’ illustration stands independently as an approved exception to the fasting rules probably practiced.

But note that in making His answer Jesus changes from the word fasting, as asking by John’s disciples, to mourning. By this change Jesus shows that fasting must be the expression of an afflicted heart. Hence, the question of fasting cannot be solved by a mechanical rule. It must be governed by the state of mind. Fasting is perfectly in order when called for by some preoccupation or great, absorbing life crisis. When the heart is deeply troubled, who cares about food then? Even though the Law had been painfully specific in regard to sabbaths and the great feasts, which the Jews were not at liberty to reject or ignore, yet the Mosaic legislation has little, if anything, to say about fasting, and then only in connection with an afflicted soul (See on Matthew 6:16, volume I.) Thus, each person was left at liberty to decide for himself when he should fast. Fasting at a wedding would be especially forced, unnatural and real. Therefore, unless there is some significant reason to fast, to do so would be unreasonable, hypocritical.

It is interesting to note that this principle Jesus states justifies both His own disciples as well as John’S. The loss of their master’S-’ leadership through an imprisonment which would eventually end in his untimely death, was a momentous crisis for them, arising as it did. out of the wickedness of the age against which John had preached. So for John’s disciples there was a heart-felt need to fast.

But Bruce (Training, 73) points out the real danger to these men: after crystallizing a movement around John’s revolutionary message of repentance and preparation for the Messiah, these his disciples had not totally committed themselves to the Bridegroom whom John had already announced. Thus, their grief was willful, idle, causeless, when He had appeared who was to take away the sin of the world!

Further, some of Jesus-’ closest disciples had originally been also disciples of John and had followed John’s message more closely by leaving him to follow Jesus. But then, finding themselves in Jesus-’ company, they found themselves required also to change their manner of life in harmony with their new, altered circumstances. How could they fast and mourn, when in His presence was to be found peace and joy?

But the days will come. Plummer (Luke, 162) regards this as a complete phrase, followed by a mournfully significant silence in which Jesus seemed almost unwilling to speak His mind because of the impact His. words must necessarily have on His disciples. There is evidently power in these few words: they are the voice of the prophet. This early knowledge of Jesus-’ violently being snatched away from His people and their consequent grief, demonstrated that His grasp of His own divine mission was not forced upon Him from without by chain of circumstances that brought about His death. It proves, on the contrary, that, even from the beginning of His ministry, He not only knew toward what goals He moved, but He set about to reach them with unwavering purpose. (Cf. Matthew 26:11; Luke 17:22; John 2:19; etc.) Jesus knew what fidelity to God would cost Him, yet He did not swerve from this knowledge. But His omniscience, as God, assures us that He holds the future secure in His hands.

When the Bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then they will fast. The implication is clear that Jesus-’ disciples personally are meant. How then did they receive these ominous words? Their own ideas of the Messianic Kingdom did not differ greatly from those of the disciples of John, even of all Israel. If they viewed God’s Kingdom as one continuous, external victory by which the Messiah asserted invincible Jewish power over the world, they were completely mistaken. If they assumed that Jesus-’ presence among them were permanent, they needed correction. (Cf. John 12:32-34; John 7:33; John 13:36; John 16:16-22) Here is one of the first intimations of approaching tragedy. In the nature of the case, this becomes a warning to the Apostles to count the cost. At the same time this reality, that there would be gloom in Jesus-’ absence, becomes a challenge to the Apostles: can you unite in your personal experience both the Christian joy and the Christian cross?

Then they will fast, of their own accord. No one will have to tell them to mourn or fast. Jesus does not say, Then you can make them fast, which would be the exact opposite of Jesus-’ teaching earlier. Compelling Jesus-’ disciples to fast when Jesus would have been taken away from them would be as totally unnecessary as it would be totally incongruous now in His presence. Upon revealing the approaching death and departure, Jesus concedes that fasting would under those circumstances be quite appropriate and voluntarily chosen. But in that case the value of fasting would consist not in its being forcibly imposed by others, but in its being spontaneously adopted because of the real sentiments of His disciples at that time under those altered circumstances.

b. SECOND ILLUSTRATION: NEW PATCHES DO NOT REPAIR OLD GARMENTS

Matthew 9:16 And no man putteth a piece of undress cloth upon an old garment; for that which would fill it up taketh from the garment, and a worse rent is made. It is worthy of note that Luke (Luke 5:36) calls this illustration a parable, a fact that may not be pushed too far since no parable can be extended to mean more than the point the author himself intended to illustrate. Nevertheless, the two following illustrations have much in common, not to mention the two additional illustrations that Luke (Luke 5:36; Luke 5:39) includes. In all the illustrations, there is a particular emphasis laid upon the incongruity and impossibility of mixing something old with the new and vice versa. In all but the last there is definite loss or ruin involved in this confusion of old with new or the new with the old. The context of these parables helps to clarify their point since they were told to answer John’s disciples-’ question that touched the radical difference between Jesus-’ program and that of John. (Cf. the use of old versus the new, developed by the Apostles in describing the weakness and failure of the Law versus the transforming vigor of the Gospel of Christ: (Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6; 1 Corinthians 11:25; Hebrews 7:22; Hebrews 8:6-10; Hebrews 9:15-20; Hebrews 12:24 in which kainós and néos are both used to describe Jesus-’ new program.)

Contrary to McGarvey’s contention (Matthew-Mark, 84) that these parables have nothing to do with the proper relation of the gospel dispensation to the Jewish law, but rather deal only with propriety of fasting on a certain occasion, an argument erroneously based upon Luke’s concluding illustration (Matthew 5:39), let it be urged that the whole point of Jesus-’ argument is to show John’s disciples that His program and message, whereby His disciples are being trained, cannot be mixed with the old system with its forms and expressions of piety ,out of which fasting had come as a specific, representative practice.

The literal expression of Jesus-’ illustration is based upon the absurdity of using a patch of new cloth that is not pre-shrunk to repair an old robe. At first washing, the new patch would only rip the tear still wider, as the shrinking patch pulls against the threads of the repaired robe. At this point Luke (Luke 5:36) sets forth the antithesis of this illustration by bringing in another illustration using exactly the same figure with another emphasis. This should be called the third illustration:

No one tears a piece from a new garment and puts it on an old garment. If he does, he will tear the new and the piece from the new will not match the old.

Taken together, these two similar but antithetic parables teach that the religion of Jesus is in no sense just Judaism patched up, modified or revised for a later age. It is something entirely new, separate and distinct. Nor can Jesus-’ program be adjusted to fit the mentality of the old system without irreparable damage to what He is bringing into being. Old Judaism cannot bear mending by the superimposition of a totally new concept of man’s relationship with God upon Judaism’s forms. This would only destroy Judaism. But fasting came out of the old system under which John’s disciples had been trained, precisely as feasting came out of the natural environment in which Jesus-’ disciples were being trained. And to deprive Jesus-’ followers of this freedom from fasting while He was with them would confound the message they had been taught to believe. To force the Pharisees and others to stop fasting before they had grasped the spirit of what Jesus was bringing to men, would destroy the fabric of religious consciousness they had-developed under Judaism.

c. THIRD ILLUSTRATION: NEW WINE BURSTS OLD WINESKINS

Matthew 9:17 Neither do men put new wine into old wineskins: else the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and skins perish: but they put new wine into fresh wine-skins, and both are preserved. Wine-skins are skin jugs made from a single goat-skin from which the flesh and bones are removed without cutting the body; only the head is removed leaving the neck of the animal to become the neck of the bottle. (For their use, see Genesis 21:14-15; Genesis 21:19; Job 38:37; Psalms 119:83) When new, the flexibility of the skin permits considerable expansion due to the pressure of the carbon-dioxide present in the wine during fermentation. However, when the skins have become inflexible with age, they are not able to expand, not absorbing thus the internal pressure of the liquid that can burst a common glass bottle. This is why they explode, causing the loss of their contents. (Hear Elihu’s complaint, Job 32:19)

The main point of Jesus-’ illustration is that the physical results produced by expanding new wine do not mix with the inelasticity of old wine-skins. Here again, as in the former illustration, there is contrast between the old and the new. Lenski notes (Matthew, 370):

This illustration advances the thought. The old cannot be kept by adding a little of the new, nor by combining all of the new with it. In this respect there is a parallelism of thought. But again both illustrations speak of conserving: the first, the old robe; the second, the new wine. In this respect the illustrations are antithetic.

But there is also another current of thought in Jesus-’ illustration, not specifically stated but immediately below the surface: conservation, not only of the new robe from which no patches are taken and the new wine in the new wineskins, but also of the old robe with old patches and old wine in old wineskins. Jesus is not arguing that the old system was not good or that the forms which expressed it were bad, like, for example, fasting. In fact, He actually admits that honest admirers of the ancient system of Judaism would have difficulty quickly changing over to the new system of Christ. (Luke 5:39) He does not propose the burning of the old robe or the destruction of the old wineskins, since each served its purpose in its time. Jesus did not come to destroy the Law or the prophets but to fulfill them. (See Notes on Matthew 5:17-18, Volume I) But once the old robe or the old wineskins had served their purpose and could no longer be repaired or filled with the power and vigor of the new, they must be replaced.

Both are preserved. Jesus is interested primarily in preserving the vital spiritual force of the Gospel as well as the forms in which it would be expressed. He knows that it would be fatal to limit Christianity by trying to express it in the thought-forms and rituals of a legal system. Christianity must have modes of expression that are consonant with its nature. In the establishment of Christianity among men, the Apostles declared authoritatively what fundamental forms express Jesus-’ new religion. To the extent that the Lord or His Apostles have described these new forms, or their content, it is heresy to seek other forms and accept other content. But this raises the burning question about what we should do when the new robe, the new wine of Christianity, because of the sterilizing power of tradition, becomes in our day old wine, old cloth, old wineskins. We can but pray, Lord, make us into new wine again; transform our tired, worn-out robe into new cloth. Then, in agreement with our prayer, we will seek in the original message of Jesus and the Apostles that transforming power which will bring us back to what the Lord wanted originally. We should remember with Lenski (Matthew, 371) that the modern philosophies that reject the supernatural and the religious views that revere the traditions of the fathers, both of which reject Jesus today, are nothing but the ancient Pharisees and Sadducees with updated names. To follow them would be but to fall into the ancient but rejected errors of those who crucified the Lord. The so-called new categories of thought, new concepts of sin and righteousness, new visions of God, new morality are nothing but old errors, heresies and ignorance rewritten, revised and reissued. Our only hope for remaining new wine is by ever coming back to Jesus; only His message is ever new, however long ago, historically, He gave it.

Jesus says, The content of the new relationship with God that I propose cannot be confined within the mode of expression of Judaism. There is such power and vigor in the Gospel, that, by its very nature, it bursts the constrictions of Judaism, or of any other legal system with which it is put. This is why Christianity with its modes of expression is a completely different kind of thing than Judaism, even though it is founded upon the preparations made for it in the Law and Prophets.

There is a succinct warning, however, in Jesus-’ admission that there would be plenty of admirers of the old wine, (Luke 5:39) And no one after drinking old wine desires new; for he says -The old is good. He points out how natural it is for those, who have been accustomed to the old worn-out forms of Judaism, to be unwilling to abandon them for what they would consider to be untried and novel. Jesus faces the reality of the old conservatives, the reactionaries in Judaism whose lives were bound up in the formalism and thought patterns of the past. Barclay (Matthew, in loc.) sees the problem of the new idea here:

Jesus was perfectly conscious that He came to men with new ideas and a new conception of the truth, and He was well aware how difficult it is to get a new idea into men’s minds at all. Our minds must be elastic enough to receive and contain new ideas, since the history of progress is the history of the overcoming of the prejudices of the shut mind.

Some might take exception to Jesus-’ argument, saying, But it is universally conceded among those who know good wines, that the old wine is in fact the best, the most fully matured, the richest flavored. But Plummer (Luke, 164) answers:

The comparative merits of the old and the new wine are not touched by the parable, but the taste for them. One who is accustomed to old will not wish for new: it does not attract him by look or fragrance. The prejudiced person will not even try the new, or admit that it has any merits. He knows that the old is pleasant, and suits him; and that is enough; he is not going to change.

Compare the relative conversion of an outcast tax-collector, who had less prejudice for the old system, with the conversion of a Pharisee who had advanced in Judaism beyond many fellow countrymen and extremely zealous for the traditions of his fathers. (Galatians 1:13-17; Philippians 3:5-6; 1 Timothy 1:13; Acts 26:14).

One more note is in order regarding how Jesus dealt with His objectors. He practiced what He preached: mercy and not sacrifice. According to the letter of divine truth and justice, he could have cut down John’s disciples with a withering fire of irrefutable argument. By the sheer power of His voice He could have given them no ground. But in mercy the Lord here gives us a beautiful example by which we may grasp the truth that the Lord’s servant must not strive, but be kindly to every one, an apt teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth! (2 Timothy 2:24-25) Our Master was that way. He knew how to concede a point, admitting the natural preference of some Jews for ancient Judaism. As Bruce writes (Training, 75)

This striking sentiment exhibits rare candour in stating the case of opponents, and not less rare modesty and tact in stating the case of friends. Too seldom for the church’s good have lovers of the old ways understood Christ’s wisdom, and lovers of new ways sympathized with His charity.

What Jesus required of the Pharisees (Matthew 9:13), He Himself practiced in this critical encounter with John’s disciples. He is not willing that any of these men should perish, but that they should all come to repentance by leaving the old forms of Judaism, stop trying to correct the faults of the old and just become new men in a new, totally different relation with God. This they could do in His discipleship to which, by His very gentleness in dealing with their problem, He leaves the door open. He proves in everyday practice what He will later affirm of Himself, His meekness (Matthew 11:29). This sheer gentleness with opponents, when such invincible power lay within His grasp, sets Jesus apart as the real Savior of men. (Cf. 2 Corinthians 13:10) This attractive gentleness of Jesus, whereby He deals effectively with human problems, without destroying the confidence or glimmer of hope that Jesus could help, probably caused John’s disciples later to return to the Master, when their great light in Israel had been extinguished. (John 5:35; Matthew 14:12). Here then is the might and wisdom of meekness.

FACT QUESTIONS

What is a place of toll?

Who were the publicans? Describe their occupation, public notoriety, religious and political character as viewed by their contemporaries.

Describe Matthew’s response to Jesus-’ invitation to be His disciple.

Give evidence that renders psychologically sound the impression given in the text that Matthew responded immediately and decisively to Jesus-’ unusual invitation.

Tell all you know about Matthew Levi.

What passage of Scripture did Jesus cite book, chapter and verse) in defense of His intimacy with such scum as the publicans, and sinners.

