According to Luke 17:11, Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem. As the subsequent chapters indicate, this was his final trip to the city and culminated in the completion of his earthly ministry. The events related in John 11:1-54 preceded that trip, for the account of Jesus’ final activity in and around Jerusalem begins with John 12:1. Intervening events after Jesus’ arrival and departure from Bethany are narrated in Matthew 19:1-20:34; Mark 10:1-52; Luke 17:11-19:28.
It appears that Jesus’ disciples and close friends were familiar with the general area where he could be found if they needed to get in touch with him. This is suggested by the fact that Mary and Martha were able to get word to him about their brother Lazarus. (John 11:3)
Martha, her sister Mary, and their brother Lazarus lived in Bethany, a village about two miles from Jerusalem. Lazarus became seriously ill, and his sisters apparently looked to Jesus either for comfort or to restore their brother to good health. They sent him the following message about Lazarus, “The one whom you love is sick.” (John 11:1-3, 18; see the Notes section regarding verse 2.)
To the messenger or messengers, Jesus then indicated that the sickness would not have death as its final outcome but would serve to bring glory or praise to God. Moreover, through this illness, he, the Son of God, would be glorified. (John 11:4) This would be because his greatness would be revealed in an astonishingly impressive way. By his words (which would have been related to Martha and Mary), Jesus desired to provide hope to them. (Compare John 11:40, where Jesus reminded Martha about having told her about seeing the glory of God.)
He did not leave for Bethany immediately but stayed two days longer where he was. Indicating that this delay did not reflect unfavorably on his compassion, the account says that Jesus loved Martha, her sister, and Lazarus. (John 11:5, 6)
When he then told his disciples about his decision to go with them to Judea, they were shocked, reminding him that the unbelieving Jews there had intended to stone him. In disbelief, the disciples asked, “Are you going there again?” (John 11:7, 8)
Jesus assured them that they had nothing to fear. “Are there not twelve hours of day?” By walking in the day, one would not stumble, for one would see the “light of the world” or the sun. If, though, a person walked in the night, he would stumble because the light would not be “in him.” (John 11:9, 10; see the Notes section regarding verse 10.) In daylight, one would be able to see obstacles and avoid them, but darkness conceals, creating a far greater likelihood for tripping over an object in one’s path.
As far as Jesus’ activity was concerned, the night had not yet come when he would be arrested and killed. It continued to be daylight for carrying out his commission, which included bringing comfort to those in distress. Moreover, while with his disciples, he served as a light to them. When he would be taken away from them in death, darkness would set in for them, causing them to succumb to fear and to scatter.
Jesus then told the disciples that their friend Lazarus had fallen asleep and he would be going to awaken him. They understood this to mean that Lazarus was getting his rest and would get well. To correct their misunderstanding, Jesus said, “Lazarus died,” thereby also revealing to them his being in possession of miraculous knowledge. (John 11:11-14)
For the sake of his disciples, Jesus rejoiced that he had not been in Bethany, for what was about to take place would lead them to “believe” or would strengthen their faith in him as God’s Son. Although Lazarus had died, Jesus said, “Let us go to him.” (John 11:15)
One of the apostles, Thomas, also called Didymus (meaning “Twin”), spoke up, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.” (John 11:16; see the Notes section regarding Didymus.) Lazarus was already dead, and so Thomas would not have meant dying with Lazarus. It appears that Jesus’ reassurance had not convinced him that returning to Judea would not be risky. Thomas seems to have concluded that the unbelieving Jews would kill Jesus and that the apostles should nevertheless go with him to Judea and share his fate.
By the time they arrived at Bethany, Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days. The family seems to have been well known in Jerusalem, for Bethany was only about two miles away. Many Jews had come to see Martha and Mary, seeking to comfort them over the loss of their brother. (John 11:17-19)
As soon as she learned that Jesus was on his way, Martha, typical of a woman of action, left to meet him. Mary, however, stayed in the house, remaining seated as a mourner in the presence of those who had come to comfort her and her sister. (John 11:20)
Martha’s first words to Jesus reflected her faith in him. “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But even now I know that whatever you ask of God, God will give you.” Her words indicate that she believed Jesus could and would have restored her brother to soundness of health. Still, she had not given up hope, for she confidently acknowledged that God would grant all of Jesus’ requests. (John 11:21, 22)
In response to Jesus’ assurance, “Your brother will rise,” Martha expressed her belief in the resurrection, “I know he will rise in the resurrection on the last day.” (John 11:23, 24) Her reply suggests that she was familiar with the assurance given to Daniel (12:13, NRSV), “You, go your way, and rest; you shall rise for your reward at the end of the days.” Martha was confident that the promise of a resurrection “at the end of the days” or “on the last day” also applied to her brother.
Jesus then indicated that Martha would not have to wait until the “last day” for Lazarus to rise. “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he dies, will live. And everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?” (John 11:25, 26) When referring to himself as being “the resurrection and the life,” Jesus revealed that he had the authority to raise the dead and to impart life. This assured a resurrection for believers who died. All living believers enjoy an enduring relationship with him and his Father. Death does not end that relationship, for it is eternal. Therefore, believers continue in possession of the real life or the eternal life and, in that sense, would never die.
At the time, Martha seemingly did not fully understand Jesus’ words, for her response focused on why she believed what he had told her. “Yes, Lord, I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world.” Martha believed him because she recognized him to be the promised Messiah, God’s Son. (John 11:27)
She returned to her home, called Mary, and “secretly” or privately told her, “The teacher has come and is asking for you.” Martha’s intent for speaking to her sister away from others may have been to give her the opportunity to have a private conversation with Jesus. Mary then rushed off. Jesus had not as yet entered Bethany, remaining at the location where Martha had met him. When those who had come to comfort Mary saw her get up and quickly leave the house, they followed her, thinking that she was heading for the tomb to weep. (John 11:28-31)
Mary fell to her knees at Jesus’ feet and expressed herself just as Martha had, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.” (John 11:32) It is likely that the two sisters had often said this to one another, prompting the same spontaneous expression from them when meeting him. Seeing Mary and those who accompanied her weeping, Jesus was deeply moved emotionally. In describing his reaction, the Greek text has a form of embrimáomai, which can mean “to be indignant,” “to rebuke,” or “to charge sternly.” In this context, the term may indicate that the grief brought about by the death of Lazarus caused Jesus to be “indignant in spirit” or to experience an intense internal upheaval. It disturbed him greatly, and he also came to be troubled and distressed. Jesus then asked, “Where have you laid him?” (John 11:33, 34)
The mourners replied, “Lord, come and see.” The grief Jesus witnessed affected him deeply, and he began to weep. (See the Notes section for additional comments about the weeping.) Observing this, many regarded his tears as an evidence of his great affection for Lazarus. The expressions of others suggested a measure of unbelief, “Was not the one who opened the eyes of the blind man able to keep this one from dying?” (John 11:34-37)
Upon arriving at the burial site, Jesus again felt indignant (embrimáomai) within himself, was deeply moved, or experienced an inner upheaval. Both the weeping and the expressions of unbelief must have contributed to this internal emotional stirring. The body of Lazarus had been placed in a cave, and the opening had been closed with a large stone. (John 11:38)
When Jesus asked for the stone to be taken away, Martha protested, “Lord, he already stinks, for it is four [days].” Her reaction was an emotional response based on knowledge about the stench resulting from decomposition. This instantaneous emotional reaction did not take into consideration that Jesus had identified himself as “the resurrection and the life.” He reminded her of his promise, “Did I not tell you that, if you believed, you would see the glory of God?” (John 11:39, 40)
Certain ones then did remove the stone. Jesus focused his eyes heavenward and thanked his Father for having heard him. Continuing to pray, he said, “I, however, knew that you always hear me, but because of the crowd standing around I spoke, that they may believe that you sent me.” (John 11:41, 42) In response to Jesus’ loud cry for him to come out, Lazarus did so. His hands and feet were still wrapped with bands, and a cloth covered his face. Jesus asked that the restraining bands be removed, making it possible for Lazarus to walk. (John 11:43, 44)
Many of those who witnessed this miracle became believers. Some, though, did not put faith in Jesus. They reported what had happened to the unbelieving Pharisees. (John 11:45, 46)
This news prompted the chief priests and Pharisees to arrange for the members of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high court, to meet to determine what they should do about Jesus. Because of the many signs he had performed, they feared a popular uprising. Many would put faith in him as the promised Messiah, leading to a conflict with Rome. As they expressed it, “The Romans will come and take away both our place and nation.” Convinced that war with Rome would mean loss of their place, meaning their land, their holy city Jerusalem, or their temple, and the destruction of the nation, they felt that they needed to take action. They must also have recognized that their position as prominent members of the nation was at stake. What seems to have troubled them was their lack of the needed evidence to justify having Jesus executed. (John 11:47, 48)
Caiaphas, who was then the high priest, had no qualms respecting this. He basically told the members of the Sanhedrin that they did not need any evidence of guilt, saying, “You do not know anything nor do you understand that it is better for you [us, according to other manuscripts] that one man die for the people and not for the whole nation to be destroyed.” As far as he was concerned, Jesus endangered the continued existence of the nation and needed to be killed. Saving the whole nation was sufficient reason for executing one man. (John 11:49, 50; see the Notes section regarding verse 50.)