What was the probable reason for Matthew’s giving this feast for Jesus as well as for his acquaintances?

What were the complaints offered regarding Jesus-’ feasting and what two separate groups made them? How did these complaints as well as the complainers differ from each other?

Explain the three parabolic figures used by Jesus to answer the questions raised by those who objected to His feasting instead of fasting.

What particular twist does Luke give to the last illustration, thus making it a fourth illustration? What does Jesus mean by this latter picture?

What particular facts out of oriental life and culture does one need to know in order to grasp the meaning of Jesus-’ last three illustrations about the present bridegroom, the torn cloth needing repair and the bursting wineskins?

Explain the point of view behind the question posed by the disciples of John.

Explain why it was so natural and right for Jesus to be found generally surrounded by sinners. Show how this fact just as deeply demonstrates His identity and true mission to earth as His stupendous miracles.

Matthew 9:18-26

Section 20 JESUS RAISES JAIRUS-’ DAUGHTER

(Parallels: Mark 5:21-43; Luke 8:49-56)

TEXT: 9:18-26

While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead; but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.

And Jesus arose, and followed him, and so did his disciples.

And behold, a woman, who had an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the border of his garment:

for she said within herself, If I do but touch his garment, I shall be made whole.

But Jesus turning and seeing her said, Daughter, be of good cheer; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.

And when Jesus came into the ruler’s house, and saw the flute players and the crowd making a tumult.

he said, Give place: for the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn.

But when the crowd was put forth, he entered in, and took her by the hand; and the damsel arose.

And the fame hereof went forth into all that land.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

What kind of faith in Jesus did Jairas and this sick woman have that drove them to Jesus? What factors probably brought them to this kind of belief ?

What is your opinion? Was the miracle of healing performed on the woman without the knowledge and will of Jesus?

Why do you think the woman would wish to resort to the method she chose, rather than simply ask Jesus directly for help?

Why did Jesus stop to embarrass this poor woman? She was embarrassed, was she not? What possible motive could Jesus have had for doing it?

Why was the woman so afraid after she had been healed? Would we not rather expect confidence and joy of her than fear?

Why do you think Jesus said only believe, to the desperate Jairus when the news came of the death of his daughter? How could that help?

Why would Jesus permit no more to enter the room where the maiden lay dead than just a few? Why should He drive everyone else out? Would it not seem better to have as many witnesses to this miraculous event as possible?

Why did Jesus order Jairus and his wife to provide some nourishment for their daughter after He raised her from the dead? Could not He have provided miraculous bread for the little girl?

What possible reason could Jesus have for not wanting this miracle reported? Was He ashamed of what He had done, or, perhaps, did He fear critical examination of the evidence for the fact and knew that He had foisted a common deception upon the parents? What was to gain by demanding silence over this miracle?

Do you think that Jesus really expected the people to keep quiet about this wonderful miracle performed upon the only daughter of a prominent official? Could He not have foreseen that at least the neighbors would have known the facts and so divulged the information? If He did not expect them to be silent about the miracle, why then did He sternly instruct them to be silent? If He did expect them to remain silent, how did He expect His instructions to be carried out against human nature?

Why did Jesus have the Gadarene demoniac spread the news of his great deliverance, but requires the opposite of Jairus and countless others?

Why do you suppose Mark quotes Jesus-’ words to the dead maiden in Aramaic? Does this give any indication whether Jesus usually spoke Aramaic or Greek? How would you go about deciding? Is there any value in knowing the answer?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

Now when Jesus had returned across the Sea of Galilee in a boat and arrived on the other side, He disembarked at His home, Capernaum. Instantly a large crowd of people began to gather about Him and welcome Him back, because they had all been waiting for His return. While He was standing there on the beach talking to them, a man named Jairus, one of the synagogue officials, came up through the crowd. When he spotted Jesus, he fell to his knees before Him, worshipped Him, begging Him desperately to come to his home, since his only twelve year-old daughter was dying. He pleaded, My little girl is about to die! She is dead (if you do not come!) Just come lay your hands on her to heal her and she will live! So Jesus started out to follow him with His disciples. But as they went, a large crowd of people followed too, the people all crowding through the narrow streets, They were all around Him, Now, notice, there was a woman in that crowd who had suffered a hemorrhage for twelve years. This lady had gone through a great deal under the treatment of many doctors. She had spent all her money and still could not be healed by any of them. She was no better off; rather, she had gotten worse. She too had heard what people were saying about Jesus. So she came up behind Him in the crowd and touched the fringe on His robe. She did this because she had said to herself, If I could just touch His cloak, I would be healed. Right then and there her hemorrhage stopped, and she knew in her body that she was cured of her disease. Jesus, aware that healing power had left Him, immediately stopped, turned around in the crowd and asked, Who touched my clothes? Who was it that touched me? When all denied it, Peter and those disciples who were with Him, objected, Master, you see so many people all around you, pressing against you, and yet you ask, -Who touched me?-’ Meanwhile Jesus kept looking around to see who had done it. Then He reaffirmed, Someone touched me. I know because I felt healing power leave me. But when the woman, realizing that she had been healed, saw that she had not really escaped notice, came forward trembling fearfully. Falling down at Jesus-’ feet, she laid before Him the whole story. She admitted before everyone why she had touched Him and affirmed that she had been instantaneously cured. Looking right at her, Jesus encouraged her, Cheer up, Daughter, it is your faith in me that has healed you. Go in peace, healed of your disease. Immediately the woman was cured! While He was still talking to her, a messenger came from Jairus-’ home with the news, Your daughter is gone. Why bother the Rabbi further? But Jesus, overhearing and ignoring what was said, comforted the synagogue official, Now do not be afraid, just trust me and she shall be well. Then Jesus cut the size of the group down to Peter, James and John and hurried along to Jairus-’ house. When they arrived at the house, He permitted only these three and the child’s father and mother to go in. He heard the funeral music and saw the crowd in general commotion. The people inside the house were weeping and wailing loudly, mourning her death. But when Jesus went in, He asked them, Why all this commotion and weeping? Stop crying and leave, because the little girl is not dead, just sleeping. This drew a scornful laugh, since they all knew that she was really dead. But Jesus ordered them all outside the house and led the little girl’s father and mother and His companions into the room where the child was. Then, taking the little girl by the hand, He said to her in Arámaic, Talitha cumi, which means, My child, get up. Instantly her life returned. The girl stood up immediately and walked around. She was twelve. Her parents just could not get over it, they were -so overcome with happiness. But Jesus very earnestly instructed them not to tell anyone about what had happened. Then He directed them to give her something to eat. The story of this became the talk all around that country.

SUMMARY

No sooner had Jesus returned from the Decapolis where He had freed the two Gadarene demoniacs, when He was met at the boat by well-wishing crowds who had been waiting for Him. No sooner had He begun talking with them than Jairus, an important synagogue official, requested Jesus to come immediately to heal his dying daughter. On the way, Jesus-’ progress is not only impeded by surging throngs blocking the streets, but also by a woman whom He stopped to heal of a long-standing disease, a hemorrhage. Messengers informed Jairus that in the meantime his little girl had died. Whereupon Jesus encouraged him not to lose heart but trust Him. To hurry, Jesus reduced His entourage to three men and reached the ruler’s house only to find the funeral already in progress. Jesus, Jairus and the three Apostles rush into the house. Jesus said, Stop the music: funeral’s over! The little lamb is asleep, not dead. Everyone thought His words in bad taste and utterly ridiculous since they knew the child to be dead. But after ordering the crowd to leave the house, Jesus raised the damsel to life. The overjoyed parents-’ part was to provide the little girl some food. Jesus tried to keep the matter private, but the story spread anyway.

NOTES

I. THE REQUEST OF JAIRUS DELIVERED (9:18, 19)

Matthew 9:18 While He spake these things unto them, as a phrase, immediately raises the obvious questions: to whom? about what things? Some harmonists use this phrase as if it were the clearest clue regarding the connection of contexts given by the three Evangelists, since Mark and Luke only begin this section of their respective narratives with the word and (kaì) which loosely connects this section with what they record as preceding, Matthew, on the other hand, begins his narration of Jairus-’ request with a genitive absolute that contains the apparently strict connection of time subsequent to what had immediately before been narrated, i.e. Matthew’s feast and the ensuing discussion with John’s disciples. In which case, we would know both the people with whom Jesus spoke as well as the subject matter.

But it is strange that Mark and Luke, who so often generally follow a more chronological arrangement, should now find themselves agreeing together on this point over against Matthew, who more often follows a logical system! Mark and Luke connect this request made by Jairus with Jesus-’ return from Decapolis by boat after the freeing of the Gadarene demoniacs. (See Mark 5:18-22; Luke 8:38-41) And in fairness, it must be admitted that Matthew too, however much more generally, puts Jairus-’ request after Jesus-’ return from Decapolis (Matthew 8:34; Matthew 9:1; Matthew 9:18), with the exception that he inserts the accounts of the forgiven paralytic (Matthew 9:2-8) and the call of Matthew, the feast of the publicans and the question from John’s disciples (Matthew 9:9-17), events which Mark and Luke locate elsewhere. As noticed before, this does not surprise us, since Matthew has made no pretenses of following a strictly chronological sequence. But what IS surprising is Matthew’s rather precise time connection with which he introduces this narrative. Even though this second view of the question is taken in the PARA-phrase-harmony, it remains an admitted difficulty how Matthew’s introductory phrase is to be understood by the original readers of his Gospel who had no opportunity to compare Mark and Luke. Certainly they would have connected the phrase with the immediate context, as indicated above. But as noted by some commentators, this phrase by Matthew is introduced apparently without reason, until the other Evangelists are consulted. They, in turn inform us that Jesus was indeed met at the seashore by a great crowd of people who had been waiting to welcome Him back. It would then be this group He was addressing when Jairus arrived. This puts the emphasis upon the independent witness of the separate Gospel writers who give varying features of the same event while unwittingly complementing each other’s testimony.

But the greater problem raised by Jairus-’ arrival is that, since Jesus was just in Capernaum the day before, before He sailed for the eastern shore, why had not the ruler brought the case of his daughter before Jesus then, before she got into this desperately sick condition?

This condition could have been caused by the sudden attack of some lethal illness or of a poison, a situation which would have left Jairus quite unprepared to intercept Jesus in time before He sailed.

Or perhaps the ruler’s own faith had not developed into that concrete confidence in Jesus that would have caused him to take that decisive step the day before. Could it be that the growth of his faith in Jesus had to overcome his own personal pride?

While He spake these things unto them, certainly indicates the emergency nature of Jairus-’ request, as if, having once made the decision to ask Jesus, he must now interrupt what the Lord is saying to make his plea known. But Jesus, too, is willing to interrupt an important discussion (and what discussion of His was NOT important?) to heal the broken heart of this grieving father. Discussion was important, but the actual call of human need, to practice God’s mercy in actual cases, drove Jesus to action. His doctrine did not stop with discussion and theory but ACTION!

Behold, there came a ruler, named Jairus, one of the Jewish elders, responsible for the administration of the synagogue (Mark 5:22), a pillar of Jewish orthodoxy in Capernaum. But his wealth and position meant nothing when death visited his home: Standing helpless before the tragedy that is at this moment threatening to strike his little girl, he comes to Jesus. That Jairus lived in Capernaum, hence had many excellent opportunities to see Jesus-’ miracles for himself and come to this position of faith, is decided by comparing Matthew 9:1: Getting into a boat He crossed over and came to His own city, with Mark 2:1 where it is learned that Jesus was at home in Capernaum. This had been Jesus-’ headquarters since His removal there early in His career (John 2:12; Matthew 4:13). Had Jairus earlier joined his colleagues in accusing Jesus of blasphemy? (Mark 9:2-8) Had he discussed the healing done by Jesus at long distance, with the government official (John 4:46 b ff.)? Had he been among the delegation sent by the centurion to request Jesus-’ healing for his servant? (Luke 7:3-5) Whatever had been his conviction earlier, the circumstances in his family were facts stronger than theories. Now as never before he must decide what he thinks about this Rabbi from Nazareth! But he must decide carefully for a man in his position has everything to lose, should he choose wrongly: the disgrace brought about by failure, would be impossible to bear, his townspeople impossible to live with, He could be turned out of his influential position and laughed out of town! Jairus must have reckoned with this possibility as he weighed every facet of this question, He must now decide whether he believes Jesus or not. But this internal struggle is rendered most severe by the rapidly deteriorating condition of his only daughter who lay dying before his eyes. Surely all of the past miracles of Jesus now loom large in Jairus-’ mind, tipping the balance in favor of appealing to Jesus for help now. So he goes.

A ruler worshipped Him. (See on Matthew 2:2; Matthew 4:9, Vol. I) This homage is deeply significant, not because somebody falls at the feet of Jesus, but because THIS man, this member of the school board, this leader in religious matters, does it. As a man of position high in Jewish society, he stands to be disgraced if Jesus could not do exactly what he now asks, If he is trusting his cause to a Nazarene Rabbi, with whose views his unbelieving colleagues violently differed, he has more than personal pride to forfeit. Thus, this act requires great courage, born of love for his only child and confidence in and respect for Jesus, to grovel in the dust not only in front of Jesus, but in full view of the large crowd of people gathered about Him. (See Mark 5:21; Mk. 8:40)

What is most noticeable here is that, while Jesus refused all forms of human ostentation and preached against it mercilessly, He accepted without blush this worship. (Contrast the proper response shown by His servants: Peter, Acts 10:25-26; the Angel, Revelation 19:10) Who is this that permits such high, respected religious officials to worship Him?

Saying, My daughter is even now dead. The problem immediately arises here how to harmonize this declaration of the father, as reported by Matthew, with his statement recorded by Mark and Luke: My little daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well, and live. (Mark 5:23) She was dying. (Luke 8:42) Later, according to Mark, and Luke, a messenger from Jairus-’ house reports the actual moment of death, after this appeal of Jairus had been made to the Lord, Two principle solutions have been offered to this apparent contradiction:

Either Jairus did not say it, in which case Matthew puts words into his mouth. Those who seek to point out that Matthew merely abbreviates the account, while Mark and Luke give the fuller version, must face the resultant weakness in Matthew’s historical reporting that such a harmonization involves, Here the fact that Matthew’s Gospel is topical, as opposed to the chronological versions of Mark and Luke, does not help. For, even if for sake of brevity, Matthew puts words in Jairus-’ mouth on one occasion, which he did not say himself but heard from others on a later occasion, what is to keep Matthew from reporting words that Jesus did not say? Or facts that He did not do?

Or Jairus did say it, in which case his words may be interpreted in a sense that permit them to be a faithful description of the facts as he knew them when he left home in search of Jesus. See PARAPHRASE/HARMONY at this point. Barnes (Matthew-Mark, 102) observes:

It is likely that a father, in these circumstances, would use a word as nearly expressing actual death as would be consistent with the fact that she was alive. -My daughter was so sick that she must be by this time dead.-'

Augustine, cited by Trench (Miracles, 108) commented: For such was his despair that his desire was rather that she should be brought to life, since he did not think it possible she should be found alive, who was dying when he left her. Bengel, cited by Trench (op cit.) thinks that this he said at a guess. Trench himself concludes:

When the father left his child, she was at the latest gasp; he knew life was ebbing so fast when he quitted her side, that she could scarcely be living still; and yet, having no certain notices of her death, he was perplexed whether to speak of her as departed or not, and thus at one moment would express himself in one language, at the next in another.

With this latter suggested harmonization agree also the latter words of Mark (Mark 5:23) that she may be made well and live. Thus, Mark, while describing the daughter as at the point of death, also intimates Jairus-’ anxiety and awareness that perhaps, even as he spoke, his only begotten had passed on. This latter harmonization also leaves Matthew’s reporting intact without assuming abbreviation, and reveals even more poignantly the truest psychological expression of the father. The problem is most easily resolved, therefore, not be examining Matthew’s reporting but by insight into the contradictory feelings in the heart of Jairus.

But come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live. How many times had this ruler of the synagogue seen Jesus heal just this way, by putting His hands upon the sick? She shall live: he asks for more than the common rabbi’s blessing; he demands life! These are words of faith, although not of so great faith as that of the centurion, since Jairus could not conceive of Jesus as being able to speak the word from where He stood, to heal his daughter. (Cf. Matthew 8:8) Nor did Jesus require him to accept such a great test of his confidence in His power, as He did of the other Capernaurn official (John 4:46 b - John 4:53) Instead

Matthew 9:19 Jesus arose, and followed him, and so did His disciples. Imagine the scene: Jesus, having acknowledged the warm reception awaiting Him at the waterfront, was talking with the gathered crowds. Jairus interrupted to make his frantic plea. Now Jesus and the Twelve get moving through the crowds following the lead of Jairus. But the intensely curious people whose chief interest was the Lord do not necessarily open up a path in their midst to permit easy passage for this emergency. By the time the immediate party of Jesus arrive in town it becomes almost impossible to make rapid headway through the people (Cf. Mark 5:24; Luke 8:42 b especially in Greek: synéthlibon and sunêpnigon) crowding the narrow streets.

Why and how such a large crowd could be waiting for Jesus on the beach as He disembarked is easily explained by two facts:

They could be easily amassed at the beach long before He arrived, since the familiar boat in which He rode (Peter’S) could be seen coming across the lake long before it was pulled up on the western shore.

The explanation of the excitement of the people and their desire to welcome Him back is found in the unabated excitement of the preceding day, which, according to Mark and Luke, was a moment of great popularity for Jesus. (See on Matthew 8:23) Jesus had literally sailed away to escape this excitement. Now the people wait for Him, gather around Him and welcome His return. No wonder that, upon His first call to go elsewhere, they crowd around Him, reluctant to let Him out of their sight.

But in so doing, they impede His progress and unwittingly frustrate Jairus as much as humanly tolerable!

II. THE ROBE OF JESUS DISCREDITED (9:20-22)

Matthew 9:20 And behold, a woman, who had an issue of blood twelve years, came behind Him. Here was one person in that vast throng that was not the least bit curious about what would happen at Jairus-’ home. Her desperation and determination drove all other considerations from her mind: she was concentrating on her one last chance to be well after years of failure. Her hemorrhage must be seen from the Jewish legal standpoint to be able to appreciate the measures she adopted for her healing here. She was:

Banned in a practical way from worship of God in the temple, since the hemorrhage rendered her Levitically unclean (Leviticus 15:19-31) and contaminating to all she touched (Numbers 19:22). So she dared not venture into the Temple with the other worshippers (Numbers 19:20; Leviticus 15:31; cf. God’s symbolic use of exactly this woman’s situation as an expression of His deep disgust for Israel: Ezekiel 36:17).

Practically excluded from normal marriage relations (Leviticus 16:24).

She should not even have been in this crowd, for she brought ceremonial uncleanness upon all she touched.

Practically penniless (Mark 5:26) having spent more on medicines and doctors than on essentials. Until medicine was developed into a science, its practice in those days bordered more upon witchcraft, ignorance and superstition than upon knowledge. (See Edersheim’s description of typical prescriptions offered for this particular case, Life, I, 620) No cure, for which she paid, worked.

Decidedly incurable and growing worse (Mark 5:26; Luke 8:43).

Unbelievably desperate after waging this futile battle for twelve years against an illness that left her without her strength, her social intercourse, her worship.

Is it any surprise then, when we view her plight from this standpoint, that she should approach Jesus this way?

She came behind Him, and touched the border of His garment: for she said within herself, If I do but touch His garment, I shall be made whole. Why would this woman wish to touch just the border of Jesus-’ garment rather than ask Him directly for help?

Having already dealt with so much superstition that passed for medicine, as well as being Jewish, hence, affected by the views Jews held toward the sacred fringe (see below), she may have held a somewhat superstitious view of His clothes. It is presumed she was Jewish, only in the absence of a declaration that she was gentile, something that the gospel writers would probably have not failed to notice.

The nature of her illness might cause her in fitting modesty to seek a private miracle, After all, she could not go to request Jesus-’ help in the synagogues. And, in private, He was nearly always surrounded by His close men friends, His disciples. She must meet Him somehow while He was going from one place to another, But because of her particular disease, she could hardly force herself to make her need public.

But her Jewish background would teach her that she would contaminate everyone she touched, hence she would most naturally try to touch Jesus without making anyone else aware of it, But did she not believe that she would not also render Jesus impure? Had she heard about Jesus-’ touching the leper without great concern for His own purity? (Matthew 8:3) Or did she even consider these questions? Her understanding is certainly conditioned by precisely what she had heard about Him. (Mark 5:27)

Could it be that her humiliating poverty and ignorance of Jesus-’ gracious willingness to help without charge, caused her to try to sneak this unpaid blessing away from Him?

Could it be that her desperation, brought about by years of semi-invalidism, led her to conclude this method to be the only one she dared risk? It is impossible for us to know perfectly the mental state with which she now approached the Lord.

These questions only superficially examine the woman’s situation from the naturalistic point of view. Jesus-’ words (Matthew 9:22) are decisive in declaring that her real motive for coming to Him was her faith. These words (Matthew 9:21), however tinged with ignorance they may seem to us, are the expression of her faith! Jesus respected even this amount of trust she had in Him, in order to bring her to fuller knowledge and more intelligent faith.

The border of His garment. The westerner might ask why not merely touch Jesus while standing erect, or perhaps touch a fold of His robe without stooping to take hold especially of the border? But to the Jews the border of the outer garment was especially meaningful, since God had ordered them to make blue tassels at the four corners of their outer cloak as a reminder to them of their holiness unto God as His people committed to do His will. (Numbers 15:37-41; Deuteronomy 22:12) Arndt-Gingrich (449), translating kráspedon, put edge, border, hem of a garment, as first definition, but include the tassel which the Israelite was obligated to wear, with the proviso: depending on how strictly Jesus followed the Mosaic law, and also upon the way in which kráspedon was understood by the authors and first readers of the gospels. If the tassels are meant, they were fastened at the four corners of a large square of cloth with a hole in the middle for the head. When put on, this was folded over the shoulders with half in front, half in back much like a poncho. With tassels on the two front corners and the two back, it would be easy for anyone to touch one of the back tassels without the wearer feeling the touch. (See Edersheim, Life, I, 623; who thinks that exact knowledge about the nature of Jesus-’ outer garment is not necessary, since the law would be fulfilled when the tassels were attached to the corners of any garment of any design.) Since the Pharisees attached great importance to the tassel by enlarging theirs (probably just another case of ostentation to gain special merit for obvious piety), this woman may have decided that the robe of Jesus possessed special power that she might receive by merely touching it, thus without disturbing Him or rendering public the nature of her affliction.

I shall be made whole. Looking at her actions as the expression of great faith, rather than half-enlightened superstition, Edersheim (Life, I, 626) suggests that she had thought about Jesus as One whose word, spoken at a distance had brought healing, and he concludes:

What strong faith to expect that even contact with him, the bare touch of His garment, would carry such Divine Power as to make -her whole-’. She believed so much in Him, that she felt as if it needed not personal appeal to Him; she felt so deeply the hindrances to her making request of Himself, that believing so strongly in Him, she deemed it sufficient to touch, not even Himself, but that which in itself had no power or value, except as it was in contact with His Divine Person.

Matthew 9:22 But Jesus turning and seeing her said. The process by which Jesus singled her out among the crowd is here greatly abbreviated as Matthew omits what Mark and Luke record as a short conversation noted in the PARAPHRASE-HARMONY.

One problem, noted by many commentators but left unsolved by most and unsatisfactorily handled by the rest, is: did this miracle occur with the foreknowledge and will of Jesus? That is, did Jesus see her coming, perceive her heart and need and deliberately heal her when she touched His garment? It is easy to assert His omniscience on the basis of other texts, but that would not solve the question raised by this text, since there were certain things Jesus chose not to know, such as the time of His return (Matthew 24:36) and the exact quantity of faith of the centurion (Matthew 8:10 on which see Notes) or the unbelief of the Nazarenes (Mark 6:6), for by both He was genuinely surprised. Unfortunately, our text does not state when Jesus knew the woman’s purpose or whether He exercised His will to heal her. The Evangelists do note clearly that the Lord was immediately aware that power had gone from Him to heal (Mark 5:30; Luke 8:46). Further, His deliberate gesture of looking around to see her who (ideîn ten) had done it (Mark 5:32) and His question: Who touched me and my garments? can also be harmonized just as much with a desire to bring this hidden healing before the crowd as with a genuine desire for information. (Other illustrations where Jesus knew the answer to questions He asked in order to teach or clarify an issue: Cf. Luke 9:47 with Mark 9:33; John 6:5-6; Luke 24:17)

If He asks for information, in which case His personal knowledge and will were not involved in the healing, how then was the woman healed? It is answered by some that God the Father in His absolute omniscience knew the woman’s intention and approach, and so healed her by power from Jesus, whose human attention was deliberately concentrated elsewhere, i.e. upon Jairus and his needs. Jesus, then, aware of the healing but not immediately of the identity of the healed, stopped to discern who it was. Turning His divine attention to this question, by omniscience He knows who it was before she came forward. These suggestions are admittedly not without problems, due both to the deliberate limitation of information shown by the Holy Spirit as well as by our ignorance of the true nature of the God-Man, Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus-’ purpose in asking the questions was not to embarrass the poor woman, but to bring to light the facts of her case, her miraculous healing and to correct what misconceptions she had about His willingness to heal her or about the power that accomplished it. His question, asked in masculine gender (Luke 8:45: tís ho hapsámenós mou;), leaves her free to admit what she had done. But her fear and trembling, noticed by both Mark and Luke, arise perhaps from fear that He was offended by what she had done in secretly taking a blessing while contaminating Him by her touch or that He might take back the blessing, leaving her thus forever hopeless after knowing an instant of perfect health. (Cf. 2 Kings 5:20-27)

But why did Jesus stop to point her out before the crowd, even though it must certainly embarrass her? The primary motive was His concern for her. He stopped and took time to concentrate all of His precious time, energy and attention upon this one human soul, for this was HER hour of need. Then, He must do this out of concern for the crowd and for His own honor. Her desire to hide the cure was cheating both her and the other people of the joy in knowing what Jesus desired to communicate both to her and all men. Her desire to hide was also withholding the thanks and honor due Him. Superstition could arise from this incident insinuating that Jesus-’ robe itself possessed magical powers quite independent of His knowledge and will. So several reasons suggest themselves to explain Jesus-’ actions:

Jesus wanted to prevent the misconception that there might be some magic power in His garments. Plummer (Luke, 236) summarizes: It was the grasp of her faith, not of her hand, that wrought the cure. It was her confidence in Him that healed her, not magic or superstitious reverence for a tassel!. Jesus Himself discredited His own robe, leaving no place for sacred relics to be specially venerated in His religion.

This incident was definitely not Jewish magic. (See Edersheim, Life, II, Appendix XVI, 775) Nor was it that practiced by Asians or westerners of a period shortly later when the Apostles in the name of Jesus combatted those very forms of the black arts, condemning those practices in no uncertain terms. However, some of their miracles, comment Conybeare and Howson, (Life and Epistles of St. Paul, 372),

were accommodated to the peculiar forms of sin, superstition, and ignorance they, were required to oppose. The narrative of what was done by St. Paul at Ephesus (Acts 19:11-12) should be compared with St. Peter’s miracles at Jerusalem (Acts 5:12-16).. Though the change was usually accomplished on the speaking of a word, intermediate agency was sometimes employed;. (John 9:6-7). The hem of Christ’s garment was made effectual to the healing of a poor sufferer and the conviction of the bystanders. So on this occasion garments were made the means of communication of a healing power to those who were at a distance, whether they were possessed with evil spirits, or afflicted with ordinary diseases, Such effects, thus publicly manifested, were a signal refutation of the charms and amulets and mystic letters of Ephesus. Yet was this no encouragement to blind superstition. When the suffering woman was healed by touching the hem of the garment, the Savior. said, -Virtue is gone out of me.-‘And here at Ephesus we are reminded that it was God who -wrought miracles by the hands of Paul-’ (ver. 11), and that -the name,-’ not of Paul, but -of the Lora Jesus, was magnified-’ (ver. 17).

Jesus needed to demonstrate His certain knowledge of the miracle. To Him this was no surprise, even though done by secret, unseen power. He was unsatisfied to appear to have healed her impersonally by His garments. It was as if He said to her: I want you to see my face.

To confirm as hers what she had already taken, Jesus here states His own free, generous giving of it: Go in peace, and be healed of your disease. (Mark 5:34 b). By so doing He removes any doubt in her mind about His willingness to heal and forgive her of any offense she may have caused Him by using the approach she did.

By lovingly restoring her to fellowship, love and usefulness, He opens the door for her to leave her secret admiration and become His disciple openly. Edersheim (Life, I, 627) remarks approvingly: The Lord did not, as Pseudo-orthodoxy would prescribe it, disappoint her faith for the weakness of its manifestation, To have disappointed her faith, which was born of such high thought of Him, would have been to deny Himself. By addressing her, Daughter, He renders this stranger, alone in the crowd, a member of His own spiritual family in fellowship with God (cf. Matthew 12:46-50). This tender, endearing term does not indicate whether she were older or younger than Jesus. It could be justly a friendly greeting by which He assures her of His own love and concern for her in contrast to her fear of His reproof.