Whereas Caiaphas spoke as one guided by political considerations, the words were framed in a manner that expressed a prophecy appropriate for one occupying the position of high priest. The account includes the editorial comment that Caiaphas did not speak of his own and adds, “Being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but that he might gather into one the scattered children of God.” (John 11:51, 52) Jesus did die for people everywhere, making it possible for all those who believed in him to become God’s children and form one united whole or one family even though they were widely dispersed in different regions.
In keeping with the words of the high priest, the Sanhedrin determined to have Jesus killed. (John 11:53) Possibly word about this development reached Jesus through Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea. (Compare Luke 23:50, 51; John 7:45, 50, 51.) As a result, Jesus could no longer walk openly among the people. He left Bethany and the area around Jerusalem and headed for a less populated region. For a time, he and his disciples stayed in Ephraim. (John 11:54) This town is commonly thought to have been located about 12 miles northeast of Jerusalem, but the identification is uncertain.
Notes:
In John’s account, verse 1 of chapter 11 contains the first mention of Martha, Mary and Lazarus. A number of other women were also called Mary. Therefore, in verse 2, the sister of Lazarus is uniquely differentiated from the others by a notable deed that had not as yet taken place. She was the one who anointed Jesus with perfumed ointment and wiped his feet with her hair.
Light enters the eyes, and this may be why, when all is darkness and no light can enter the eyes, John 11:10 says, “The light is not in him.”
Thomas probably came to be called “Didymus” (Twin) because he had a twin brother or sister.
In John 11:33, the “weeping” of Mary and those who were with her would have been an audible weeping or wailing. The Greek word klaío, meaning “weep,” “mourn,” or “wail,” lays stress on the sound associated with the weeping. In John 11:35, the Greek term dakryo designates the weeping of Jesus. The noun form of this verb is dákryon, meaning “tear.” So it would seem that Jesus’ sympathetic sorrow proved to be a silent shedding of tears.
According to Josephus (Antiquities, XVIII, ii, 2), Valerius Gratus, whom the Roman emperor Tiberius had appointed as procurator of Judea, replaced Simon with Joseph Caiaphas as high priest. Caiaphas was the son-in-law of Annas (Ananus, according to Josephus), whom Valerius Gratus had deprived of the high priesthood about three years earlier but who continued to wield great influence in the affairs of the nation. (John 18:13; Antiquities, XVIII, ii, 2) In John 11:49, Caiaphas is referred to as being “high priest that year.” This does not mean that he was annually appointed to the office. It may be understood to signify that he served as high priest at that time or in the significant year when Jesus was put to death.
In John 11:50, “you” appears in many ancient manuscripts, including the oldest extant papyrus manuscripts (P45 and P66) containing this verse. Later manuscripts read “us,” and fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus omits the pronoun.
Based on Luke 17:11, Jesus did not remain in Ephraim but headed northward and later set out for Jerusalem. When traveling to Jerusalem with his disciples, he went “through the midst of Samaria and Galilee.” In his translation, J. B. Phillips interprets this to mean that “Jesus crossed the boundary between Samaria and Galilee.” A more likely meaning is that Jesus, on his way to Jerusalem, traveled eastward along the border between Samaria and Galilee. A number of translations are explicit in referring to the border region. “Now it happened that on the way to Jerusalem he was traveling in the borderlands of Samaria and Galilee.” (NJB) “Jesus went along the border between Samaria and Galilee.” (CEV) “In the course of his journey to Jerusalem he was travelling through the borderlands of Samaria and Galiee.” (REB) “He was going through the area between Samaria and Galilee.” (NCV)
As he was about to enter a village along the way, ten lepers, standing in the distance, shouted, “Jesus, Master, have pity on us.” (Luke 17:12, 13)
The ten afflicted men may have stayed together for mutual help, for the ailment had rendered them ceremonially unclean and made it necessary for them to avoid contact with anyone who was not diseased. The Greek word for “leprosy” (lépra), besides the disfiguring Hansen’s disease, includes a variety of skin afflictions. Therefore, the precise nature of their disease cannot be established. As men who were ceremonially unclean according to the Mosaic law, they remained standing at a distance.
When he saw them, Jesus told them to go and show themselves to the priests. (Luke 17:14) His instructions upheld the Mosaic law, which commanded cured lepers to submit to a priestly examination and then to follow through on the prescribed procedure for cleansing. (See the Notes section regarding the specifics of the law.)
The ten men must have believed that they would be cured and departed. While on the way, they were healed. One of them, becoming aware that he had been cured, walked back to Jesus. With a loud voice, he glorified or praised God for what had occurred. He fell to his knees and prostrated himself at Jesus’ feet, thanking him for what he had done for him. The man happened to be a Samaritan. (Luke 17:14-16)
This prompted Jesus to say, “Were not the ten cleansed? But where are the other nine? Were none found [among them desirous] to return to give glory to God except this foreigner?” (Luke 17:17, 18) It must have been troubling for Jesus to see this lack of gratitude among his own people who should have been exemplary in praising his Father.
He then told the Samaritan who had bowed before him, with his face touching the ground, to rise and to continue on his way. Jesus added, “Your faith has made you well.” It was the man’s faith in Jesus that caused him to join the other nine lepers in pleading to be shown mercy. (Luke 17:19)
Notes:
According to the law, the priest would examine the healed leper and determine whether the diseased condition no longer existed. This would be followed by a cleansing ceremony involving the use of two birds, cedarwood, scarlet yarn, and hyssop. One of the birds would be killed over an earthen vessel containing “living” water (fresh or spring water, not stagnant water from a cistern), allowing the blood to flow into the vessel. With the yarn, the living bird and the hyssop would be attached to the wood and dipped into the vessel. The water mingled with blood would be sprinkled seven times upon the cured leper. Thereafter the living bird would be released to fly away. (Leviticus 14:2-7)
The cured leper would wash his garments, shave off all his bodily hair, and bathe. Seven days later, he would again shave off all his bodily hair, wash his garments, and bathe. On the eighth day, he, depending on whether he could afford to do so, would offer two unblemished male lambs, one unblemished female lamb, three-tenths of an ephah (about six dry quarts) of choice flour mixed with olive oil, and one “log” (possibly about two-thirds of a pint) of olive oil. With the prescribed amount of olive oil, the priest would present one of the lambs as a guilt offering. He would then take some of the blood of the slaughtered lamb and put it on the cured leper’s right earlobe, thumb of the right hand, and big toe of the right foot. After sprinkling seven times before God with his right finger the olive oil he had poured into his left palm, the priest would apply some of the oil where he had put the blood—the right earlobe, the thumb of the right hand, and the big toe of the right foot. He would then put all the remaining olive oil on the head of the cured leper. Thereafter the priest would offer one of the lambs (probably the female lamb; compare Leviticus 4:32) as a sin offering and the other lamb as a burnt offering, accompanied by the grain offering. (Leviticus 14:8-20)
For one who could not afford all these offerings, two pigeons or two turtledoves could be substituted for one of the male lambs and the female lamb. The amount of choice flour would be reduced to one-tenth ephah (over two dry quarts). The procedure followed would remain the same. (Leviticus 14:21-31)
Certain Pharisees asked Jesus when the kingdom of God would come. Jesus’ reply focused on the nature of its coming, and this is conveyed in the account by a negation of the Greek word paratéresis. The corresponding verb parateréo means “watch,” “observe,” “guard,” or “spy on.” Therefore, Jesus’ reply may be understood to mean that God’s kingdom is not coming in a manner that can be closely observed or watched. Unlike the kingdoms of the world that rise to a position of power over other lands through military conquests that can readily be seen, God’s kingdom does not make its entrance on the earthly scene in an impressive, observable manner. (Luke 17:20)
No one would be able to say that it is “here” or “there,” as if it had a defined territory over which it ruled. Jesus then said, “For, behold! God’s kingdom is inside [entós] you.” In relation to God’s kingdom, the Greek term entós probably is to be understood as meaning that God’s reign had already begun among the people. (Luke 17:21) Jesus, the king by his Father’s appointment, was in their midst. By repenting of their sins and accepting him as their king or lord and God’s Son, individuals came to be part of the realm where the Most High is Sovereign. Like leaven that produces results but is hidden in the dough, God’s kingdom was already present and in operation but not in a manner that could be observed like the military conquests of earthly governments. (Matthew 13:33)
The end of all competing human rule was yet future and would follow Jesus’ return in glory. It was concerning this return that he next spoke to his disciples.
In the intervening period before Jesus’ return, his disciples would face trying times. They would yearn to have one precious day with him, just one of the days for which the majority who saw Jesus had little appreciation. “Days will come,” Jesus told them, “when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see [it].” The past days when he walked and labored among them, teaching, comforting, and reassuring them, would not be repeated. (Luke 17:22; see the Notes section for another possible explanation.)
In times of distress, people are susceptible to being deluded by those who offer false hopes. The Jewish historian Josephus referred to false prophets who, prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, deceived the people with promises of divine deliverance. He continued, “Now, a man that is in adversity does easily comply with such promises; for when such a seducer makes him believe that he shall be delivered from those miseries which oppress him, then it is that the patient is full of hopes of such deliverance. Thus were the miserable people persuaded by these deceivers.” (War, VI, v, 2, 3) Jesus’ admonition served to safeguard his disciples from being deceived into thinking that his return and deliverance from distress was at hand. He said, “They will say to you, ‘Look here!’ or ‘Look there!’ Do not go out nor pursue.” (Luke 17:23)
His return would not be of a secret nature, becoming known only to a select few. It would be as observable as lightning that illuminates the sky. (Luke 17:24) Regarding developments that were imminent, Jesus said about himself, “First he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.” (Luke 17:25)
Jesus next mentioned the “days of the Son of Man,” which “days” refer to the time of his return in glory and the events associated therewith. He likened those “days” to the “days of Noah.” The people of Noah’s generation paid no attention to him but continued to be preoccupied with their routine of life, eating, drinking, and marrying. Then, after Noah entered the ark, the flood came and destroyed all those who had given no heed to his warning. (Luke 17:26, 27)
Something similar happened in the days of Lot in the city of Sodom. People were eating, drinking, buying, selling, planting, and building. But once Lot was no longer in the city, a downpour of fire and sulfur destroyed them all. In both cases, the judgment came at an unexpected time, with the people engaging in the usual affairs of life. Likewise it will be on the day “the Son of Man is revealed.” His return in glory for judgment will find people preoccupied with their daily routine and not expecting a sudden day of reckoning. (Luke 17:28-30)
“On that day” or at that time, there will be no opportunity for any kind of preparation or last-minute changes in one’s condition, and undue attachment to anything of a mundane nature would jeopardize one’s being in a prepared state. Regardless of where individuals may find themselves, they must be ready to welcome the Son of God upon his return or suffer the consequences for being in a disapproved state. Stressing that undue attachment to anything of this world would pose a grave danger to one’s having an approved standing, Jesus said that a person on the roof should not go back into his house to get belongings and that the individual in the field should not turn back to the things he left behind. “Remember Lot’s wife,” Jesus added. Although no longer in Sodom, she remained attached to what she had left behind. Failing to move swiftly out of the danger area and longingly looking back, she perished. (Luke 17:31, 32; for additional comments regarding verse 31, see the Notes section.)
Being in a state of readiness for Christ’s return requires being faithful to him at all times. This could even include sacrificing one’s very life. Efforts to save one’s soul or life in ways that would constitute disloyalty to Christ would mean losing the real life of an enduring relationship with him and his Father. The one losing his soul or life for the sake of the Son of God would be preserving it, as his resurrection would be assured at the time Jesus returned. (Luke 17:33; the same thought is expressed in Matthew 10:39; 16:25; John 12:25.)
It will be a time of judgment, with those who are approved being united with the Lord Jesus Christ, whereas the others will be left behind to experience adverse consequences. According to Jesus’ words, even close associates would then be affected, as they would not necessarily be sharing the same outcome. “In that night, two [men] will be in one bed. One [man] will be taken, and the other one will be left. Two [women] will be grinding [grain] together. One [woman] will be taken, and the other one will be left.” (Luke 17:34-36; see the Notes section regarding verse 36.)
The disciples asked, “Where, Lord?” They wanted to know in what particular location this would occur. Revealing that no specific place was involved, Jesus said, “Where the body [carcass is], there also the eagles [vultures] will gather.” (Luke 17:37; see the Notes section about the Greek word for “eagle.”) The response seems to have been a proverbial saying, indicating that wherever there is a carcass the carrion birds would be seen. It would not be a matter of location, but the event would be readily discernible, just as when an increasing number of vultures begin to circle in the sky.
Notes:
There is a possibility that longing for “one of the days of the Son of Man” could refer to the yearning for just one of the days of his future return. In that case, the disciples’ not seeing one of these days suggests that considerable time would pass before he would come again.
In Luke 17:31, the house would be one with a flat roof, where people would commonly spend time on a hot day, as it would be cooler there than inside the home. Access to the roof would be either by means of outside stairs or a ladder. This explains the admonition for the individual on the roof or housetop not to come down to get belongings from inside the house.
Luke 17:36 is missing in the oldest extant manuscripts and is usually not included in modern translations. The passage reads, “Two [men] will be in the field. One [man] will be taken and the other one will be left.”
The Greek word aetós is the usual designation for “eagle.” Numerous translators have chosen to render the Greek term in Luke 17:37 as “vultures,” for these birds gather in large numbers to feed on carcasses. As a proverbial saying, the rendering “vultures” would fit better, for eagles are primarily solitary hunters that catch living prey.
To his disciples, Jesus related a parable about continuing to persist in prayer, not becoming disheartened when the answer does not soon follow. (Luke 18:1)
A judge in a particular city had no fear of God and no regard for people. Ancient Jewish sources indicate that three judges handled property cases. (Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 1:1; Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 1:1) So Jesus appears to have portrayed a non-Jewish judge, likely an appointee of Rome. (Luke 18:2)
A widow in the city repeatedly went to the judge, requesting that he grant her a just verdict respecting her adversary. For a time, the judge was unwilling to act. Though he did not fear God and had no respect for people, he reconsidered. Jesus had him saying to himself, “Because this widow makes trouble for me, I shall execute justice for her, lest she come endlessly [and] beat me down.” Directing attention to the point of the parable, Jesus continued, “Hear what the unrighteous judge said.” (Luke 18:3-6; see the Notes section regarding verse 5.)
He wanted his disciples to note that the judge, although corrupt, did finally yield and render justice. Therefore, they should never doubt that God would execute “justice for his chosen who cry out to him day and night, and he is patient with them.” The heavenly Father is not like the unjust judge who considered the widow’s repeated appeals for justice as an unwelcome annoyance. God is just and patient with his servants who repeatedly petition him for help. (Luke 18:7; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
Jesus continued with the assurance, “[God] will execute justice for them swiftly.” After having stressed the certainty of his Father’s doing what is right for his chosen in answer to their prayers, Jesus raised a rhetorical question, “When the Son of Man comes, will he really find [this] faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8) The question suggests that, at the time of Jesus’ return in glory, faith in God as the hearer of prayer would be rare.