Your faith has made you whole. (Other examples: Luke 7:50; Luke 17:19; Luke 18:42; Acts 3:16; Acts 14:9) McGarvey (Matthew-Mark, 295) repeats what should be axiomatic in Christianity: that faith saves a man not by the mere fact that he believes, but by that which it leads him to do. This woman, going only on what she had heard of Jesus, formulated this plan and carried it out, even though it involved great ignorance on her part about His mercy and willingness to help. But, even as Jesus clarified the issue, it was not her plan that saved her, but it was her plan that brought her to Jesus, who on the basis of her faith, saved her. How much more can our faith save us as we follow Jesus-’ clearly revealed plan of salvation whereby we come to Him to be saved? Praise God for His mercy in not leaving us to formulate our own plans out of ignorance! Now we can mold our plans according to His gracious revelation.

How had her faith made her whole? Her subjective trust in an objective supernatural power caused her to bring herself into contact with that power. Many had touched Jesus that day (Mark 5:31), but nothing happened to them, even though many had diseases just as obstinate and needing miraculous help as hers. Her faith and determination to express it singled her out, so Jesus healed her only. Other days there would be other people (Matthew 14:36), but this day there was but one woman who showed this faith.

Hç pistis sou sêsõkén se is ambiguous. See the examples above cited in which this phrase (Your faith has saved you.) is sometimes used with those whom Jesus had healed; at other times He says it to healthy, forgiven sinners. Perhaps Jesus deliberately chose this expression to convey two ideas instead of one: Your faith has brought you both healing and forgiveness. Whatever offense she might have brought Jesus by secretly trying to take a blessing without His express approval or by defiling Him by her touch (according to her view of defilement), is all forgiven. But the emphasis here is on the healing, since the lady thought, I shall be made well (sõthèsomai is the same verb, sõzein, Jesus used to declare her salvation, sésõken).

And the woman was made whole from that hour. Mark and Luke time her healing as taking place when she touched His robe, since she immediately felt the change in her body that the healing produced, a fact which she apparently related later (Luke 8:47). Matthew’s general statement (apò tçs hõras ekeinçs) must not be interpreted so as to contradict the others, as if the healing depended upon Jesus-’ words here related and not upon the release of healing power Jesus Himself noticed earlier (Luke 8:46; Mark 5:30), an impression however distinctly conveyed by the RSV in that committee’s choice of the word instantly.

III. THE ROLE OF JESUS DECIDED

Jesus-’ journey, interrupted by the healing of the woman, was filled with delay that must have been agonizing to this father who just knew that every second counted. His understanding and faith could not rise to the challenge imposed by, the many hindrances these must overcome. Just then, right at this extremely tense moment for Jairus, when the hurrying procession, bringing the Master to heal his daughter, had ground to a halt by seemingly endless delays, is about to get started again, right at that moment, the word came from his house that his worst fears are now reality: they are too late! (Mark 5:35; Luke 8:49) It would have taken almost superhuman effort to keep him from going into shock there, but Jesus-’ words provided just the needed psychological power to balance the effect of that crushing message and give him hope: Do not fear; only believe and she shall be well (Luke 8:50; note here again sõthçsetai). Feel the irony of the situation revealed by the words of the messenger: Your daughter is dead: why trouble the Teacher any further? They had had faith enough to believe Jesus could heal the sick, but not enough to believe He could raise the dead. This practical unbelief on their part could become contagious, infecting also the ruler himself. This news drove his crisis of faith to the very limit. Perhaps the very confidence of Jesus-’ manner when He encouraged Jairus to believe, plus the fact that Jesus calmly resumed His journey to Jairus-’ house, gave the man respite from the pressure of the immediate disaster of the apparently unchangeable fact of his daughter’s death. Edersheim (Life, I, 630) notes accurately the completely passive role that Jairus now plays from this point to the end. Whereas before, he had led Jesus toward the house, now Jesus takes complete charge of the whole scene, making on-the-spot decisions and giving orders. (Mark 5:37-40; Luke 8:51) Jairus-’ faith was threatened for its very existence, but Jesus would not despise or quench it. He was ministering also to Jairus in his greatest moment of need.

Jesus-’ role in the picture is no longer that of a Healer. If He continues another step further toward Jairus-’ house, He must do so as Victor over death itself. If He admits that the common sense course for Jairus is to cease troubling the Teacher, to let Him go His way, then Jesus will have quailed in face of death. His human contemporaries could have excused Him, for what other rabbi could challenge Death? However much we may have loved Him and honored His message, we could never worship Him as complete Master over all problems that it is our lot as human beings to suffer. (Cf. Hebrews 2:9; Hebrews 2:14-18) The death notice was for Jairus a crisis in faith, but the somber message was even more for Jesus a crisis in His self-revelation.

IV. REASON FOR JOY DISPUTED (9:23, 24)

Matthew 9:23 And when Jesus came into the ruler’s house, He had already commanded nine of the Apostles to remain behind, bringing with Him only Peter, John and James. His purpose was obviously to keep the crowd under control and out of His way, since He allowed no one to follow Him (Mark 5:37) or when He got to the house, He permitted no one to enter with Him, except Peter, John and James and the father and mother of the maiden. (Luke 8:51) His choice of the nine Apostles to remain with the crowd was perhaps to serve as an example of self-discipline. Physically, the nine men just by standing still easily blocked the passage to all who tried to follow Jesus. This first step was necessary in order for Jesus to secure the quiet and dignity He desired to surround the resurrection of Jairus-’ daughter.

When Jesus came into the ruler’s house, He saw the flute-players and the crowd making a tumult. The funeral began even the same day as the death. **The flute-players **and tumult represent a different custom of mourning the dead than ours. Our custom demands silence of respect for the dead; theirs calls for release of pent-up emotions through loud mourning. This led naturally to the attitude that considered mourning more genuine, more deeply felt, the louder and more prolonged it was continued. But even human grief knows its natural limits unless it is artificially bolstered by sentimental music of hired musicians, as the flute-players here, or by the emotional reminiscences skillfully repeated by the semi-professional wailing women. (Cf. 2 Chronicles 35:25; Jeremiah 9:17-22; Jeremiah 16:5-9; Ezekiel 24:15-24; Amos 5:16-17 and perhaps also Acts 9:37-39) So when Matthew describes the funeral as a tumult, he is merely saying that it was a good funeral proceeding in good order according to the custom of the day. Mark and Luke describe the tumult as consisting of weeping and loud wailing.

Matthew 9:24 He said, Give place. (anachõreîte). This command may be taken in two different ways, both of which could be Jesus-’ meaning:

Stand back, make room! This then is Jesus-’ request merely to pass through the crowd that simply by their presence now blocked the entrance to the room where Jairus-’ daughter lay.

But taken in its stronger sense to leave, to withdraw, Jesus is saying nothing less than You may leave now, folks: the funeral’s over! These shocking words call dramatic attention to what He is about to do.

Naturally, at this time all attention would be drawn from the mourning to the sudden return of the master of the house, Jairus, and the precipitate entrance of Jesus, for many in the house knew that Jesus had been sent for. They also knew that other messengers had been dispatched to Jairus to inform him of the death of the daughter, counselling him not to bother Jesus further. Now Jesus enters the room and literally takes over. The seeming imperiousness of His manner is only apparent because, besides this brusque command (Depart), He intentionally began speaking by pricking their curiosity: Why do you make a tumult and weep? Do not weep; the child is not dead but sleeping. (Mark 5:39; Luke 8:52)

For the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth. Patient with their ignorance of His power and His plans, He is giving them opportunity to react in quite another manner than they do. His enigmatic declaration was intended to stir them to reflection about His meaning. Thus, if they were disposed to respectful attention to Him and His purposes, they were about to become the witnesses of a resurrection from the dead. Instead they responded stupidly with scorn and insults, unable to see in His words anything more than obvious insensibility to the parents-’ tragedy in this moment of loss.

These words, however, morally commit Jesus to a position of gross imposture or else to one of highest integrity. For if the little girl were not really, literally dead, then Jesus must be charged with imposture, allowing to be believed what never occurred. The parents and disciples believed the daughter to be dead (Luke 8:49; Mark 5:35), but Jesus did nothing to correct that impression except to assert that she slept. Then upon raising her, He said nothing that would correct the distinct impression that He had just brought a person once actually dead, back to life.

Not dead but sleepeth are words, then, not intended to contradict the literal state of the little girl, but to correct the common view these people had of death. They had perhaps viewed her death as a cessation of existence for both body and soul (a view not unlike that held by the Sadducees), whereas Jesus affirms, contrarily, that she is very much alive elsewhere and can be recalled as easily as one is awakened out of sleep. Or perhaps they held that she was permanently deadat least until the resurrection (a more Pharisean view) and there was nothing now to do but resign oneself to that fact and mourn her loss. But Jesus is objecting that she is NOT dead permanently so much as asleep in death from which He shall wake her, (Other illustrations of death described as a sleep: John 11:11-14; Acts 7:60; 1 Corinthians 15:6; 1 Corinthians 15:18; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17; 2 Peter 3:4)

They laughed Him to scorn. This sentence has the greatest value as circumstantial evidence for the reality of the miracle that follows, since they evince the true psychological reaction of a qualified group of people sure both of the purpose of their wailing and of the apparent inappropriateness of Jesus-’ claim that the damsel was not dead. They were all more than sure that she was dead. (Luke 8:53) This psychological reaction, though blamable from one standpoint (see above), is exactly what one would expect under the circumstances. The presence of the parents, who would be the last to surrender to the heart-rending conclusion that their only little lamb had gone, are proof against any supposition that she was in any state other than literal, physical death. (But even if it were a deep coma after whatever disease had so reduced the girl, as Barclay [Matthew I, 353] suggests, would she have been so quickly revived to full vigor and health? So it is impossible to remove the supernatural from this event.) No, her death was a fact the certainty of which these friends and neighbors thought it madness to doubt!

McGarvey (Matthew-Mark, 85) with his usual clear insight, detects in this phrase-’ one of the best evidences for the authenticity of the entire account:

If it were a pretended death and revival, we would expect to see an anxiety on the part of Jesus to make it appear that the girl was dead, and a disposition on the part of the unbelievers present to question this fact. But the reverse is true: it is the unbelievers who insist that the girl is dead, while Jesus alone raises a question about it. Perhaps the chief object of the remark She is not dead, but sleepeth, was to bring forth from the inmates of the house, who had the best opportunity to know the fact, a more emphatic affirmation that she was certainly dead.

Without intending to do so, then, these scorners among the mourners established this fact of a real resurrection from the dead beyond all doubt. By their scorn, in retrospect after the resurrection, they had shut their own mouths and, as a result, really shut the mouths of all future doubters of the reality of this marvellous resurrection.

Not dead but sleepeth. These words, that were intended to stimulate joy and eager anticipation of the mighty act of God through the resurrection of Jairus-’ daughter, were disputed, scorned and rejected. Jesus had tried to communicate this hope to all in Jairus-’ house that day, but they failed to grasp it. This is fatal, for they missed seeing the great event that all mankind has longed to look into: real resurrection from the dead. They failed because Jesus-’ words were a bit difficult and they refused to rise to the challenge of understanding Him. They thought they were justly condemning Him, but by His choice of words, He had already let them judge and condemn themselves. He was not on trial: they were. (Study this same psychology of Jesus, John 6:25-69.)

V. THE RESURRECTION OF JAIRUS-’ DAUGHTER (9:25, 26)

Matthew 9:25 The crowd was put forth not only for the reasons suggested above, but also for the following:

Scorn and criticism sterilize the attention, drawing it away from the Father onto self-defense. Perhaps Jesus wanted to concentrate His own heart upon God who raises the dead, rather than waste time and dissipate energy in defending Himself or arguing further.

He desired not credulity, but quiet. Faith could come later on the basis of the evidence here produced, but people must be in a proper spirit to observe what he does. This calls for the dignity of silence, not the confusion and tumult of mourning. Jesus put the crowd outside (Mark 5:40), not because He wanted an indispensable atmosphere of faith, as if disbelief could hinder the miracle.

He did not desire the publicity that would be certain to follow. The larger the group, the more difficult it would be to keep the matter quiet. For reasons for this attitude, see below on Matthew 9:26. This harmonizes perfectly with the strict injunction given the parents not to publish this miracle.

Perhaps the large group of professional mourners, some of them perhaps objecting out of self-interest, having been hired for the occasion, would have actually, physically hindered Jesus from, as they put it, imposing upon the parents, since no one can raise the dead! But, this suggestion is weak, since Jesus could have overpowered them by any manner He chose, had they attempted to stop Him.

Considering the temper of the crowd, Jesus-’ action assured the few chosen witnesses the best opportunity to observe what actually took place. This quiet enabled them to hear what was said, so that they would know that what He did, He did not by magic but by authority. So doing, Jesus avoided misconceptions circulated by means of wild stories started by a mob of half-hysterical people who only thought they saw or heard this or that.

He entered in, i.e. into the room where the child was, taking five unimpeachable witnesses (Mark 5:40; Luke 8:51) These future Apostles needed to witness the fact in order to give a careful account of it later to the world. (Compare the account of Peter’s raising Dorcas from the dead, Acts 9:36-42, wondering what effect this resurrection had on Peter as he walked alone into the room where Dorcas lay dead!) The parents of all people could not be deceived or bribed to promote the publication of a falsehood regarding a matter that touched them so closely and so intimately.

He took her by the hand. To touch a corpse or be touched by a woman afflicted with a hemorrhage or to touch a leper (see on Matthew 8:3) would have involved Jesus in ceremonial defilement. But here, as always, He imparted cleansing, healing and life by His touch, removing all cause of defilement in the person He touched. He was the one true exception to the Law of defilement, that was written only for people without such supernatural powers, who, rather than helping those they touched, only became defiled themselves, leaving two defiled persons. Jesus always left two clean persons, whole, cleansed and alive.

The damsel arose when Jesus took her by the hand and called to her, just as He would if He were waking her up from sleep. But this was not sleep: her spirit returned. (Luke 8:55) On the basis of the above considerations, we have to conclude that this is a real resurrection. For Jesus, Lord of both nature and miracles, both sleep and death are no mysteries, for He has experienced both. As simply as Jairus had for twelve years gone in to awaken his daughter out of sleep, so Jesus instantly raised her out of death. For to Jesus, both the sleeping and the dead can be, awakened. Who then is this who calls the dead to life? But no sooner had this twelve year old, now full of all the life and vigor, bounced out of bed and walked over to her amazed mother and daddy, than Jesus commanded them to provide her something to eat. (Mark 5:43; Luke 8:55). Why?