Another parable about prayer exposed those who regarded themselves as righteous or divinely approved on the basis of their deeds and who despised persons whose conformity to legal requirements did not meet their standards. The self-righteous ones trusted in themselves, relying on their own view of what constituted uprightness and looking down upon others as amounting to nothing. (Luke 18:9)
A Pharisee and a tax collector went to the temple to pray. The Pharisee stood proudly and said to himself, “O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of men—swindlers, crooks, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of everything I obtain.” (Luke 18:10-12) The Pharisee of the parable thus identified himself as living up to the legal requirements of the law and the tradition of the elders but as disdaining those who failed to do so. Whereas the law did not require fasting on a weekly basis, the Pharisees did so on Monday and Thursday (the second and fifth day of the week that started on Saturday at sundown).
The tax collector stood at a distance. Jesus thus depicted him as not considering himself worthy to be in a closer proximity to the sanctuary. Furthermore, the tax collector could not even bring himself to raise his eyes to heaven but beat himself on his breast, saying, “God, be compassionate to me, a sinner.” Applying the point of the parable, Jesus indicated that the tax collector returned to his house as one justified or constituted right with God, whereas the Pharisee did not. The Son of God concluded with the principle, “Everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 18:13, 14)
Notes:
In Luke 18:5, the Greek verb here rendered “beat down” is hypopiázo, which has the basic sense of striking in the face below the eye or giving someone a black eye. Nonliteral meanings include “treat roughly,” “wear down,” and “wear out.” The concluding phrase, where hypopiázo appears, begins with the words, “to [the] end coming.” With reference to the widow, this could mean that she would be coming continually, endlessly, or without letup. Another possibility is that “to [the] end” could mean “finally” and relate to the widow’s last action.
In view of the different ways in which the Greek text of Luke 18:5 may be understood, translations vary considerably. “I must give this widow her just rights since she keeps pestering me, or she will come and slap me in the face.” (NJB) “I will see that justice is done her in order that lest by her continual coming finally she may be assaulting me.” (Wuest) “I shall deliver a just decision for her lest she finally come and strike me.” (NAB) Although the preceding meanings are possible, it does not appear likely that Jesus would have portrayed the judge as one who feared that the widow would slap him in the face or assault him for not acting on her repeated pleas.
The following renderings appear to present a preferable sense: “I will see that she gets her rights. Otherwise she will continue to bother me until I am worn out.” (NCV) “I will give her justice before she wears me out with her persistence.” (REB) “I shall give judgment in her favor, or else her continual visits will be the death of me!” (Phillips) “I will give her legal protection, otherwise by continually coming she will wear me out.” (NASV) “I will give her justice, so she doesn’t wear me out by her persistent coming.” (HCSB) “I will give her justice, so that she will not beat me down by her continual coming.” (ESV)
The concluding phrase of the rhetorical question in Luke 18:7 is, “and he is patient with them.” The Greek verb for “is patient” (makrothyméo) conveys the sense of remaining calm while waiting or being patient or forbearing. In the parable, the judge is not depicted as patient or forbearing but as irritated by the widow’s repeated appeals. So it would appear that the reference to God’s patience serves as a contrast. A number of translations reflect this significance in their renderings. “Do you suppose God, patient as he is, will not see justice done for his chosen, who appeal to him day and night?” (Phillips) “Then will not God give justice to his chosen, to whom he listens patiently while they cry out to him day and night?” (REB)
The principle found in Luke 18:14 about humbling and exalting appears in a different setting in Matthew 23:12 and Luke 14:11.
On his way to Judea, Jesus crossed the Jordan and traveled through Perea with his disciples. Both Matthew 19:1 and Mark 10:1 refer to Perea as “the boundaries [region] of Judea across [the other side of] the Jordan.” Large crowds followed him, as the people would have been heading for Jerusalem to observe the Passover. The Jews generally preferred traveling through Perea instead of taking the more direct route through Samaria. On account of different views respecting worship, considerable animosity existed between the Jews and the Samaritans. While among the people, Jesus used the opportunity to teach them and to heal the afflicted. (Matthew 19:2; Mark 10:1; see the Notes section regarding Mark 10:1.)
To test Jesus, certain Pharisees approached him, inquiring whether a man could divorce his wife for any cause. He referred them to the creation account in Genesis, asking whether they had not read that the one who created them at the beginning “made them male and female.” Jesus continued the question with the quotation (Genesis 2:24), which he attributed to the Creator, “For this reason, a man will leave [his] father and mother and will cleave to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” (Matthew 19:3-5; Mark 10:2, 7, 8; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
These words indicated that the new relationship a man would form with his wife would prove to be even closer than had existed between him and his parents, and the union would be so intimate that the two would prove to be “one flesh.” Applying the instruction that should have been drawn from the creation account, Jesus said, “Thus they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together, let no man separate.” Marriage was to be a permanent union. (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9)
This prompted the Pharisees to ask why Moses commanded giving a divorce document and dismissing a wife. Jesus explained that this was a concession made on account of the hardheartedness of the men but did not exist at the beginning. The provision allowing divorce protected women from the kind of abuse that would have arisen if husbands had come to hate them but could not send them away. (Matthew 19:7, 8)
Based on Mark’s account, the interchange with the Pharisees may have ended at this point. Jesus and his disciples left and entered the house where he was staying. The disciples appear to have understood that marriage was more binding than they had thought previously. In the privacy of the home, they questioned him further about the matter. He then told them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband [and afterward] marries another, she commits adultery.” According to Roman law (but not the Mosaic law), a woman could divorce her husband. The man or woman initiating a divorce and then marrying someone else would be committing adultery. The marriage bond that made him or her “one flesh” with the divorced mate would have been broken. (Mark 10:10-12; see the Notes section for comments on Matthew 19:9.)
Reasoning that the possibility of getting into a bad marriage was very real, the disciples concluded that, with divorce being excluded, it would be preferable not to marry. Jesus did not support the idea that singleness was better because marriage without the option for divorce appeared to be too risky. First, he indicated that remaining unmarried was not for everyone but was for those to whom it was given. Jesus then stated reasons for remaining unmarried. Certain ones were eunuchs from birth and unable to procreate. Others were eunuchs because of an operation performed on them, preventing them from rendering the marriage due and fathering children. Still others, for the sake of the kingdom, would remain unmarried or choose to live as eunuchs. Their purpose would be to devote themselves fully to the cause of the Most High as part of the realm where he is Sovereign. The unmarried state would leave them free from the cares, concerns, and responsibilities that accompanied marriage and family life. (Matthew 19:11, 12; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
Possibly the disciples were reminded of the case of the prophet Jeremiah. On account of the calamity to befall Judah and Jerusalem, he was commanded to remain unmarried and for decades faithfully served as a prophet. (Jeremiah 16:1-4)
With reference to choosing singleness for noble spiritual reasons, Jesus said, “Let him who can make space [for it], make space [for it].” He did not impose singleness as a requirement for any particular role a disciple might fill, but left the choice up to the individual. (Matthew 19:12)
Notes:
In Mark 10:1, a number of ancient manuscripts include “and” after “the boundaries of Judea” (“the boundaries of Judea and across [the other side of] the Jordan”). Other manuscript readings are “the boundaries of Judea through the other side of the Jordan,” “the boundaries of Judea into the other side of the Jordan,” and “the boundaries of Judea and through the other side of the Jordan.”
A comparison of Matthew 19:3-12 with Mark 10:2-12 reveals a number of differences, but the basic points are the same. In Matthew’s account, Jesus is represented as first mentioning the Genesis account. Mark 10:3, however, has him asking them, “What did Moses command you?” After they replied that he allowed writing a document of divorce, Jesus explained that this was because of their hardheartedness but was not the case from the beginning, confirming his point with the quotation from Genesis.
The differences in the accounts are understandable when one considers that they provide only a condensed version of interchanges that occurred in another language. Therefore, the agreement exists in relation to the message but not in the exact language, the details, or the sequence of the conversations. In certain cases, the details make it possible to integrate one account with another one. At other times, however, the narratives are too abbreviated for reaching any definitive conclusion.