Jesus is so reasonable. He ordered her parents to give her, not the Law and the prophets, but food. Jairus, here is your little sweetheart, now you take care of her: give her something to eat! This marvelous Jesus has just robbed Death of its victim and yet still thinks about a meal for the little girl.

Seeing the parents overcome with amazement, Jesus may have commanded that bread be given her also to demonstrate that they were beholding no ghost, no apparition, but a real person, once dead, now returned to the concrete reality of human existence. (Cf. Luke 24:41-43 and perhaps Acts 10:41) Thus, this simple demand breaks the stunned, awed silence caused by this direct contact with the supernatural, bringing the onlookers back down to the natural, Jesus could have provided miraculous bread too, but He required the -parents to do their part by using natural means they had at hand.

Matthew 9:26 And the fame hereof went forth into all that land despite all Jesus could do to keep this from happening. Some might wonder how He could have expected otherwise by the incredible tactics He used: He stopped a funeral, drove out the mourners, while His nine disciples kept another great crowd waiting for Him to return from the funeral at Jairus-’ house. (Mark 5:24; Mark 5:37) Human curiosity, about what took place in that bed room, could know no bounds, especially when Jairus-’ daughter reappeared later, alive and healthy! But Jesus forbade only Jairus and his wife to publish the story (Mark 5:42; Luke 8:56), since they especially were in positions of authority as eyewitnesses of good repute and would have been only too willing to spread the joyful tidings far and wide. What the other neighbors and bystanders do is no concern of Jesus, for He knows that if His own disciples and the parents do not spread the story, the sensation reported here by Matthew will die out. Some might object: Why bother to hush the story when it represents so powerful an evidence of Jesus-’ authority over death itself?

Because, unless the news is quieted, people could conceivably begin bringing Jesus requests for resurrection for all their dead. This would not only be unwise on their part, but it would further hinder Jesus-’ real ministry to earth. Men too often tried to use Jesus for selfish motives. He had not come to build up a healing ministry or raise all earth’s dead yet, but to reveal God. His miracles of healing were to demonstrate God’s compassion and identify Himself as God’s Revealer. McGarvey (Matthew-Mark, 297) makes the interesting observation about how remarkable it is that we read not of a single instance in which Jesus was requested to raise the dead: and the fact may be accounted for in part by this charge of privacy, indicating he did not wish to be importuned for this exercise of His power.

Because, unless the story is suppressed, political excitement could reach a fever pitch, since mistaken views of worldly messiahs would be attached to Jesus-’ name, blocking all progress for His spiritual work. Worse still, bloody riots could result as the patriots, primarily the Zealots, tried to force Jesus to be their king and lead them against the Romans.

Plummer (Luke, 238) suggests another reason: It was given more probably for the parents-’ sake, to keep them from letting the effect of this great blessing evaporate in vain-glorious gossip. To thank God for it at home would be far more profitable than talking about it abroad.

Trench (Miracles, 113) sees an ascending scale in the glory of the three records of resurrection from the dead: here a girl just died; the son of the widow of Nain on the road for burial; then Lazarus already dead for four days. Then he continues: Immeasurably more stupendous than all these, will be the wonder of that hour, when all the dead of old, who will have lain, some of them for many thousand years, in the dust of death, shall be summoned from and shall leave their graves at the same quickening voice (John 5:28-29).

FACT QUESTIONS

To what city did Jesus return from the freeing of the Gadarene demoniacs across the Sea of Galilee? How do you know this?

What was the position in the Jewish community occupied by Jairus?

Harmonize the accounts of Mark and Luke with that of Matthew in regard to the actual request of Jairus in relationship to the actual state of the little girl: was she living or dead? Did Jairus want Jesus to come to heal or to raise her?

List several other miracles that Jesus had accomplished in this city prior to this time which may have brought Jairus and the sick woman to their position of dependence upon Jesus to help them in this their critical hour.

Explain how the woman’s faith healed her, showing how this harmonizes with the fact that it was Jesus-’ power that did it.

How did Jesus address the woman?

Describe the desperate case presented to Jesus by this woman, not only the physical malady but also the social, personal, religious and economic effects of her disease.

Describe her plan borne of desperation by which she hoped to be healed and how she carried it out.

Describe the scene changes from the first request of Jairus until Jesus actually arrived at Jairus-’ house.

Explain the presence of the flute players and the mourners so soon after the death of the maiden.

Explain the words of Jesus: The little girl is not dead, just sleeping.

Was the little girl really dead? On what basis do you answer as you do?

How many persons actually witnessed the resurrection of Jairus-’ daughter? Name them.

Explain how it was possible for people actually to be expecting Jesus-’ return from Gergesa so as to be crowding around on the beach as He landed.

Describe the political situation in Galilee that renders comprehensible Jesus-’ requirement that people not tell others about His miracles.

Matthew 9:27-34

**Section 21

JESUS GIVES SIGHT TO TWO BLIND MEN AND FREES A DUMB DEMONIAC**

TEXT: 9:27-34

And as Jesus passed by from thence, two blind men followed him, crying out, and saying, Have mercy on us, thou son of David.

And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him: and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? They say unto him, Yea, Lord.

Then he touched their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it done unto you.

And their eyes were opened. And Jesus strictly charged them, saying, See that no man know it.

But they went forth, and spread abroad his fame in all that land.

And as they went forth, behold, there was brought to him a dumb man possessed with a demon.

And when the demon was cast out, the dumb man spake: and the multitudes marvelled, saying, It was never so seen in Israel.

But the Pharisees said, By the prince of the demons casteth he out demons.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Why did these two blind men address Jesus as Son of David? What do you think they mean to imply by using the expression? Why not just call Him Jesus of Nazareth or something similar?

Why did Jesus ask the blind men if they believed He was able to give them their sight? Would it have not been simpler just to heal them without this questioning?

Why would Jesus forbid these men to tell of their healing?

What do you suppose was the justification these men used for disobeying Jesus-’ clear orders?

To what would you attribute the fact that Jesus-’ ministry appealed to a pair of old blind men here, some sick folk there, publicans and other sinners elsewhere, but was not received by the Pharisees? Was it because His evidence did not meet the critical investigation of these erudite scholars?

Why did the Pharisees make such a violent charge as this statement that Jesus-’ power is attributable to some secret league with Satan? What motivated the charge? What could they have hoped to accomplish by voicing it?

Why could not the Pharisees criticize Jesus-’ other miracles on the same basis, crediting them to the same satanic power?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

As Jesus was on His way somewhere else, two blind men following along behind Him, shouting, Take pity on us, Son of David! When Jesus had entered a house, these two came indoors too and approached Him. Jesus asked them, Do you men believe that I have the power to make you see? Yes, Lord, they said, We do. Then He touched their eyes with His fingers, saying as He did, -On the basis of your trust, the miracle will be done for you. And suddenly their sight was restored. Then Jesus sternly warned them, See that no one hears about this! But as soon as they went outside, they spread this all over the countryside! Later, as Jesus and His group were leaving, some people brought Him a dumb man who was demon-possessed. Jesus evicted the demon and immediately the man recovered his speech. Simply amazed, the onlookers remarked, We have never seen anything like it in Israel! But the Pharisees growled, He throws out these demons by secret agreement with Satan himself, the demons-’ leader!

SUMMARY

En route somewhere Jesus encountered two blind men who sought healing. Seemingly ignoring their request, Jesus entered a house. Persistently, the two came in also. Jesus challenged their faith. Receiving a positive response, Jesus healed them and ordered secrecy. However they disobeyed by telling it everywhere. On another occasion Jesus cast out the demon from a dumb man, freeing him thus to speak. The crowds responded with amazed praise; the Pharisees responded by attributing Jesus-’ power to Satan’s permission.

NOTES

Matthew 9:27 And as Jesus passed by from thence, i.e. coming away from Jairus-’ house. Two blind men followed him as well as men deprived of their sight can follow. Perhaps they were led by friends as they make their appeal, This is one of several such requests made of Jesus (see Matthew 12:22; Matthew 20:30; Matthew 21:14; John 9) among many alluded to (Luke 4:18; Luke 7:21-22). Matthew’s narrative of this and the following incidents seem almost devoid of color and significance, being related only in the barest of factual detail. But his purpose is very clear when this section is viewed in the context of the entire ninth chapter, in which he describes how opposition began to mount to Jesus-’ ministry.

Jesus was accused of blasphemy (Matthew 9:2-8)

Then He was accused of immorality for receiving as intimate friends those whom no respected person would consider as intimate companions (Matthew 9:9-13)

Thereafter the Lord was subtly accused of not being holy enough, since His disciples apparently with His approval did not follow those forms that expressed holiness (Matthew 9:14-17)

When He tried to comfort the mourners, family and friends in Jairus-’ house, telling them the little girl was not dead, but sleeping, people accused Him of madness by scorning His revelation. (Matthew 9:24)

Here, in an accusation less obvious, and certainly more subtle than the out-spoken remarks of others, is the attitude of the two blind men, when healed, that regards Jesus as anything less than a real Lord. They disobey His clear command. (See on Matthew 9:30)

Last, the Pharisees take up the jealous cry, accusing Jesus of being Satan’s ally. (Matthew 9:34)

In each case, Matthew has shown Jesus-’ masterful response to the accusations, except in these last two, unless verses 35-38 be so construed. In the case of the unwanted publicity created by the healed blind men, there was little Jesus could do or say to deal with it, except plunge into more vigorous work to meet the needs of the people who came to Him as a result of His fame, which, in fact, He did (Matthew 9:35-38). In the case of the calumny raised by the Pharisees, Matthew has reserved a full and final answer for a later section (Matthew 12:22-37), so he did not record any answer Jesus might have given here.

Crying out and saying, Have mercy on us, thou son of David. Although Son of David, taken as a title, was a then-current expression for the Christ, since the Messiah was to be THE Son of David par excellence (See Notes on Matthew 1:1; Matthew 12:23; Matthew 21:9; Matthew 21:15; Matthew 22:41-45), it may be fairly asked why, in light of the revolution-breeding implications of its use in that particular historic period, should Jesus permit these two blind men to follow Him crying out this obvious advertisement of His true identity. It may be that Jesus half hides, half reveals the exciting truth by not rebuking these men on the spot:

He permits the blind men to advertise His identity for Him, so as to suggest to all who hear them the conclusion to which all His life and preaching led.

But since He does not publicly accept this title as pronounced by them, rather forcing -them to follow into private quarters, He did not here decide the issue. As a result, those, who would have been willing to start a bloody nationalistic revolution at the drop of a suggestion that He were the long-awaited Messiah, could not move into action. This is Galilee, hot-bed of the Zealots-’ movement (See Josephus, Ant. I, 1, 1 and 6; IV, 3, 9; 5, 1; Wars, VII, 8, 1 and Edersheim, Life, I, 237-242) Jesus could accept the title openly elsewhere away from Galilee and later on, as His life and ministry had already run its course. (See Matthew 15:22; Matthew 20:29-34 and parallels; Matthew 21:9; Matthew 21:15 as over against Matthew 12:23).

Leaving the question thus unresolved, the Lord gives Himself time and opportunity to reveal what kind of Son of David He really intended to be.

But the fact that these two blind men, who would presumably have lived outside the general circle of public activity, should make this appeal to Jesus as Messiah, certainly strongly suggests that the public sentiment is growing that Jesus may well be the great Son of David. How correct a concept of Jesus-’ Messiahship did these men have in order to dare address Him in these terms? Barclay (Matthew, I, 358) observes that the usual occurrences of this title within the gospels as almost always by crowds or by people who knew Jesus only, as it were, at a distance (Matthew 15:22; Matthew 20:30-31; Mark 10:47; Mark 12:35-37) This is so strongly felt by Edersheim (Life, II, 48, 49) that he felt constrained to regard this incident as having taken place in Gentile territory and at a much later period. It is true that, in the popular mind, this messianic title conjured up the great commander who would bring national glory, power, wealth and freedom to Israel. And, just as deeply implanted in the national consciousness of Israel was this hope of national greatness, just so far from their popular hopes was the opinion that the Messiah was to be King over a spiritual reign in men’s hearts. How far these blind men shared these views cannot be known. One thing is known from the available information recorded by Matthew: Jesus did NOT praise them for their great insight into His identity. They probably came to Him with a very inadequate concept of who He was and what He intended to tell the world, and YET He helped them. Have mercy on us, thou Son of David, is still their expression of trust in Him as Messiah and that He, as Christ, could restore their sight.

Have mercy on us is all that is written down of their appeal, a fact which suggests that they humbly left to Jesus the complete right to bless them as He chose, even as the leper. (Matthew 8:2-4)

Matthew 9:28 And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him. Jesus-’ apparently indifference to their pleas puts their faith in Him to several rigorous tests: they must, by some means, follow Him if they are to have the answer to their prayers. In forcing the blind men into a private, face-to-face confrontation with Him, the Lord made them confront a personal decision about Him they perhaps had not yet made, even though their desire for sight had already caused them to hurdle other difficulties. Barclay (Matthew, I, 359) comments:

It is the law of the spiritual life that sooner or later a man must confront Jesus alone. It is all very well to take a decision for Jesus on the flood tide of emotion of some great gathering, or in some little group which is charged with spiritual power. But after the crowd, a man must go home and be alone; after the fellowship he must go back to the essential isolation of every human soul; and what really matters is not what a man does in the crowd, but what he does when he is alone with Christ.

Does Jesus foresee that they will disobey Him when once He grants their request? Their subsequent actions show that He was fully justified in testing them even further than He did.

Into the house causes us instinctively to ask, which house, since no special house has been mentioned since Jesus left that of Jairus. Why the article, the house? (Cf. Mark 7:24 without the article.) Is it the house where Jesus normally resided in Capernaum when at home (Mark 2:1)? It may be that Matthew does not regard the identification of the house as important, since his emphasis is to show the blind men’s determination to get to Jesus despite the opposition of their own blindness and the obstacle of Jesus-’ not helping them by His not letting them catch up with Him on the road. (Cf. Matthew 20:32).

Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? Why ask a question which has so obvious an answer?

Because the Lord probably suspects the depth of information that represents the foundation of their acclamation of Him as Messiah. It may well be that these blind men had taken up a popular opinion about Him, simply because everyone had begun to think it. In this case, He demands that they sound the depth of their personal understanding and the genuineness of their own dependence upon Him as Messiah.