The wording of Matthew 19:9 seems to suggest that Jesus continued to speak to the Pharisees. In the next verse, however, the disciples are the ones who are mentioned as responding. According to Mark 10:10, the disciples did not question Jesus until they were in “the house,” and this detail is missing in Matthew’s account. For this reason, one cannot be certain whether Jesus directed the words found in Matthew 19:9 to the Pharisees or whether he spoke them privately to his disciples.
The manuscript readings for Matthew 19:9 vary. They include the following: “But I say to you, Whoever divorces his wife, except [on the] ground [literally, word] of sexual immorality [porneía], and marries another commits adultery.” “But I say to you, Whoever divorces his wife, not for sexual immorality [porneía], and marries another commits adultery.” “But I say to you, Whoever divorces his wife, not for sexual immorality [porneía], and marries another makes her commit adultery.” “But I say to you, Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.” “But I say to you, Whoever divorces his wife, except [on the] ground [literally, word] of sexual immorality [porneía],and marries another, makes her commit adultery.” Additionally, certain manuscripts say that the one marrying a divorced woman commits adultery.
According to the Mosaic law, the penalty for marital unfaithfulness was death. Under Roman rule, however, the Jews were not permitted to inflict capital punishment. Based on the majority of the extant manuscript readings, Jesus introduced the exception that would have ended a marriage. Any other ground would not have broken the marriage bond. Therefore, the man who dismissed his wife when no sexual misconduct was involved and married another woman made himself guilty of adultery. Moreover, because many divorced women were unable to support themselves, the man who unjustly dismissed his wife created a situation that either forced her into a life of prostitution or into a relationship with another man. Accordingly, the man initiating the divorce would have caused his wife to commit adultery.
In verses 11 and 12 of Matthew 19, the Greek word choréo can mean to make or prepare room or space. It can also signify to grasp or to accept. The reference to making space or room for or accepting “the word” doubtless applies to making room for or accepting what the disciples had said about the advisability of remaining unmarried, but not to their reason for this option. (Matthew 19:11) Then, in Jesus’ summary statement (“Let him who can make space [for it], make space [for it]”), the verb choréo has no object in the Greek text of Matthew 19:12. Based on the preceding context, the implied object appears to be the “word” about remaining single for the sake of the kingdom.
The people who brought small children to Jesus doubtless were parents who believed in him. They wanted him to lay his hands on their little ones, praying for them and imparting his blessing. According to most manuscripts of Luke 18:15, the “little children” (plural of paidíon were “infants” (plural of bréphos). The fact that they were brought may indicate that at least some of them were being carried. They were too small to come on their own. In wanting Jesus to pronounce a blessing of well-being when laying his hands on their little ones and praying for them, the parents revealed their love and concern for them. (Matthew 19:13; Mark 10:13; Luke 18:15)
When the disciples saw what was happening, they reprimanded those who brought the little children. (Matthew 19:13; Mark 10:13; Luke 18:15) The accounts do not reveal the reason for their objection. Possibly the disciples thought that the little ones were too young for this kind of attention or that Jesus had more important work to do than to spend time with small children.
He, however, responded very differently to what the disciples may have considered a well-meaning effort to shield him from an unnecessary interruption. Jesus asked that the little children be allowed to come to him and that they should not be hindered. He then used the opportunity to stress an important truth, “The kingdom of God is for [or belongs to] such. Amen [Truly], I say to you, Whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will not, no [never], enter into it.” (Matthew 19:14; Mark 10:14, 15; Luke 18:16, 17; see the Notes section for additional comments.) All who accept God’s reign in their life, recognizing him as Sovereign and submitting to his ways, must be like small children—trusting, innocent, teachable, and unassuming.
Jesus loved the little children of the believing ones who brought them, accepting them as belonging to him. He took the little ones into his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them. Thereafter he left the area. (Matthew 19:15; Mark 10:16; see the Notes section.) The tender portrayal of Jesus’ interaction with small children reveals that they were comfortable in his presence and drawn to him.
Notes:
Matthew’s account does not include the comments about “receiving” the kingdom of God like a little child. In many manuscripts, Jesus’ words regarding this are identical in Mark 10:15 and Luke 18:17.
-
Luke’s account does not mention that Jesus blessed the little children. Matthew 19:15 reports that he laid his hands on them. Mark 10:16 provides the details about Jesus taking the little ones into his arms and blessing them. A number of manuscripts include “and” after the first “them.” According to this reading of Mark 10:16, he laid his “hands on them and blessed them.”
Only Matthew 19:15 reports that Jesus departed from there.
A rich young ruler came running toward Jesus and kneeled before him. Addressing him as “Good Teacher,” the young man asked what “good [thing or deed]” he needed to do to inherit “eternal life” (probably meaning life in the age to come). (Matthew 19:16; Mark 10:17; Luke 18:18; see the Notes section for additional comments.) Although in possession of great wealth, this young man perceived a lack. Based on what he had come to know, he concluded that Jesus, as a notable teacher, would be able to answer his question. The manner in which Jesus responded initially suggests that the young man had a view of him that went beyond what would have been appropriate for a human teacher and did not necessarily recognize him as a teacher who had come from God.
Only Matthew 19:16 includes “good [thing or deed]” as part of the young man’s question, and this is then reflected in Jesus’ reply. “Why do you ask me about good? One is the Good [One].” According to other ancient manuscripts, the “Good One” is specifically identified as God. (Matthew 19:17)
Both in Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19, Jesus’ reply directed attention away from him as the “Good Teacher” from a human standpoint to the ultimate source of all that is good and, by implication, the source for his teaching. “Why do you call me good? No one [is] good, but one, God.”
Jesus then called attention to observing the commandments as being vital for entering “into life”—do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not testify falsely, do not defraud (in Mark 10:19, according to numerous manuscripts), honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself. (Matthew 19:18, 19; Luke 18:20; see the Notes section for comments on Matthew 19:18, 19.)
The young man, based on his earliest recollection, believed that he had lived up to the commandments. Still, he asked, “What yet do I lack?” Jesus felt love for him, suggesting that he saw in him admirable qualities and the potential for being a devoted disciple. “If you want to be complete,” Jesus continued, “go, sell your possessions and give to the poor (and you will have treasure in [the] heavens), and come, follow me.” (Matthew 19:20, 21; Mark 10:20, 21; Luke 18:21, 22; see the Notes section for comments on Mark 10:21.) By using his abundant assets to aid his poor fellow Jews, he would be greatly enriched. The Most High would look favorably upon his concern and compassion for the needy, repaying him beyond what he could even have imagined for thus laying up treasure in heaven.
Undue attachment to his riches prevented the young man from acting on Jesus’ words. After hearing about the one thing he lacked, he became dejected. Saddened, he departed, “for he had many possessions.” (Matthew 19:22; Mark 10:22; Luke 18:23)
Starting with a solemn “amen” (truly), Jesus told his disciples that it would be difficult for the wealthy to enter the kingdom of the heavens. He added, “It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye than for a rich [person to enter] the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:23, 24; Mark 10:23-25; Luke 18:24, 25; see the Notes section for additional comments.) To be part of the realm where God reigns by means of his Son called for sacrifice. It required being willing (if necessary) to forfeit everything of a mundane nature and to accept the suffering, hardship, and reproach resulting from incurring the animosity of people who continued in a state of alienation from God. Among the populace generally, the wealthy wielded great influence and enjoyed high honor. Their status made the decision to be a follower of Jesus more difficult, as much more seemed to be at stake than for those with modest or little means and without a prominent standing in the community.
The disciples were surprised about the great difficulty the rich would face in getting into the kingdom. They appear to have shared the common belief that abundant riches were an evidence of God’s blessing in the case of those who lived upright lives. In their estimation, the young man would have been an exemplary Jew. Therefore, greatly startled by Jesus’ words, the disciples asked, “Who then can be saved?” Looking directly at them, he told them, “For men this is impossible, but for God all things [are] possible.” In this context, Jesus’ words indicate that God’s help is needed to put forth the required effort to be part of his realm and to remain devoted to him to the end. Human effort alone would prove to be insufficient. (Matthew 19:25, 26; Mark 10:26, 27; Luke 18:26, 27)
Contrasting the course that he and the other disciples had chosen with that of the rich young man, Peter said, “Look! We have left everything and followed you. What will there be for us?” (Matthew 19:27; Mark 10:28; Luke 18:28)
In his answer, Jesus pointed to the future “renewal” or “regeneration” (palingenesía; pálin [again] and génesis [creation, birth, genesis]). This would relate to the time of the renewal of all things, which seems to be referred to in Romans 8:21 as the time when the whole creation would be liberated from enslavement to corruption and come to enjoy the magnificent freedom of the children of God. According to Jesus’ words, the Son of Man would sit “on his glorious throne,” and the twelve apostles would be sitting on thrones, “judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Matthew 19:28)
Seemingly, Jesus spoke of the kingdom in terms with which the apostles could then identify, as they had not yet grasped the full significance of what the realm where God reigns by means of his Son comprehended. The apostles still thought in terms of an earthly kingdom specifically linked to Israel. This is evident from the question they asked Jesus after his resurrection, “Are you at this time restoring the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6) Although what Jesus said appears to have accommodated their understanding, it did not obscure what he wanted to convey to them. In the future, they would be closely associated with him in the royal realm.
Then, focusing on the gains of the present, Jesus said that everyone who had “left houses, or brothers or sisters, or father or mother [house or wife or brothers or parents (Luke 18:29)], or children, or fields” for the sake of his name (or for the sake of the evangel or good news) would receive much more. “Now, in this time,” they would gain houses, and brothers and sisters, and mothers, and children, and fields, with persecutions, and eternal life in the age to come. (Matthew 19:29; Mark 10:29, 30; Luke 18:29, 30)
As part of a spiritual family of believers, they would be welcomed into the homes of other disciples and be loved by them as dear family members. From those who persisted in unbelief, they should expect persecution. In the age to come, they would enjoy the fulness of the real life, which signified having an enduring relationship with the Son of God and his Father and sharing in all the associated blessings.
There would be a reversal respecting those who appeared to be in line for the kingdom. “Many who are first will be last, and the last first.” (Matthew 19:30; Mark 10:31) Those who seemed to be the highly favored ones or among the “first,” like the rich young man, would lose out. Others, like the tax collectors and persons of ill repute, appeared to be last, with little possibility of being regarded as worthy of entrance into the kingdom. Yet, those who were last repented, changed their ways, became loyal disciples of God’s Son, and came to be part of the realm where his Father is Sovereign.
Notes:
In Matthew 19:16, the earliest extant manuscripts say “teacher,” not “good teacher” (as in Mark 10:17 and Luke 18:18).
According to Matthew 19:18, Jesus did not refer to any specific commandments until the young man asked, “Which [ones]”? Only Matthew 19:19 includes the commandment about loving one’s neighbor. It should be noted, however, that all three accounts are in agreement, with the additional information being supplementary.
In Mark 10:21, according to numerous manuscripts, Jesus also told the young man to “lift up [his] beam [staurós]” or to be willing to commence a life that could mean facing the kind of reproach and suffering of one who was condemned to die by crucifixion.
Very limited manuscript support exists for the reading kámilon (“rope”) instead of kámelon (“camel”). There is, however, no supporting evidence for the view that the Greek expression for “needle’s eye” refers to a small gate. (Matthew 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25)
The hyperbole involving a camel with its hump (or two humps in the case of the Bactrian camel) seems appropriate as a parallel for a rich man loaded down with his many possessions. The relation of a needle’s eye to a camel is that of something very small to something very large (the largest common domestic animal in the region), and the vivid contrast served to heighten the impossibility of a rich man’s entering the kingdom while ardently attached to his wealth. Being disciples of God’s Son required a willingness to sacrifice everything and to suffer humiliation, reproach, bodily harm, and even death.
A similar use of hyperbole is known to have existed among the ancient rabbis. When emphasizing the impossible, they referred to an “elephant” as going through a needle’s eye. (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Berakhoth and Tractate Baba Metzia)
Mark 10:23-26 provides more details about the interchange between Jesus and his disciples than do Matthew 19:23-25 and Luke 18:24-26. He initially told them that it would be difficult for persons with money to enter the kingdom. This astounded the disciples. After again telling them that it would be difficult to enter God’s kingdom, Jesus added that it would be “easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye than for a rich man [to enter] God’s kingdom.” The disciples became even more astounded, prompting them to ask, “Who then can be saved?”
The parable or likeness that Jesus next related appears to be part of his answer to Peter’s question, “What will there be for us?” (Matthew 19:27) Everything Jesus had said up to this point served to answer the question, and the parable is linked to his words with the preposition gár, meaning “for.”
The “kingdom of the heavens” is like the master of a house who set out early in the morning to hire workers to harvest grapes. He agreed to pay them one denarius (the usual daily wage) for their labors, and sent them to his vineyard. Later, about the third hour of the day or about 9:00 a.m., he saw unemployed men standing in the marketplace. He hired them and, when sending them into his vineyard, assured them that they would receive a fair wage. The owner of the vineyard returned to the marketplace about the sixth and the ninth hour (about noon and 3:00 p.m.) and hired more workers, telling them the same thing about payment for their labors. About the eleventh hour or 5:00 p.m., he still found unemployed men standing in the marketplace and asked them why they had not worked the whole day. They replied that no one had hired them. He then sent them to work in his vineyard. (Matthew 20:1-7)
At sunset, the vineyard owner summoned his supervisor and instructed him to pay the workers, starting with the ones who had been hired last and ending with those who had been hired first. Those who had worked for only an hour received a denarius. Therefore, the men who were hired first thought they would be paid more. Upon also receiving a denarius, they began to object, complaining that they had worked all day and endured the sun’s heat and yet those who had worked only an hour received the same wage. (Matthew 20:8-12)
The vineyard owner reminded them that they had agreed to work for one denarius. Directing his words to one of them, he said, “Fellow, I am not wronging you. Did you not agree with me [to work] for a denarius? Take what is yours and go. I want to give to the last [the same pay] as to you. Am I not permitted to do what I wish with my own [money]? Or is your eye wicked because I am good?” (Matthew 20:13-15)
The reference to the “eye” being wicked is to be understood as meaning that the one addressed looked upon the “good” or generosity of the vineyard owner with envy, begrudging that others had been the recipient of the same payment for far less work.
Jesus concluded with the words, “Thus the last will be first, and the first will be last.” Many later manuscripts add, “For many are called, but few are chosen.” (Matthew 20:16)
The parable reveals that receiving the marvelous benefits and blessings associated with being in the realm where God rules by means of his Son is not dependent upon when individuals start doing his will. What counts is continuing to labor faithfully to the end while deeply appreciating being able to live a life that honors God.
Among people alienated from the Most High, one may be subjected to ridicule, distress, and hardship comparable to having to endure the intense heat of the sun. If the distresses lead to looking with envy upon those whose life seems to be much more pleasant and far easier, one may begin to experience a weakening in faith and even a loss of faith. So it can be that persons whose situation is comparable to the workers who were hired first end up losing out because of ceasing to see the heavenly Father as generous and just. Regardless of when our life of faith may have begun, we can be certain that he will repay us individually according to the highest standard of generosity and justice.
The “first” can end up losing out when the focus comes to be on self and externals, whereas the “last,” individuals who come to repentance late in life may find themselves generously rewarded far beyond what they could have imagined. In relation to Peter’s question, the parable indicates that life as a devoted disciple of God’s Son is not focused on seeming sacrifices made with the thought of being rewarded to a greater extent than others whose life as disciples may appear to be easier or may be of far shorter duration. For Christ’s disciples, all rewards are really “gifts” or expressions of divine favor and not earned “wages.”
Notes:
The reversal involving the first and the last is also mentioned in other settings. (Matthew 19:30; Mark 10:31; Luke 13:30)
An ancient rabbinical parable, found in both the Palestinian Talmud (Tractate Berakhoth, 5c) and the Midrash Rabba, contains many of the same elements. A vineyard owner paid a full day’s wages to a worker who had labored only two hours. When those who had toiled the entire day for the same wage complained, the owner replied, “This man in two hours did more good work than you in a whole day,” indicating the reason for equal pay to be the amount of good work done. This contrasts with Jesus’ parable, which gives as the reason for equal pay, “I want to,” emphasizing free, unearned favor. (Matthew 20:14)
Jesus knew full well what lay ahead of him in Jerusalem. Yet, when walking ahead of those who were with him, he appears to have reflected the kind of determination and courage that gave rise to amazement. Those who followed him experienced fear, either meaning apprehension or a profound sense of awe. (Mark 10:32; see the Notes section.)