This question could almost be an exclamation of surprise and wonder, since these two blind men, unable to see the miracles for themselves, must necessarily depend upon the eye-witness reports of others. In a sense, then, they stand in the same relationship to the miracles of Jesus as all whom Jesus blessed who have not seen, and yet believed. (John 20:29) We stand in our own century, blinded by the intervening centuries necessarily relying upon the evidence provided us by those who saw Him. (1 John 1:1-4; 2 Peter 1:16) If these blind men believed, who had so little opportunity to know the evidence at first-hand, then this consideration, as McGarvey (Matthew-Mark, 85) notes, shows, on the one hand, the abundance of the evidence, and on the other, the obduracy of those who could see and still would not believe.

Lenski (Matthew, 378) affirms another purpose behind Jesus-’ question:

to turn the thoughts of these blind men away from any political Messianic ideas regarding Jesus and to direct them to the divine power and grace found in him. The emphasis is not merely on do you believe but equally on the object clause, that I am able to do this. One who is able to restore sight by means of a touch and a word is far greater than any national king, however grand his reign may be.

Jesus had already given many evidences of His divine identity through His miracles, proofs upon which sturdy faith could be founded, With this progress in the development of His public image, He could begin to demand that that trust in Him be confessed.

They say unto him, Yea, Lord. They had already shown great faith and determination just to address Him as the Christ and persist in following this far. They had also shown great courage so openly to approach Him in these terms, since not everyone at this time acknowledged Jesus as Messiah and many never would. So it took great boldness of spirit to speak out and risk their future happiness with this Son of David, They may have been blind to this world, but they were not blind to spiritual reality. Now that Jesus puts this direct question to them regarding their personal conviction, they confess the persuasion of their heart.

Matthew 9:29 Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it done unto you. Jesus is saying: Since your confidence in my power to give you sight is unreserved, I will exert that power unreservedly and restore your vision! I will match your great faith with great power. He touched their eyes, not because this contact was necessary, since He had used other methods on other occasions. (Cf. Mark 8:23; Mark 8:25; John 9:6-7; sometimes on other sicknesses, He spoke a word at a distance and made no gesture whatever) These blind men, who could see no other gesture of Jesus, can feel this touch and know that the power actually came from the Lord Himself. He permitted them to feel the surge of power that His will exerted: what a wonderful revelation of His identity so well suited to blind men!

Matthew 9:30 And their eyes were opened and the first person they saw was Jesus! In this splendid double blessing is revealed Jesus-’ mercy that removes from their hearts the effects of what had probably seemed to these men an unyielding denial of their earlier pleas. In that instant of immediate, perfect sight, these two men now see justified all they had ever thought and said about Jesus: He is truly the Christ. But what are they to do about this new-found knowledge of which they themselves are now the witnesses? How can they show their gratitude enough?

And Jesus strictly charged them. The verb embrimáomai, here translated stricrly charged, is an intriguing word which conjures up a surprising picture of Jesus at this point. Arndt and Gingrich (254) discuss the word:

In Aeschylus and others in the sense to snort. As an expression of anger and displeasure in Lucían. In Aquila’s translation of Psa 7:12(11); Symmachus on Isaiah 17:13; LXX on Lamentations 2:6. With the dative of person: to scold, censure.. Mark 14:5; warn sternly Mark 1:43; Matthew 9:30.

See also Hendriksen, John on John 11:33. Since hardly anyone Jesus warned ever obeyed Him, He had good reason to be severe! Why should He begin so immediately and so vehemently to warn them? Could the Master see already rising in their breast that exuberance of praise that defied being limited?

See that no man know it. This is their only commission from Him who had restored them light and life, joy and usefulness, taken them from their dark world to revel in the color and beauty of all that pleases on this earth. Jesus could have required so much more of them, but He did not charge them a thing but their silence. (See on Matthew 8:4 and Matthew 9:27; other instances: Matthew 12:16; Mark 3:12; Mark 5:43; Mark 7:36; Mark 8:26, all of which occurred in Galilee or in Decapolis near the Lake of Galilee. As in the former instances (Matthew 8:4 and Matthew 9:26), Jesus-’ words are directed to the persons principally involved. These men, then, are not to go around proclaiming the news of their healing. This is not a command for them to go into hiding, so that the facts could not be absolutely known, since, it is presumed, the family and immediate acquaintances would come to know what had been done for them. All that Jesus intended was the opposite of what the men eventually did!

The Lord wisely forbade them to speak openly about their marvellous cure, since He must keep His own movement well in hand. Should these healed men now begin broadcasting His excellencies, even as they had arrested attention by addressing Him as the long-expected Messiah, popular excitement could grow into a bloody uprising of nationalistic Judaism against Rome. Other reasons may have been:

Their ignorant concept of the Messiah, if broadcast, would stimulate others who shared that concept to try to force Him into their mold without ever understanding what kind of Christ He was. These busy babblers proved how little they really knew about the Christ whose Word is law! While walking the tight-rope between the various mistaken views of His ministry held by all who knew Him, Jesus knew that this was not the moment to proclaim His Messiahship openly, nor was it the moment to explain in detail to these beginners in faith the true nature of His Messiahship. It would but bring them more confusion. Hence, silence on their part was the only alternative open to them. If they really accepted Him as the mighty Son of David, they would have to trust Him to know what He was doing by requiring silence, where they certainly felt publicity to be in order.

A second reason for Jesus-’ prohibition so passionately expressed here was the fear, fully justified by the subsequent events, that His ministry should be hindered and frustrated by excited crowds, spiritually unable or unwilling to grasp what He must reveal to them about the REAL Kingdom of the Son of David.

A third reason lay in the insight of Jesus Himself into His own capacity for temptation: few men can live with success. What a truly human temptation to bow the knee before Satan, in order to be able to claim even just this one kingdom of the world, over which He could be the Son of David (cf. Matthew 4:10; Matthew 16:23). The indignant earnestness with which He warns these blind men, then, means If you really respect me and appreciate what I have done for you, then do not destroy me by praising me. Praise is next to impossible to fight; accusations, yes, attacks, certainly, but sincerely meant adoration based on good evidence is useless to combat. But praise can destroy, however honestly meant, when it leads the person, who is the object of its worship, to be anything other than what is his best, his highest. Yes, Jesus had a superior character because He did not seek men’s praise, but He also took pains to remove the temptation to enjoy it whenever it led Him away from that one goal, that one duty to establish David’s Kingdom by way of the cross.

Matthew 9:31 But they went forth and spread his fame in all that land. But they (hoi dé) is an express contrast to the strict prohibition of Jesus, that preceeds this sentence. Matthew sees their action as contrary to what Jesus had told them to do. This action of theirs is disobedience for which they are greatly to blame. If they had had real respect for Jesus, as much as they had faith to be healed by Him, they should have respected His will in the matter. Despite their joy and devotion and perfectly understandable desire to praise Jesus before men, yet He had strictly warned them to be silent. The seeming unreasonableness of Jesus-’ commands or statements, as man looks at them, can never be argued as a reason for refusing to render whole-hearted submission. That enthusiasm that bleats, But Jesus could not have meant what He said. is SIN! This is further proof of the fallacy of following the leadership of one’s emotions entirely in reference to one’s obedience to God. These blind men were much too exhilarated by their healing to believe Jesus had meant what He said. Joy felt because of God’s gracious blessing does not ever exempt anyone from obedience. (See Romans 2:4-6; Luke 6:35; notes on Matthew 5:45)

The fame that spread in all that land was shallow, ignorant praise for which neither Jesus nor those who understand Him could rejoice. Edersheim sagely sees that (Life, II, 50)

The acclamations of an excited Jewish crowd were as incongruous to the real Character of the Christ, and as obstructive to the progress of His Kingdom, as is the outward homage of a world which has not heart-belief in His power, nor heart-experience of His ability and willingness to cleanse the leper and to open the eyes of the blind.

Even, as then, to call Jesus the Son of David with the inadequate or entirely wrong meaning behind those words was damning Him with faint praise, so now, those, who praise Jesus without surrendering their hearts to Him, are but deceiving themselves, hoping to be part of His eternal kingdom, which, when viewed according to their concept, does not exist, any more than the kingdom of David as the Jews thought of it ever existed beyond the popular Jewish imagination of that era.

Matthew 9:32 And as they went forth, i.e. just as the two formerly blind men left the house in which Jesus had healed them. Behold, there was brought to him a dumb man possessed with a demon. Is there any connection between this latter appeal to Jesus and the case of the blind men? It may well be that these formerly blind men began to proclaim their healing right among the people standing around in the streets (cf. Matthew 9:33 b). Had the multitudes heard what the two blind men had called Jesus before their marvellous healing? Did these two men, now healed, and more convinced than ever that Jesus is truly the Son of David, repeat this wonderful title in their recitation of their healing? It might just well be that the solicitous friends of the dumb demoniac are among the first to begin making appeal to Jesus, having been excited to action by the joyous exclamations of the formerly blind.

A dumb man possessed with a demon. It is usually assumed by most commentators that the man was speechless because the demon had made him dumb, an assumption based on the observation that when the demon was cast out, the man regained the use of his speech, This conclusion is further strengthened by the fact that the effect of demon-possession was not always the same (See on Matthew 8:28 to Matthew 9:1). The evidences for the reality of this demon-possession as a real, supernatural cause for the phenomenon, mentioned by Lewis and Booth (PHC, XXII, 236, 237), are:

Something in the evident sense of oppression on the part of the sufferer that could not be classed as madness;

Something about the strange persistency of his inability to speak inexplicable on other grounds;

Something in the complete absence of anything in his physical makeup that would suggest failure there;

Something in the utter absence of failure in his mental faculties that could account for his condition.

There were none present who doubted the cause as being supernatural:

The multitudes accepted it as demon-possession, since they are recorded as being so greatly impressed with the casting out of the demon by Jesus.

These critical cynics, the Pharisees, did not doubt it, rather, they would have been only too glad to have been able to ascribe the poor victim’s condition to anything else than demonic possession, had they thought that they could have sustained their case. Rather than deny by superior evidence what the people commonly regarded as demon-possession, the Pharisees could only admit the facts as stated and deny the implication that Jesus was Master of Satan.

So all eye-witnesses concur that this was a true, significant case of demon-possession.

Matthew 9:33 And when the demon was cast out, the dumb man spake. It is easy to imagine the tension as Jesus commanded the demon to depart. All ears would be listening for the first words of this victim. Perhaps as he began talking, he alone spoke, since all would be listening to hear that voice so long silent. It was not long, however, that all remained silent, as their surprise, wonder and conviction drew forth from them shouts of praise and admiration for Jesus.

And the multitudes marveled, saying, It was never seen in Israel. This was probably not all that they were saying either. Were the crowds beginning to echo the words of the former blind men: Can this be the Son of David (Cf. Matthew 12:23 and the notes there; John 7:31) Or are these words, the only ones written down, merely the reflection of discretion felt necessary by the multitudes in view of the menacing presence of the Pharisees? It would not do, after all, to offend these august gentlemen! But, as Matthew notes below, no discretion could hide this honest admiration nor prevent offense to the religious leaders.

It was never so seen in Israel. This was literally true, since there had never been in Israel’s long history such a vast collection of wonderful evidences of the presence of God with His people. This appraisal of this continuous succession of miracles is not only that of the crowds: it is the conclusion of Matthew too. He has been patiently recording one striking miracle after another (Chapter s 8, 9). But rather than cumber or mar his writing with his own views, he lets the spontaneous praise of these bystanders express the joy of HIS heart and pride in His Savior.

But even with this remarkable expression of astonishment of the multitudes, let it not be forgotten that even they too grew accustomed to them. McGarvey (Matthew-Mark, 86) is right to point out that

With every new variety of miracles there came fresh surprise among the people. After seeing a few sick persons cured, they naturally ceased being surprised at cures of sickness; but when they saw this dumb man restored to speech, they were almost as much surprised as if they had seen no previous miracles. The range of fresh miracles, however, necessarily had a limit, and therefore miracle working, as a means of impressing men, had to be of temporary duration. A permanent continuation of miracles would have robbed them of their value by making them common.

Matthew 9:34 But the Pharisees said, By the prince of the demons casteth he out demons. But the Pharisees as a phrase, stands in direct opposition to the response of the multitudes. Is it possible that Matthew is summarizing the general effect of these miracles of Chapter s eight and nine, and not merely the immediate effect wrought by the casting out of the demon? The striking similarity between the report of these two responses and the report later given (Matthew 12:22-24) would lead us to think that Matthew’s inclusion here refers only to this last section and not to the whole of the larger section. Be that as it may, it is nevertheless interesting that our author should conclude these two Chapter s with the polarizing of opinions into two fundamental groups; the multitudes of common people and those pillars of Jewish orthodoxy, the Pharisees. Why he should single out these latter, over against all other sects or groups in Judaism, is explicable since:

The Pharisees-’ attitude toward Jesus was more pronounced: they busied themselves the most to frustrate the progress of His movement.

The Herodians could not be too excited about Jesus, since He had deliberately ignored the Herods, neither praising nor censuring them.

The Sadducees were too much interested in political maneuverings at Jerusalem to disturb themselves greatly about the spiritual emphasis of Jesus.

Why not the Zealots? Perhaps, they hoped yet to find in Jesus their revolutionary hero and leader, hence they too would not so accuse Him.

By the prince of demons casteth he out demons. This charge is almost funny, since it represents the best efforts of the concentrated attention of the Pharisees to arrive at an answer regarding Jesus-’ miracles. These frustrated sectarians answered only the miracles connected with demon-possession, since they could not reply to any of the others. This charge arises out of sheer spite and jealousy. It had probably been years since multitudes of people had ever gotten this stirred up about a Rabbi and THIS Rabbi was no Pharisee!

In this age of scientific inquiry, it is well to ask why Jesus-’ ministry appealed to a couple of old blind men, a few infirm people, some fishermen, tax-collectors and harlots, but was not received by the great body of religious authorities and acknowledged scholars in Israel, especially the Pharisees. Was it because His evidence did not meet the critical investigation of these erudite and reverend doctors? On the contrary, for in their own words of this text, they confess: He casts out demons. The FACT they could not deny upon the most minute investigation. Their only objection lay in the INTERPRETATION of the meaning of the phenomenon observed as fact. Why did they then attribute a different interpretation to the facts than did the common people?

They had a philosophical system that boxed God into dimensions they could control by manipulation of their theology. But Jesus brought Israel a picture of God that was larger than their system, unhampered by their theology, free of their prejudices. And worse yet, for them, His credentials were impeccablejust a little too perfect, since if He were right about Godif His religion were the only real onethen they were wrong and had been wrong for centuries. There could be only one who could produce such wonderful signs whereby the very elect themselves could be deceived into leaving the carefully handed-down traditions: Satan. These Pharisees could see clearly, as many church members unfortunately have never learned, that to come to God through Jesus Christ meant to confess their sins, their false theology, their selfish pride, their hypocrisy exactly as Jesus exposes them for what they really are. If Jesus is right, then all their righteousness is sin, their theology false, their pride unwarranted and their hypocrisy exposed. But these men had not the slightest intention to change or be changed: it was much easier to retaliate than repent! The great guilt of this accusation lies in its typically Pharisaic attitude: there is no evidence here of any sympathy for the freed victim, no word of praise or thankfulness to God. We see only a determination not to admit the true force of Jesus-’ miracles, if possible, even while admitting the facts of the case. Any conclusion is better than that which would glorify Jesus or support His movement!