Jesus took the twelve apostles aside, telling them privately, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death. And they will hand him over to the nations.” The “nations” or non-Jewish peoples proved to be the Romans. They, according to Jesus, would mock, insult, spit upon, scourge, and crucify him, but on the third day he would rise. (Matthew 20:18, 19; Mark 10:32-34; Luke 18:32, 33) Everything the prophets had written about the Son of Man would take place. (Luke 18:31)
Although Jesus spoke openly about his future suffering and death, the disciples could not believe that the developments he mentioned would occur. The meaning of his words remained hidden to them. Their preconceived thoughts about the Messiah appear to have made it hard for them to grasp what he said. (Luke 18:34)
Concluding that something significant would take place in Jerusalem, James and John had their mother, the wife of Zebedee, make a request for them. Her sons were with her when she prostrated herself before Jesus to petition him. Asked what she wanted, the mother expressed the desire for her sons to be seated at the right and the left of Jesus when he came to be in his kingdom. (Matthew 20:20, 21)
Directing his words to James and John, he replied, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup I am about to drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am being baptized?” “We are able,” they answered. (Matthew 20:22; Mark 10:38; see the Notes section for comments on Mark 10:35-37.) After telling them that they would indeed drink his cup and be baptized with the baptism with which he was being baptized, Jesus continued, “But the sitting at my right and left is not mine to give, but [is for] those [for whom] my Father has prepared [it].” (Matthew 20:23; Mark 10:39, 40; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
The reference to the cup and drinking indicated that Jesus would experience suffering and death like one drinking the bitter contents of a cup. Similarly, his being baptized meant his being plunged into suffering and death. Jesus’ response to James and John indicated that they also would suffer as his disciples. James, in fact, was the first apostle to be executed, and his brother’s long life was not exempt from suffering for the sake of Christ. (Acts 12:2; compare Revelation 1:9.)
The places to the right and left of a king at the royal table were reserved for his intimates. They were the most prominent places. In his reply to James and John, Jesus framed his words in a way that revealed the kingdom to be that of his Father, for his Father would be the one to bestow the places of honor. Jesus thereby implied that, in the kingdom, he was the king by his Father’s appointment.
Upon coming to know about the request of James and John, the other ten apostles started to get upset with them. Jesus then summoned the apostles and corrected their view of positions. “You know that the rulers of the nations dominate over [their subjects], and the great ones exercise power over them. Thus it should not be among you. But whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave.” (Matthew 20:24-27; Mark 10:41-44)
In the realm where God is Sovereign and reigns by means of his Son, commandeering and making others feel the weight of authority have no place. True greatness calls for caring, compassionate, and unassuming service. It is the opposite of exercising power or dominance, expecting others to serve and to respond to orders.
Jesus called attention to his own example, “For also the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give his soul as a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45) Jesus was not one who expected others to serve him, but he actively labored for others, teaching the people and curing the afflicted. He took the initiative in compassionately responding to the needs of others, acting as a servant among them. In expression of his superlative love, he would surrender his “soul” or life, ransoming many. In view of the fact that Jesus’ sacrifice resulted in the purchase of the entire human race (past, present, and future), the word “many” here appears to be an idiomatic term for “all.”
Notes:
At least among some of the disciples there may have been a feeling of apprehension about the future. Earlier, when Jesus returned to Bethany, about two miles from Jerusalem, Thomas thought that they might all die with Jesus, for unbelieving Jews in Jerusalem wanted to kill him. (John 11:8, 16) Although the disciples were aware of the danger, they still found it hard to accept that Jesus would actually suffer and die in the manner that he said it would happen. (Luke 18:32-34)
In Mark 10:35-37, no mention is made of Salome or the mother of the sons of Zebedee. The request about sitting at Jesus’ right and left is represented as having been made by James and John. According to Mark 10:35, they prefaced their request with the words, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we might ask of you.” In answer to Jesus’ question what they wanted him to do for them, they made their request to sit at Jesus’ right and left at the time he would be in his “glory” or exercising his royal authority as king.
Although the mother is the one who did the speaking initially, she expressed the words and desires of her sons. Viewed in that light, the reference to their speaking is understandable. It should also be noted that Jesus’ reply is directed to James and John, confirming that they were the ones who really made the request.
In Matthew 20:22, 23, the oldest extant manuscripts do not include the point about baptism, but many later manuscripts do (as does Mark 10:38, 39).
The narratives do not mention when Jesus and his disciples left Perea, crossed the Jordan, and came into Judea. In the vicinity of the Judean city of Jericho, a large crowd followed him and his disciples. At the time, Bartimaeus (the son of Timaeus) and another blind man were seated by the roadside, begging. On hearing the movement of a crowd near him, Bartimaeus inquired about the reason for it. When informed that Jesus the Nazarene was passing by, Bartimaeus shouted, “Son of David, Jesus, have pity on me.” His companion also cried out to be shown pity, acknowledging Jesus to be the “Son of David.” (Matthew 20:29, 30; Mark 10:46, 47; Luke 18:35-38)
When referring to Jesus as the “Son of David” both men expressed their belief in him as the promised Messiah. This acknowledgment proved to be objectionable to many in the crowd. They ordered the men to be silent. Bartimaeus and his companion, however, disregarded their words, shouting even louder for Jesus to have pity on them. (Matthew 20:31; Mark 10:48; Luke 18:39)
Jesus stopped, requesting that the blind men be called. (Matthew 20:32; Mark 10:49; Luke 18:40) “Take courage, rise, he is calling you,” Bartimaeus was told. Leaving his outer garment behind, he got up and headed for Jesus. Asked what he wanted done for him, Bartimaeus said, “Rabboni [My Teacher], let me have sight.” (Mark 10:49-51; Luke 18:41)
Based on Matthew’s account, the other blind man also asked that his eyes be opened. Jesus felt compassion for the men, touched their eyes, and immediately thereafter they were able to see. (Matthew 20:33, 34) Mark 10:52 and Luke 18:42 relate that Jesus told Bartimaeus, “Your faith has saved you,” probably meaning that, because of his faith in Jesus, he ceased to be blind. Bartimaeus then followed Jesus, as did his companion, and glorified or praised God. The people who had witnessed this miracle also gave praise to the Most High. (Matthew 20:34; Mark 10:52; Luke 18:43)
Notes:
Matthew 20:29 and Mark 10:46 tell about Jesus leaving Jericho, whereas Luke 18:35 speaks of his approaching Jericho. Nothing in the context provides a clue about the reason for this difference. It could be that Jesus first passed the blind men on his way into Jericho but did not miraculously grant them sight until he left the city.
Herod the Great started extensive building activity south of the ancient site of Jericho, and his successors continued building there. So it could be that Jesus was leaving the old city and approaching Herodian Jericho.
Only Matthew 20:30 mentions two blind men. In Mark 10:46, only one blind man is mentioned and identified as Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus. Luke 18:35 likewise refers to only one blind man but does not name him. Perhaps of the two men, Bartimaeus figured more prominently in the incident and therefore is the focus in the accounts of Mark and Luke. The narrations in all three accounts are similar and contain the kind of variations that one would expect when different people tell about an incident in a language other than the one in which the actual conversations took place.
See http://bibleplaces.com/jericho.htm for additional information about Jericho.
At public auction, wealthy individuals purchased the right to collect taxes on imports, exports, and goods that merchants transported through a particular region. This meant that the highest bidders received the authorization to collect taxes in a specific territory. They then arranged for subcontractors to collect the taxes in various parts of their region, profiting from the tax receipts that exceeded their bids. The subcontractors would commonly inflate the tax rate and thereby make dishonest gain for themselves. Thus the tax system in the Roman Empire gave rise to many abuses.