Matthew, whose Gospel contains one of the finest refutations of this slander, must have included this incident without comment here to show how early the storm-clouds began to gather on the horizon of Jesus-’ career. Jesus-’ refusal to answer this calumny on this occasion may be interpreted as a tactic whereby He chose not to dignify their lie to the level of a serious charge that even needed refutation. Instead of accepting the obvious implications of His divine credentials, the Pharisees, emboldened by His meekness in refusing to defend Himself against defamation of this charge, and having nothing of real substance to urge against Him, repeated this libel until He had to answer it or default to them. For that fuller discussion of this charge and Jesus-’ answers, see on Matthew 12:22-37.

This amazed wonder on the part of the common people, as well as the maliciousness of the Pharisees, is not so surprising, after all. This difference in reactions towards Jesus is perfectly to be expected due to the measurable difference in their sense of need. The deeper this sense of need is felt, the more appreciative the people felt toward Jesus. The more self-sufficient the beholder, the less Jesus would be needed or wanted. Woe to him who no longer feels his need for Jesus!

Matthew’s report of this contrast (Matthew 9:33-34) throws into crisis OUR conscience. As we serve Him our wills remain free, since even His message carried no conviction to the prejudiced mind. With Morgan (Matthew, 98) let us zealously inquire with what attitude we listen and study Jesus-’ word, for it is very possible for prejudice and pride to blind us to the meaning of our King.

FACT QUESTIONS

In what general area did these two blind men live? Connect this section with what immediately precedes, showing where they probably lived.

What did the blind men call Jesus? Why use this term?

Describe Jesus-’ method in dealing with these two blind men.

What had made the man, who appears in the second part of the text, dumb?

State what the Bible actually reveals about demon-possession.

What was the reaction of the crowds when Jesus evicted the demon? What were their actual words?

What explanation did the religious leaders give for Jesus-’ power to cast demons out?

Although Jesus later gave full, detailed rebuttal of this charge made by the Pharisees, how did Jesus respond to the slander at the time?

What kind of opposition had the Pharisees brought Jesus during His ministry up to this time?

What is proved about Jesus by the fact that He can heal the sick and cast, out demons?

State at least two good reasons why Jesus required the blind men to be silent about their healing.

Matthew 9:35-38

**Section 22

JESUS EVANGELIZES GALILEE AND SHARES HIS VISION WITH HIS DISCIPLES**

(Parallel; Mark 6:6 b)

TEXT: 9:35-38

And Jesus went about all the cities and the villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of disease and all manner of sickness.

And when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion for them, because they were distressed and scattered, as sheep not having a shepherd.

Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest indeed is plenteous, but the laborers are few.

Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he send forth laborers into his harvest.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Have you ever been frustrated in your Christian work by the fact that there is too much to be done but too few workers? What did you do about it?

Is there any advice that can be drawn from this text, by way of application, that would clarify the mission of the Church today? If so, what advice do you see there?

In what way are the people in Galileeyes, even the people of our worldlike so many sheep without a Shepherd?

How long do you think we ought to continue to pray for more workers?

Do you believe that Jesus-’ command to pray for more workers, originally required of the Apostles, should be obeyed by His followers today? If so, on what basis? If not, why not?

What do you see as the strategy behind Jesus-’ actions revealed in this text? Or, how does Jesus reveal Himself in this Scripture as the Master Strategist? What is that strategy?

If you conclude that we should pray this prayer that Jesus required of his followers during His earthly ministry, then how far should we go in helping God to answer our prayers by preparing workers ourselves?

If we pray for workers to be sent out to work for God, what is apt to happen? Can you conscientiously pray a prayer in the realization of which you are unwilling to participate?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

Jesus traveled about Galilee, stopping in all the cities and villages. There He taught in their synagogues and announced the good news about God’s Kingdom. He also healed people who had all kinds of illnesses, The sight of the crowds who came to Him filled Him with compassion for them. They reminded Him of sheep without a shepherd. Then He challenged His disciples, This harvest is plentiful enough; the problem is that the laborers are scarce. So, you must pray to the Lord, whose harvest it is, asking Him to send out more workers into His fields to work!

SUMMARY

Jesus toured Galilee making stops to teach in all the cities and villages. He healed all kinds of sick folk. He was motivated by His compassion to help them, because they were lost sheepeveryone of them. Then He engaged His Apostles in a prayer offensive to tackle the problem of too much work to be done by too few workers.

NOTES

I. A REVIEW OF THE REMARKABLE, RAPID REACHING OF THAT REGION (9:35)

Matthew 9:35 And Jesus went about all the cities and the villages. Is this a third missionary tour of Galilee, as many harmonists suppose, or is this Matthew’s rhetorical device for recalling to the mind of the reader the principle point he has been making since Matthew 4:23? In the intervening Chapter s he has given magnificent illustrations of what he meant exactly by preaching, i.e. the Sermon on the mount (chaps. 5-7) and representative miracles (chaps. 8 and 9). He has now finished these examples, so summarizes this Galilean ministry again in the same terms.

The only verbal differences in Greek between Matthew 4:23; Matthew 9:35 are two:

tàs póleis pásas kaì tàs kómas for en hólç tç Galilaía

The addition of en tõ laõ in Matthew 4:23, which even some late MSS have also in Matthew 9:35. Otherwise these two passages are verbally identical in every respect, even to the significant use of the imperfect tense in the principle verb periegen, he was in the process of going around, and the present participles for all other verbs dependent upon the principal verb. The usual chronological representations of Jesus-’ various evangelistic tours divide them thus: the first, Matthew 4:23-25; Mark 1:35-39; Luke 4:42-44; the second, Luke 8:1-3; the third, this one here, Matthew 9:35; Mark 6:6 b. However, in every case but one (Mark 1:39 about which there is even some doubt in the MSS) the authors all use the imperfect tense, a phenomenon which suggests that they merely intend to picture Jesus as constantly on the move and that His one, continuous tour of Galilee was either illustrated or else interspersed by the particular incidents narrated throughout this general period. This continuity, then, is to be interpreted as the Great Galilean Campaign divided up into successive journeys by returns to Capernaum or by trips to Jerusalem for the feast. This sense of continuity is probably what induces Matthew to use almost verbally identical expressions to describe what should probably be thought of as two separate journeys. Thus, this is both a third tour of Galilee as well as his rhetorical device for signaling a change, from the material that he has just concluded, to a new development in Jesus-’ ministry: the preparation and commission of the Twelve to labor in evangelism.

All the cities and the villages, i.e. of Galilee. Not only is this a picture of Jesus-’ personal evangelistic labors, but also as Morgan (Matthew, 100) paints it, this picture of God is that of a Man Who went. and looked at the people; and what He saw made His whole inner physical life. move and burn. He did not merely demand that people come to Him during certain office hours; He went to them. Teaching in their synagogues, because there would be a readymade audience available to Him. (Cf. Illustrations in Luke 4:16-37 and notes on Matthew 4:23.) Preaching the gospel of the Kingdom speaks of the content of His proclamation: God is still on the throne, but His Kingdom to come is different than you suspect! It is not reasonable to suppose that Jesus even once announced Himself as Heaven’s King or heralded the beginning of God’s Messianic Reign, due to the complete misunderstanding people had of these grand truths. What is more likely is the supposition that Jesus hammered away at the true characterspiritual, not national,of God’s Kingdom. To those who awaited the redemption of Israel on spiritual terms (cf. Luke 2:25; Luke 2:38; Luke 23:51), Jesus-’ announcement of the Kingdom’s soon arrival would be gospel in its best sense, good news. To those who hoped only for the restoration of materialistic national glory, Jesus-’ message, however exciting at first, could not but prove disappointing as people began to understand that He had no plans that harmonized with their selfish dreams. **Healing all kinds of disease and sickness **summarizes the evidences He offered of His divine identity and consequent authority. His miracles were evidence that God’s kingdom had arrived in this respect also, since the presence of sickness and disease is contrary to normality. Jesus-’ control over these abnormalities, then, proclaimed God’s control in the natural world at any moment He cared to exercise that dominion.

This intensive activity is Jesus-’ counterattack mounted against all the opposition to His claims drawn in sharp relief by Matthew in chapter nine. Rather than be cowed by the opposition, Jesus plunged into more vigorous evangelistic activity. He had been accused of blasphemy (Matthew 9:2-8), of hob-nobbing with the scum of society (Matthew 9:13), of not being holy enough (Matthew 9:14-17), of folly (Matthew 9:24), of being less than a real Master (Matthew 9:31) and of being in league with Satan (Matthew 9:34). He had answered all of the accusations brilliantly and with power. But He knows that the slight opposition He had then faced must necessarily grow. He knew also that He must gain as much time as possible, bringing as many people as possible to firm confidence in Him, before that inevitable showdown with the religious leaders which must conclude with the cross. This intensive one-man ministry resulted in great crowds deeply aroused: the attention of all northern Israel, at least, is focused upon Jesus of Nazareth. He has succeeded in getting a hearing.

II. THE RATIONALE OF A RESTLESS REDEEMER WHO REALISTICALLY RECOGNIZES THE REASON FOR THIS RECEPTION (9:36)

Matthew 9:36 But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion for them, because they were distressed and scattered, as sheep not having a shepherd. The people crowding around Jesus are the natural result of His evangelistic work which promoted wide-spread popular interest in His ministry. What Matthew repeats here, he has already noticed earlier, i.e. the growing evidence of success Jesus is enjoying in His effort to call national attention to Himself and His message. (Cf. Matthew 4:25; Matthew 8:18) But getting a hearing only is never sufficient, as important as that may be. One must get His message across convincingly to those ready to hear. And Jesus knows that these multitudes probably have not the slightest idea what He is trying so desperately to say to them. He knows that their prejudices, their ignorance, their background and training, their mistaken longings and selfish desires will shut out much of His message. Thus the Lord faces the greater necessity now of multiplying the efficiency of His means of communication, in order by all means to communicate His message more often and in more different ways. This would result in the dissemination of His information about the kingdom in ways that would succeed in getting past some of the closed doors of prejudice and ignorance of people too far away to be helped personally. This necessity to render His ministry more efficient is required not only because of the multiplying numbers of people with whom He must talk. but more especially due to their condition.

But when we talk of Jesus-’ increasing the efficiency of His ministry, we imply that there was something lacking, inadequate or inefficient about it.But this very presence of the crowds raises a problem of tactics for the Lord, since He had already chosen, by virtue of the incarnation, to be just one Man in one place at a time. Though He was the great, God, yet when He humbled Himself to be born as a little Jewish baby in Bethlehem, He whom the heaven of heavens could not contain, was deliberately limiting Himself to be just one Man in one place. But the obvious application of a principle of natural physics, He could not be in two places at the same time, much less in seven cities simultaneously evangelizing each one. But, by simply multiplying Himself, through the sharing of His vision, His authority and His message with His Apostles, He could accomplish seven times the work He was then accomplishing. (See on Matthew 10:1; Matthew 11:1 and compare Mark 6:7).

But who were these multitudes? They consisted not only of the lonely, distressed, sick, poor common people for whom any generous soul could have a place in his heart. Also in that crowd were suspicious Herodians, hypocritical Pharisees, wealthy Sadducees, monkish Essenes, greedy, grasping publicans, perhaps spies of Herod and informers for Pilate, prostitutes and other sinnerssinners for whom the average person would probably have a trace of contempt, for whom NONE would willingly give his life on a cross! (Cf. Romans 5:6-11) Here we feel the striking difference between Jesus of Nazareth and any other man or angel: He feels deeply, even though He sees clearly, the weakness and failure and consequent need of every man. He understands that all that is unlovely, despicable or revolting in any person, is but a good reason for His helping that man. It is comparatively easy for any normal humanitarian to feel compassion for certain classes of sufferers, like mothers or children, the poor or the homeless. But to be moved to action with compassion for heterogeneous humanity with its vast mixture of loves and hates, its diversified backgrounds, its wealth and poverty, its conflicting sentiments, its tensions, its joys, its opposite ideas about God and truth, is to be a Jesus. But is it not to become a Jesus that He came to call us? (Cf. Romans 8:29; Philippians 2:1-5) He saw the multitudes for what they really were and YET He felt a strong desire to relieve them from all that they suffered, A superficial observer, looking at the crowds, would never have seen what Jesus saw. One might have seen those people as irresponsible sheep who have gotten themselves lost and deserve whatever fate awaited them or perhaps just a frustrating lot of tiring field work, but not so Jesus. The difference? He had a Shepherd’s heart: the harvest was His,

He was moved with compassion, as Barclay (Matthew, I, 363f) puts it, by our pain and sickness (Matthew 14:14), our blindness (Matthew 20:34), by our sorrow (Luke 7:13), by-’ our hunger (Matthew 15:32), by our loneliness (Mark 1:41), by our bewilderment (here, also Mark 6:34), Compassion means mercy, since, in strict justice, there is no reason in man that God should save; the need is born of His own compassion. No man has any claim upon God. Why, then, should men be cared for? Why should they not become the prey of the ravening wolf, having wandered from the fold? (Morgan, Matthew, 99)

Because they were distressed (eskylménoi; Arndt-Gingrich, 765: wearied, harassed, troubled, bothered, annoyed; cf. Luke 7:6; Luke 8:49; Mark 5:35) and scattered (erimménoi from rhiptõ. Arndt-Gingrich, 744: 1. throw in a manner suited to each special situation. 2. With no connotation of violence: put or lay down, lying down, lying on the ground or floor. of the crowds of people, Matthew 9:36, of animals lying on the ground.) Scattered sums up graphically the picture of shepherdless sheep lying here and there, having been thrown about by many diverse forces. This is their condition that moved the compassion of Jesus: their very weakness, their unworthiness, their unreadiness to meet God. What Matthew fairly shouts to any Jewish heart (and to any Gentile who has looked into the Jewish Bible!) is this: Jesus has the heart of the great, long-awaited David, the great Shepherd! (Cf. Isaiah 40:10-11; Jeremiah 23:3-8; Jeremiah 31:10; Ezekiel 34:11-31; Ezekiel 37:24) **Harassed and helpless **is the picture of people perplexed, oppressed and troubled by the impossible obligations of current Judaism, confused by the contradictory claims of the various theological debating societies that left them groaning under the weight of restraints and duties of religion. These are people who hold confused ideas about the Kingdom of God, the King and their duty. They have vague longings, aroused by the prophets, John the Baptist and now by Jesus Himself, yet they are ignorant about how or where they can satisfy this yearning. Even this self-inflicted anguish, for which Israel was personally responsible, excited Jesus-’ pity. Were the paradoxical words of Isaiah (Isaiah 53:6) in Jesus-’ mind as He looked at these lost human beings?