Among those living in Jericho when Jesus passed through the city was wealthy Zacchaeus, a chief tax collector. The designation “chief tax collector (architelónes) may mean that he had other tax collectors working under him or that he was the principal tax collector in Jericho and the vicinity. In his position, he had amassed great wealth through dishonest means. (Luke 19:1, 2)
Possibly on the basis of what he had heard about Jesus, Zacchaeus wanted to see him. The manner in which Jesus responded to him suggests that more was involved than mere curiosity. Because of what he had come to know, Zacchaeus appears to have been genuinely drawn to the Son of God. At the time Jesus passed through Jericho, many people surrounded him. Being of short stature, Zacchaeus could not see him. He then ran ahead and climbed a “sycamore” tree growing alongside the road. This likely was a fig-mulberry tree (Ficus sycomorus), an evergreen with branches close to the ground. (Luke 19:3, 4)
For a wealthy man to climb a tree to see someone would have been something out of the ordinary. Zacchaeus positioned himself where he would be sure to see Jesus, who was about to approach. In his desire, Zacchaeus seems to have been so focused that he did not think about how unusual it might appear to others for him to have climbed a tree.
Jesus saw in Zacchaeus a man who had been drawn to him and who would prove himself to be a genuine disciple. When he came near the tree, Jesus looked up and told him quickly to come down, as he would be staying in his home. Zacchaeus immediately got down and was overjoyed in being able to welcome Jesus as his guest. (Luke 19:5, 6) In the crowd, there were those who began to grumble, finding fault with Jesus’ willingness to enter the home of a “sinner,” a man known for being dishonest. (Luke 19:7)
Zacchaeus, however, revealed himself to be a changed, repentant man, saying to Jesus, “See, half of my possessions, Lord, I am giving to the poor, and whatever I have obtained dishonestly, I am restoring fourfold.” (Luke 19:8; see the Notes section for additional comments.) According to the Mosaic law, he would only have had to make double compensation. (Compare Exodus 22:7.)
Jesus then said, “Today salvation has come to this house, for he [Zacchaeus] also is a son of Abraham.” In view of his determination to use half of his possessions to help needy fellow Israelites and to make restitution for past wrongs, Zacchaeus had brought salvation to his house. He was saved or delivered from his past record of sin, benefiting all who were part of his household. As a true “son of Abraham,” one who demonstrated that he desired to conduct himself like Abraham the man of faith, Zacchaeus would share in all the blessings meant for God’s people. The way in which Jesus responded to him demonstrated that he, the “Son of Man,” had come to seek and save the lost. (Luke 19:9, 10)
Notes:
Jesus’ compassionate response to Bartimaeus and his companion, miraculously granting them sight, may have been a significant factor in motivating Zacchaeus to want to see Jesus.
In Luke 19:8, the Greek verb that conveys the sense of obtaining dishonestly, extorting, or making false accusations is a form of sykophantéo, which literally means “fig showing.” An ancient view (though unconfirmed) for the origin of the term is that it referred to being denounced for unlawfully exporting figs from Athens.
It appears that among the many who followed Jesus on his way to Jerusalem messianic expectations were high. To show that the kingdom of God would not be immediately manifest as being in power and exercising authority without the presence of competing rulerships (as many then supposed), Jesus related a parable. (Luke 19:11)
To obtain royal authority, a nobleman traveled to a distant country. Before leaving, he had summoned ten of his servants, giving each of them a “mina” (the equivalent of 100 drachmas, according to ancient Greek sources; approximately three months’ wages for a common worker). He instructed them to do business with the money until he returned. The citizenry hated the nobleman and sent a delegation to the distant country to make it clear that they did not want him to reign over them. (Luke 19:12-14; see the Notes section for an illustration from history.)
Upon his return, the nobleman, vested with royal authority, summoned the slaves to whom he had entrusted the minas to find out what they had accomplished in business activity. The first slave reported, “Lord, your mina has gained ten [more] minas.” His master commended him, “Well done, good slave. Because you proved yourself trustworthy in what is little, take control over ten cities.” (Luke 19:15-17)
The second slave rendered his account, “Your mina, Lord, made five [more] minas.” His master then put him in charge over five cities. (Luke 19:18, 19)
Another slave came with the mina he had been given, telling his master that he had wrapped it up in a cloth. He went on to excuse his inaction, “I feared you, for you are a severe man, taking what you did not deposit and reaping what you did not sow.” “[By the words of] your own mouth,” said the master, “I condemn you, bad slave. You knew, [did you], that I am a severe man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? So why did you not put my silver [money] in the bank? Then, on my return, I could have collected it with interest.” (Luke 19:20-23)
The master then told those standing by to take the mina from the worthless slave and to give it to the one with ten minas. They objected, saying that he already had ten. The master, however, stated the principle, “To everyone who has more will be given, but from the one who does not have [much], even what he has will be taken away.” As for the enemies who did not want him to be king, he decreed that they should be brought before him and executed. (Luke 19:24-27)
Jesus’ parable indicated that time would pass before the kingdom would be revealed in power, which would be when he returned in glory. At that time, all who professed to be his disciples would have to render an account as to how they furthered his interests respecting all that had been entrusted to them. Circumstances and abilities vary, and disciples of God’s Son correspondingly would differ in what they would be able to do in advancing his cause. The manner in which Jesus had the two good slaves express themselves did not stress their individual efforts. Their report focused on the end result. Possibly this served to show that the advancement of his interests comes about when his disciples actively cooperate as God’s fellow workers. Human effort is not the determining factor. The variation in rewards based on performance may indicate that even a favorable judgment may result in differences in privileges and blessings.
Inaction constitutes working against Jesus and will lead to serious loss. He represented the bad slave as having a negative view of his master. This suggests that a failure to appreciate the Son of God for who he is and what he has done leads to serious neglect.
While trustworthiness will be greatly rewarded, unfaithfulness will lead to severe punishment. All who persist in opposing Jesus as the king by his Father’s appointment will merit the severest judgment.
Notes:
In the days of the Roman Empire, men of royal descent traveled to Rome to receive the emperor’s official appointment as kings or lesser rulers. Jesus’ listeners would have been familiar with developments involving Archelaus and his brother Antipas, sons of Herod the Great.
To sail to Rome for appointment as king, Archelaus (according to the account of Josephus) “went down to the sea with his mother, and took with him Nicolaus and Ptolemy, and many others of his friends, and left Philip his brother as governor of all things belonging both to his own family and to the public. There went out also with him Salome, Herod’s sister, who took with her her children, and many of her kindred were with her; which kindred of hers went, as they pretended, to assist Archelaus in gaining the kingdom, but in reality to oppose him.” (Antiquities, XVII, ix, 3)
Regarding Antipas, Josephus wrote: “At the same time also did Antipas, another of Herod’s sons, sail to Rome, in order to gain the government; being buoyed up by Salome with promises that he should take that government; and that he was a much honester and fitter man than Archelaus for that authority, since Herod had, in his former testament, deemed him the worthiest to be made king; which ought to be esteemed more valid than his latter testament.” (Antiquities, XVII, ix, 4)
In Rome, Caesar Augustus (Gaius Octavius [later Gaius Julius Caesar]) arranged to hear from both sides. “Antipater, Salome’s son, a very subtle orator, and a bitter enemy of Archelaus,” spoke first. After Antipater finished presenting the case against Archelaus, Nicolaus pleaded for Archelaus. Although Caesar Augustus thereafter indicated that Archelaus deserved the kingdom, he did not make a final determination. (Antiquities, XVII, ix, 5-7)
Later, a delegation of 50 Jews from the nation came to Rome, with the permission of Varus (the Roman governor of Syria), to make their case against Archelaus and to petition that he not be made king but that the nation be made subject to Roman governors. This delegation had the support of more than 8,000 Jews who were in Rome. After hearing the case of the Jewish accusers and the refutation Nicolaus presented, Caesar Augustus rendered his decision a few days later. The account of Josephus continues, “He appointed Archelaus, not indeed to be the king of the whole country, but ethnarch of one half of that which had been subject to Herod, and promised to give him the royal dignity hereafter, if he governed his part virtuously. But as for the other half, he divided it into two parts, and gave it to two other of Herod’s sons, to Philip and to Antipas, that Antipas who disputed with Archelaus for the whole kingdom.” (Antiquities, XVII, xi, 1-4; War, II, vi, 1-3)