All we like sheep have gone astray;

we have turned every one to his own way.

Each one thinks his case is peculiar; all however are getting lost in droves!

As sheep hot having a shepherd. But had they no shepherds? Rather, had they not HUNDREDS of them? Historically, yes, and good ones too! Moses, the prophets and many righteous men had ministered to Israel, given their witness and challenged them to leave their sins. (Numbers 27:17; Psalms 77:20; Isaiah 63:11) But just as recently as the later prophets, Israel had been willingly misguided, deceived and betrayed by men who served their own interest. (Jeremiah 23:1-40; Jeremiah 50:6 ff.; Ezekiel 34:1-10; Zechariah 10:2-3) Then when the true prophetic voice was finally silenced by the rejection and murder of the last of God’s servants, Israel was left to her fate under the shepherding of thieves, robbers and hirelings. (Cf. John 10:1; John 10:8-13) Barclay (Matthew, I, 364ff.) summarizes this tragedy,

They were shepherds that had nothing to offer the common people longing for truth. The Scribes and Pharisees, the Sadducees and priests, who should have been giving men strength to live, were bewildering men with subtle arguments about the Law, which had no help and comfort in them. These orthodox teachers had neither guidance, comfort nor strength to give. When they should have been helping men to stand upright, they were bowing them down under the intolerable burden of the Scribal Law.

This deeply felt compassion of Jesus is born of His great vision: tired lost sheep; the waiting harvest. But He is not lost in visions and dreaming. These tensions must be resolved: there must be shepherds! He must call reapers! But these two colossal visions are not exactly parallel but two halves of the same truth. If there is any certain emphasis to each, it is this: the vision of the sheep without a Shepherd is the image of man’s need met by God, while the vision of the waiting harvest require that God’s need for reapers be met by men.

Another interesting thought suggested by Lewis and Booth (PHC, XXII, 239), that is impossible to check out, is that in these two figures, Jesus intended to describe the two-fold work of the Church. In the sheep to be shepherded are seen those disciples just won who need so much help to grow, The waiting harvest, according to this view, signifies those souls whose interest in Jesus was greatly aroused and who could be won, were there but evangelists to reach them in time. The waiting harvest required reapers rather than shepherds, the men of the sickle, rather than those of the crook. So saying, the two-fold outreach of the Church is pictured rising in the heart of Jesus. This view, while interesting, is impossible to establish, since it cannot be proved that Jesus had such a neat distinction in view between those described as sheep and those meant by the harvest, for He may well have considered them but parallel images of the same idea seen from two angles.

III. THE REQUIREMENT TO REQUEST AND RECRUIT REAPERS (9:37, 38)

Matthew 9:37 Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest indeed is plenteous, but the laborers are few. Even though these men have been with Jesus as personal companions for considerable time now, still Jesus does not presume to command them to take up this task upon which the success of His whole mission to earth depends. In His wisdom He involves first their conscience in a moral decision that something must be done about this great need. They must be as motivated as Him. They too must see what He sees, feel what He feels, if they are to share His ministry. To evangelize mechanically, without the spirit and motivation of Jesus, is worse than hypocrisy: it is impossible! In light of the commission He will give the Twelve in the next chapter, note how He first engages their deep concern over these souls, their concern about the paucity of workers in distressing contrast to the magnitude of the task. He then involves them in beseeching God for more workers. Before long, almost before they will have been able to analyze the excellent psychology of His approach, they will actually find themselves spontaneously sharing His vision and His anxiety, and enthusiastically arming themselves to reach out in mercy to help meet the needs of these multitudes.

The harvest, thinks Lenski (Matthew, 384) cannot be the multitudes Jesus saw coming to Him, since some of these people would not be gathered into the heavenly garner. But he sees only half of the harvest work! (Matthew 3:12) The announcement of those principles upon which the final judgment and separation will be made, is also evangelism. No, the harvest, for Jesus, means that the prime moment to begin the work of proclaiming God’s kingdom has arrived (cf. John 4:35), and that this work involves telling people in no uncertain terms what God’s judgment means. By reaping those who accept the message, the reapers leave to God the disposal of those who judge themselves chaff. But we must not push this figure too far, since human beings are different from chaff, because they must be regarded as a harvest to be reaped, until God calls a halt to this age. (cf. Matthew 13:39-43)

The harvest. laborers. Jesus is about to select, challenge and send forth His own personal emissaries. But they must understand their work and share His spirit, as well as express His power and authority. He begins at once to describe the kind of helpers He must have: laborers, not princes arrayed in soft robes living in kings-’ houses, not men with soft hands unaccustomed to the toil of harvest-hands laboring out in the harvest fields.

Matthew 9:38 Pray ye therefore. Not only must these men share Jesus-’ vision; they must share also His prayers. Instead of merely lamenting the deplorable condition of Israel as scattered, harassed sheep or as a harvest too great for the number of available workers, Jesus-’ first response is to engage God-fearing men in PRAYER, How often have we encouraged some fainting heart, in anguish under some crushing problem, to pray for God’s solution, when, at the same time, we continued wringing our hands about the frustrating enormity of the task of reaching the world without seeing our Lord’s wisdom in this text! Jesus was not satisfied simply to load His disciples-’ minds with the burden of lost souls. He opens up to them also the secret of relief and reinforcements: Pray for more helpers to face this gigantic task! How long and how often had the Master Himself been uttering this same cry in His own lonely night vigils? (cf. Luke 6:12) How fervently had He hoped that these very Twelve would respond positively to His teaching, His shared views, His companionship? These very men were the laborers for the harvest that the Father had given Him and for them He gave thanks and expended every effort to encourage them to be all that an excellent reaper must be. (John 17:6-26; cf. John 17:6 with John 6:70 and John 15:16) He also prayed that the laborers God raised up might not be lost to His service. (cf. Luke 22:31-32)

Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he send forth laborers into his harvest. We may well ask ourselves, if this harvest belongs to the Lord, how would our puny prayers help Him?

Lewis and Booth (PHC, XXII, 240) answer well:

Why go to prayer first? Because it takes us at once to the right quarters. Who so certain to know about the harvest and all its needs as the Lord of the harvest? Who so likely to be interested in them? Who so able to help? Who so able, especially in this case where the need of help is extreme; where labourers have to be even thrust forth (ver. 38) to this work? Who so able to do this as He who sent Saul of Tarsus into His harvest?

It is not only worse than idle to begin anywhere else, but self-sufficient and presumptuous and distrustful also in an equal degree. (ibid.)

Our praying this way unites our concern and will with God’S, making us useful as laborers whenever it please Him to use us. Since the harvest is all around us, in all of our social contacts, we need merely to be transformed into laborers. Can any man honestly pray this prayer without involving himself emotionally in the very activity which has become the burden of his concern? Can anyone pray that God send laborers and not send those whom God makes willing to go?

Such praying would keep us and our hindering prejudices out of God’s way! While praying like this, can any man at the same time stand around arguing whether the need is great, or whether the souls are lost or not, or whether the people of God should involve themselves in such work, etc.?

The Master knew what He was doing when He commanded His men to pray like this! The glorious wonder of this prayer is that Jesus definitely ordered His Apostles to beseech God to provide workers. God obviously cares enough about their prayers to answer them in accomplishing that work which He had already spent thousands of years of patient, careful preparation to do! The great, supreme challenge facing Christianity is that the entire world is to be reached. But the greater surprise of Jesus-’ message is that God actually needs men to reach that world. He has chosen truth in the flesh, the living gospel vividly expressed in human personality, to save men. God has deliberately decided that the harvest will not be reaped unless there are human laborers to harvest it. Whether we understand His choice or not, there is no doubting either the fact that He has so decided or the need to pray for the needed laborers.

IV. RAMIFICATIONS AND REFLECTIONS

Barclay is right to teach (Matthew, I, 366) that

It is the dream of Christ that every man should be a missionary and a reaper. There are those who cannot do other than pray, for life has laid them helpless, and their prayers are indeed the strength of the laborers. But that is not the way for most of us, for those of us who have strength of body and health of mind. Not even the giving of our money is enough. If the harvest of men is ever to be reaped, then every one of us must be a reaper, for there is someone whom each of us couldand mustbring to God.

But what hinders our efforts and strangles our effectiveness? Is it that we do not share Jesus-’ vision of the task? When we look at the mobs of people crowding their way through life, with little or no passing thought for their comrades on the journey, what do we think? When we are frustrated by the thoughtlessness of selfish individuals, whose unwillingness to help, irks us to the limit, what do we see? Do we see these people as hindrances which we must destroy, since they obstruct our hurried pace? Or do we see them through the eyes of the Lord: lost souls, whose very sins bar our path and frustrate our progress and mar our happiness, yet cry for our help?

Let me look at the scattered crowds

Till my eyes with tears grow dim

Let me look at the crowds as my Savior did

And love them for love of Him!

Author unknown

How long should we pray this prayer for reapers? Only so long as there remain sheep without the Shepherdonly so long as there is more harvest than laborers to gather it. Even as those candidates for Apostleship joined their voices in prayer, let us add our voices: Lord of harvest, send forth reapers! Hear us, Lord, to Thee we cry; Send them now the sheaves to gather, Ere the harvest time pass by.

J. O. Thompson

FACT QUESTIONS

Show the connections between this section and the one which immediately follows in chapter ten.

Describe the general situation in Galilee that renders this picture presented by Matthew not only plausible but to be expected.

What is the larger role in Matthew’s apparent outline that this section plays? Remember that Matthew seems to be following a topical, rather than a strictly chronological, outline.

Explain the figure of sheep without a shepherd. Tell it in literal language.

Explain the figure of the harvest. Tell it in literal language.

Describe the motivation that moved Jesus to share His vision with His disciples.

How should this vision of Jesus and challenge to His followers be interpreted in the life of the Church today?

Whom does Jesus hold responsible for sending workers into the world to labor for God? Whom does Jesus hold responsible for requesting more help? What did Jesus do to answer the prayers of His disciples, i.e. what did Jesus do to make more workers possible? (See Matthew 10)

SPECIAL STUDY:

MIRACLES

[1] Floyd E. Hamilton, The Basis of Christian Faith, (3rd rev. ed.; New York: Harper Brothers Publishers, 1946), p. 87.

[2] Clarence E. McCartney, Twelve Great Questions About Christ, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1956), p. 70.

if the resurrection of Jesus was not a reality, all the other miracles would be valueless even if real, and all effort to establish their reality would be abandoned.[3]

[3] J. W. McGarvey, Evidences of Christianity, (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Company, 1891), Part III, p, 116.

THE NATURE OF MIRACLES

POWER OVER NATURE:

Many passages could be cited in which Jesus foretold in detail the various features of His passion. Here again we could marvel at the supreme factHis own resurrection itself.[4]

THE PURPOSE OF MIRACLES

Or another claim:

My teaching is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself. (John 7:16-17)

I speak the things which I have seen with my Father. (John 8:38)

[5] Hamilton, p. 96, 96.

[6] They had power to bless: healing sick (Acts 3:6-9); raising the dead (Acts 9:37-42; Acts 20:9-10); power to grant miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:14-17); power to curse (Acts 13:11).

[7] For Old Testament examples, consider the death of Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:6-7); Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10:1-2); the leprosy of Gehazi (2 Kings 5:27) and of Miriam (Numbers 12:9-14); the blindness of the Syrian band (2 Kings 6:18-20); the destruction of army (2 Kings 19:35).

[8] Seth Wilson, The Purpose of Miracles, Christian Standard, Nov. 2, 1957.

THE REALITY OF MIRACLES

A, THE UNIFORMITY OF THE ORDERLY GOVERNMENT OF NATURE,

[9] Hamilton, pp. 89, 90.

David Hume argues that miracles, as such, cannot occur:

[10] Wilbur Smith, The Supernaturalness of Christ, (Boston: The W. A. Wilde Co., 1968), pp. 142-150, 158.

[11] Ibid., p. 145.

[12] Ibid., p. 147.

B. IGNORANT AUTHORITARIANISM.

[13]. Hamilton, pp. 90, 91.

Some would say, Supernatural intervention is very improbable because of

C. THE PROBABILITY OF FRAUD.

D. THE PREVALENCE OF MYTH IN ANCIENT RECORDS.

E. THE DELUSION OF THE WITNESSES.

F. AUTO-SUGGESTION.

The theory would explain healing miracles by the power of Christ’s mind acting upon the mind and then the body of the patient through a psycho-therapeutic idea. However,

[14] Smith, Ibid., p. 133.

G. EXTREME CREDULITY.

[15] McGarvey; Ibid., p. 112.

[16] Ibid., pp. 112-114.

H. TEACHING SPIRITUAL TRUTHS.

[17]. See John 20:30-31; John 2:11; John 2:23; John 3:2; John 4:45; John 4:54; John 5:1-36.

RULES OF WAR

[18] Hamilton, Ibid., p. 92

The force of human testimony depends on three things: first, the honesty of the witnesses; second, their competency; and third, their number.[19]

[19] McGarvey, op cit., p. 146.

[20] See MacGarvey, Evidences, Part III, chapter XII, p. 146ff. Also Wilbur Smith, Therefore Stand, chapter VIII, especially p. 422ff.

JESUS CLAIMED TO WORK MIRACLES

Jesus answered the disciples of John the Baptist:

Earlier Jesus had said to the Jews:

Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works-’ sake. (John 14:11)

PROBABILITY FACTORS

By examination of the gospels, the following reasons may be employed to prove to us that the miracles are the subject of adequate and reliable testimony:

A. THERE WERE MANY MIRACLES PERFORMED BEFORE THE PUBLIC EYE.

B. SOME MIRACLES WERE PERFORMED IN THE COMPANY OF UNBELIEVERS.

C. JESUS PERFORMED HIS MIRACLES OVER A PERIOD OF TIME AND IN GREAT VARIETY.

D. WE HAVE THE TESTIMONY OF THE CURED.

E. THE EVIDENCE FROM THE GOSPELS CANNOT BE UNDONE BY APPEALING TO THE PAGAN MIRACLES.

THEREFORE?

[21] Wilson, Ibid.

Finally, whether we believe that miracles happen or not depends on our attitude toward historic testimony to their reality.

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 8 Matthew — All Chapters Chapter 10 ›